Sitting of 31 January 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ALEXANDER PARK AND PALACE BILL.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday.
  ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY (KING'S LYNN TIDAL DEFENCES) BILL.
    ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (NO. 2) BILL.
    Read a Second time and committed,
    BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday.
    CARDIFF CITY COUNCIL BILL.
    Read a Second time and committed.
    DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday.
    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    Read a Second time and committed.
    LONDON TRANSPORT BILL.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday.
    MERSEYSIDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL.
    Read a Second time and committed.

    PIECE HALL, HALIFAX BILL.
    Mr. Speaker: I have considered the content of this Bill with the greatest care. I am of the opinion that it is so drafted as to permit the unrestricted trading on Sundays throughout the year in the area to which it extends. The considerations involved are so much a matter of public policy that the Bill cannot properly proceed as a private Bill and accordingly I cannot propose to the House the Question for its Second Reading.
    Order for Second Reading read and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    STANDARD CHARTERED BANK BILL.
    Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for private Bills.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Committee on Safety of Medicines
    Mr. Loydenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will next meet the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): My right hon. Friend met Sir Abraham Goldberg in October 1983. Further meetings will be arranged as needed.
    Mr. Loyden: Will the Minister make it his business to meet the chairman of the committee and ask him why, when it was reported in August 1983 that the drug Osmosin had been linked with 600 to 650 adverse effects and 20 deaths, no steps were taken by the United Kingdom authorities to withdraw the drug, and it was the West German authorities who approached the drug company to have the drug withdrawn? Is it not a scandal that, although the figures used by the West German authorities came from the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom authorities took no steps in connection with the drug and the Minister made no statement to the House on this serious matter?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask for shorter supplementary questions.
    Mr. Clarke: No, I do not accept that there was any avoidable delay in this case. The drug was only marketed in this country in December 1982. In July 1983 the Committee on Safety of Medicines was advising doctors of the risks connected with it. Action was then taken in Germany and the drug has now been withdrawn from the market.
    Mr. McCrindle: Can my right hon. and learned Friend clarify the committee's position on the morning-after contraceptive pill? Has the committee said that it is safe if used on its own, that it is safe if used in conjunction with more conventional oral contraceptives, or that it is not safe at all?
    Mr. Clarke: The committee has advised that it is safe as an emergency measure only. It should not be contemplated as a normal form of contraception. The committee has advised doctors of the most desirable method of morning-after contraception. Those who think that they may need to take such steps are advised to consult their medical practitioner.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister will be aware that anxiety has been expressed recently about the difficulty which the elderly have in interpreting prescriptions for some of the medicines which are prescribed for them. Will the Government express a view on that?
    Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman's question relates to the recent report by the Royal College of Physicians on overprescribing for the elderly, I must tell him that I welcome that report. Its conclusions are in line with the kind of advice the Department tries to give.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the letter which was sent by the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 20 October last year, and the list attached which gave the progestational
    122
    potency of certain oral contraceptives, was confusing to doctors and patients? Will he arrange for the list to be withdrawn?
    Mr. Clarke: No, I do not think that it is confusing because it accompanied a letter from the Committee on Safety of Medicines giving clear advice on those contraceptive pills. The conclusion is that that they are a perfectly desirable and reasonable method of contraception, but that women who finish their present course of pills would be advised to consult their medical practitioner so that he can perhaps consider changing to a different pill for the next course.
    The list has been criticised because some people have criticised one of the pieces of research upon which it is based which sought to link progesterone with breast cancer. The letter from the committee which accompanied the list made it clear that that theory was not endorsed by the committee. We and the committee are trying to keep up to date with all the research in this sphere and will endeavour to issue the best advice that we can to medical practitioners and women.

    Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
    Mr. Jack Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans for the fuller implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 is a matter for local authorities. They are in the best position to assess individuals' needs and make arrangements for them.
    Mr. Thompson: What was the basis of the Minister's calculation that it would cost £30 million to amend section 1 of the Act in the way proposed in the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing)? Secondly, is it not shoddy, scandalous and disgraceful of the Government to have presided over a cut of more than 50 per cent. in the provision of telephones for disabled people under section 2 of the Act, thus causing acute problems for authorities such as the Labour-controlled Northumberland county council, which restored the provision of telephones for the disabled in 1981 following the cuts made by the Tory-controlled county council?
    Mr. Newton: The answer to the first half of the hon. Gentleman's question is that the basis of the calculation was that it cost £750,000 to conduct such surveys for 1·5 million people in Northern Ireland. By a simple arithmetical process we calculated roughly what it would cost for the whole of Great Britain.
    My reply to the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question is that he will be aware that there has been some contact between the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and the Liverpool local authorities about the provision of telephones. I understand that there has been a further meeting between them this month.
    Mr. Andrew Bowden: Does my hon. Friend accept that telephones are vital for elderly people living on their own? I realise that funds are short, but could he tell local authorities, at an early opportunity, to make money available for this valuable service?
    Mr. Newton: I am anxious that local authorities should make appropriate provision. My hon. Friend will be aware that a number of local authorities are studying such schemes as alarm systems which contact a warden or some other person. In many cases that may be more appropriate than a telephone.
    Mr. Litherland: What is the Minister doing about Tory-controlled county councils such as Kent, whose social workers appear to be going with a begging bowl to charitable organisations to provide adaptations for the disabled when that should be the local authority's responsibility.
    Mr, Newton: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's language. We are strongly in favour of developing partnership and co-operation between statutory and voluntary services. That is important for disabled people, and I am pleased to say that it appears to be growing faster in Kent than elsewhere.
    Mr. Galley: Does my hon. Friend agree that far more progress has been made during the past 10 years in integrating disabled and able-bodied people into the community by the dedicated hard work of a vast range of voluntary bodies than could ever be achieved by legislation or local authority activity? Does my hon. Friend accept that the right course of action is to promote and pay tribute to that work? Should not local authorities set their priorities? If they give priority to the disabled, the money is available for that.
    Mr. Newton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that he will agree with me that both the statutory and voluntary sectors have an important role to play. The key is that they should work together.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the Minister seek to persuade the Secretary of State for the Environment to increase the grant-related expenditure targets, to enable local authorities to provide services under the Act? If the Minister does not do that, I fear that his work will be hampered and many of his words will sound hypocritical to local authorities.
    Mr. Newton: I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's words are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The hon. Gentleman will know that there has been a modest amendment to the terms and conditions of the rate support grant in connection with joint finance.
    Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that if local authorities such as Derbyshire county council did not spend daft amounts of money on such items as a free newspaper — which is costing £100,000 a year in my local authority — and the advertising of school meals, when the take up is already 87 per cent., they would have sufficient money to implement the Act?
    Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I wish to intrude too much into the domestic politics of Derbyshire. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that many local authorities could spend their money more wisely.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: What is the Minister's attitude to charging severely disabled people who are on supplementary benefit for their home helps? Is it right or wrong to do so?
    Mr. Newton: Both I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health have said that we would
    124
    prefer local authorities not to charge those on supplementary benefit, or on incomes below that level, for home helps.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Lilleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether child benefit has increased in real terms between April 1979 and November 1983.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): Yes, Sir. Child benefit is now paid at £6·50 a week, compared with £4 a week in April 1979. The value of child benefit is now higher in real terms than it has ever been.
    Mr. Lilley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which obviously conflicts with the widespread impression on the Opposition Benches. What is the current position of the additional benefit for one-parent families?
    Mr. Fowler: That benefit rate was increased to £4·05 last November. It has more than doubled during a period when prices rose by less than 70 per cent.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that raising child benefit by more than the amount shown in the Autumn Statement will be the most cost-effective way of helping those suffering from the poverty trap? Will he use his best endeavours to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devote what resources are available in this year's Budget to raising child benefit, in preference to a cut in income tax?
    Mr. Fowler: There is obviously a strong case for raising child benefit. I shall pass my hon. Friend's comments on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Ashton: Will the Minister obtain a video recording of the "World in Action" programme last week, which showed the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) living for a week on £26·80 and having to shop with the unemployed in Newcastle? Did not the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West say openly at the end of that week that child benefit for the unemployed was not sufficiently high and that there should be a shift of child benefit away from the rich and towards the unemployed?
    Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly take up the hon. Gentleman's first suggestion. I understand that he is advocating a differential child benefit. We shall certainly consider that suggestion, but I had not realised that it was favoured by the Opposition.
    Mr. Frank Field: Given the crucial importance of child benefit in increasing the freedom and control which families have over their lives, I congratulate the Government on their record. However, before Ministers become too complacent, may I remind the House that the last Labour Government injected an additional £1,500 million into the child benefit scheme? When will this Government begin to match that record?
    Mr. Fowler: What we shall seek to do—and I do not think there is any difference between us on this—is to increase child benefit in line with what the economy, the nation, can afford. I do not think that there is any difference between us on the importance of child benefit.

    Open-heart Surgery (Manchester)
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about resources for open-heart surgery at Wythenshawe hospital, Manchester.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have answered two parliamentary questions from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and I have received two letters, including one of 12 January 1983, from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Lloyd: Will the Minister accept that even with recent announcements of increased resources for open-heart surgery at Wythenshawe hospital, the resources are grossly inadequate for the need? Is he aware that the chairman of the district health authority is on record as saying that
    "the evidence is that"
    —even with these additional resources—
    "the waiting list will continue to grow and as the Senior Cardiothoracic Surgeon has said premature deaths will continue to occur."
    Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the Government have a responsibility for such needless deaths, and what does he propose to do about this human tragedy?
    Mr. Clarke: Open-heart surgery is one of those areas where great medical advance has been made, so that we can now treat successfully patients who a few years ago would have died, but it is no good describing that kind of situation as though it were some sudden area of deprivation. It is a sudden improvement in the Health Service, where resources are now following medical advance, providing more operations, and last year at this hospital 666 operations, more than ever before, were carried out. As the hon. Gentleman said, finance is now available to open an extra bed for this purpose in the intensive care unit. The region is now looking at proposals to expand the unit to 1,000 patients treated per year from next year. However, this must be judged alongside all the other increases in claims for health care, and we must remember the pressing claims of renal dialysis and many other areas when considering the allocation of funds in the acute sector.
    Mr. Favell: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that I have written to him on this subject this year and that he has received a reply from the regional health authority chairman. Is he aware that one of the main problems is that the Wythenshawe hospital unit is a victim of its own success? It has been enormously successfull with this new form of surgery and, because of that, waiting lists have grown. It is true that every effort is being made by the hospital to tackle those waiting lists, and my right hon. and learned Friend will be pleased to learn that I have received a letter only today from a constituent saying how grateful she is for the open-heart surgery that she has just had at Wythenshawe hospital.
    Mr. Clarke: I confirm all that my hon. Friend said, including the fact of his representations on the subject. This is an area where funds have just been increased so that the unit can go up from nine to 10 beds. We are treating more patients successfully, making this one of those successes of the Health Service with which those who administer it try to catch up as rapidly as possible.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: How many people are on the hospital's waiting list for heart surgery, and what is the average waiting time? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that six patients on the waiting list died within a fortnight just before Christmas? Is he also aware that two people a week have been dying because, it is said, of inadequate staffing? Is it not deplorable that there have been deaths that could have been prevented, at a time when many thousands of nurses are on the dole?
    Mr. Clarke: The waiting list is a little over 300. It is, sadly, of the nature of a waiting list of this kind that patients will die while waiting for heart treatment. Indeed, some patients who have the operation die afterwards. What we have is a new source of demand because of the medical success of the people in this unit, which has been getting more money and staff as we attempt to cope with that increased demand. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the recent increase in staffing and funding of the unit, as he will welcome the fact that the region is looking at plans for further expansion.

    Disabled Persons (Discrimination)
    Mr. Wareingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the alleged case of discrimination against a disabled person, details of which were sent to him by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby.
    Mr. Newton: I have written to the hon. Member about both the cases that he referred to me.
    Mr. Wareing: I note the Minister's reply. Does he now share the delight of so many organisations representative of disabled people that my Bill has received a Second Reading in the other place? Will he now justify his title as Minister with responsibility for the disabled by undertaking that should the Bill receive a Third Reading in the other place he will receive it into this House in a constructive and helpful way, rather than in the destructive manner in which he dealt with it previously?
    Mr. Newton: I have already told the hon. Gentleman and others of my reservations about whether his Bill would achieve what he claims it would do. Indeed, I believe that the positive steps which the Government are taking in a whole range of spheres — employment, education, training and transport—are doing far more for disabled people than any legislation of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has proposed.

    Leicestershire Health Authority
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest position regarding the allocation of financial resources to the Leicestershire health authority.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Regional health authorities have been informed of their revenue and capital allocations for 1984–85. In continuation of our policy of distributing health resources more fairly throughout the country, the Trent region will receive real growth of 1·6 per cent. as against the national average of 1 per cent. It is for the Trent regional health authority to decide on the allocation of these resources to its district health authorities, including Leicestershire.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that although Leicestershire will probably have an extremely welcome increase of about 2 per cent. in real terms in the next financial year, it is still stuck on 93 per cent. of national resources for its funding? Will he continue to press ahead with the RAWP formula to redistribute resources to under-funded areas such as Leicestershire?
    Mr. Clarke: Both my hon. Friend's statements are correct. As he said, his district is stuck at 7 per cent. below the RAWP target. It was 17 per cent. below that target when the Labour party handed over the NHS to this Government's care. We shall continue our policy of improving the distribution of resources.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister accept that in the current year the Leicestershire district health authority has had to make cuts of more than £1 million in its intended expenditure? What does he think the allocation is likely to do for the almost 7,000 on hospital waiting lists in the Leicestershire district?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the July adjustment and ignoring the fact that Leicestershire was given growth money before that and that it has continued to have growth money throughout the Government's period of office. The effect of that has been to bring it nearer to the national target. The manpower targets exercise gave Leicestershire an increase in staff of 102, and the authority is well on course to opening the new Glenfield hospital this year. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to take Leicestershire as an example in his completely misleading campaign about so-called Health Service cuts, he has chosen an especially bad example.

    Tinnitus
    Mr. Terry Fieldsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to improve facilities for the treatment of tinnitus.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Patten): The level of facilities for tinnitus sufferers is for health authorities to decide, taking account of other claims on the resources available. The use of tinnitus maskers has been studied in a recent research project commissioned by the Department. We hope that the results, when they are available, will assist authorities in planning their services.
    Mr. Fields: Is the Minister aware of the great depth of feeling among tinnitus sufferers because of the under-provision of resources for the research and treatment of the malady and the derisory sums that are being made available? Does he agree that a cut of almost 83 per cent. between 1980–81 and 1983–84 is a cause for concern and anxiety among tinnitus sufferers? When the results of the research are made known, will he ensure that further finance is made available? Will he explain the results of the recent pollution of north-west water by chlorine and phenol and the consequent effect on tinnitus sufferers and others in the north-west? Will he take steps to ensure that that does not happen again?
    Mr. Patten: I need more notice of the last of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions if I am to be enabled to answer it. The Medical Research Council has undertaken six separate individual projects in conducting
    128
    research into tinnitus. My Department has funded three individual projects and the results of that research will be available in the spring. We shall then assess the results of the research, which is of concern to tinnitus sufferers. At that stage we shall reconsider our guidance to district health authorities on the provision of treatment.
    Mr. Sims: Is my hon. Friend aware that his dilemma in having to distinguish between an established service and research projects, especially at University College hospital, is well understood, and that the continued funding which he is giving to the project at UCH will be very much appreciated, not least by the 1·2 million sufferers in Britain?
    Mr. Patten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those words of thanks. I am grateful to him and others in the House, including the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who is not in his place, for their kind words of help and advice. There is good news for tinnitus sufferers. We continue to get good news from the Health Service. The advances in tinnitus treatment form one of those pieces of good news.
    Mr. Pavitt: While I welcome the reprieve of UCH, especially in the case of maskers, will the Department call for a multi-discipline report on all the projects upon which the Medical Research Council has embarked so that not only audiology, otology and psychology, but neurology can be examined? When the Under-Secretary has these reports, will he place a copy in the Library?
    Mr. Patten: We shall be reviewing all the research projects—those funded by the MRC and those funded by my Department. Maskers are not the sole treatment for tinnitus. There are also forms of treatment that are related to drug therapy, counselling and psychological advice of various kinds.

    Perinatal Mortality
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to have figures for the perinatal mortality rate for 1983; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: The 1983 figure for England will be available in May this year. Provisional data for the first three quarters of 1983 suggest a fall in the perinatal mortality rate, continuing the encouraging trend seen over the past four years.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will be pleased to hear those encouraging figures? Will he confirm that if certain improvements in perinatal care are made, fewer handicapped babies will be born? What steps is he taking to achieve those necessary improvements?
    Mr. Fowler: There is an association between the perinatal mortality rate and the coincidence of congenital malformations. A great deal of research, including research by the Medical Research Council, is being undertaken. I emphasise the substantial improvement generally in this area, especially in 1980 and 1981.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Although the overall position may have improved and the national figure has been reduced, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some regions

    129
    there has been a dramatic increase in the perinatal mortality level and that the Select Committee will examine that aspect to ascertain a reason for the change?
    Mr. Fowler: That is a worrying trend. In one or two regions that is the position, but it is a fact also that perinatal mortality levels have dropped in four years by 25 per cent. That is a substantial improvement.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I support the views expressed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short). I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if the Government implemented the recommendations of the Select Committee, which produced a full report on perinatal and neonatal mortality, the improved level of the past two years would be increased, to the benefit of parents and children.
    Mr. Fowler: The Government welcomed the report of the Select Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was a member. We shall continue to urge health authorities to implement those recommendations.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to improve the distribution in the care of low-weight pre-term babies?
    Mr. Fowler: That is one of the most important areas, and we shall seek to do just that.
    Mrs. Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that babies who are born deformed in any way will be given the treatment and the food that they need in a desire to prolong their lives for as long as possible?
    Mr. Fowler: I know of no evidence to suggest that that does not occur at present. If my hon. Friend has any such examples that she wants to bring to my attention, I shall examine them.
    Mr. Eastham: Do not those statistics show that the poorest families are those most affected? Is not the maternity grant in the United Kingdom the lowest of such grants in the EEC countries?
    Mr. Fowler: There are considerable variations throughout Europe. What the hon. Gentleman said about low income families is, regrettably, the case and one of the areas that we must improve.
    Mr. Yeo: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the satisfactory figures that he reported for the first nine months of last year. Will he give fresh consideration to the introduction of enforceable minimum standards of antenatal and neonatal care as recommended by all the leading professional bodies in this subject and as backed up by a large number of voluntary organisations?
    Mr. Fowler: We prefer that the health authorities act upon the guidance that we have given them, but I shall keep in mind what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that the mortality rates in the first year of life of children of unskilled manual workers are four to five times greater than of children of professional and managerial parents? Is he aware that that and other key criteria of class inequality in health care were pinpointed three years ago by the Black report as an area for immediate Government action? Is it the case, therefore, that the Government's
    130
    complete ignoring of that report during the whole of the past three years is one of the most deplorable aspects of their inadequate health record?
    Mr. Fowler: As always, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is over-reacting in a thoroughly intemperate way. I have already said that I accept the first point——
    Mr. Meacher: What about the Black report?
    Mr. Fowler: We have instituted a whole range of the proposals in that report. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept, however, that a drop of 25 per cent. in perinatal mortality in the past four years is an all-time record which anyone with common sense should welcome.

    Appeal Tribunal Panels
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will introduce measures to enable unemployed and disabled people to be included on local appeal tribunal panels; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Newton: There is no bar to unemployed or disabled people becoming members of tribunal panels if they are nominated. As the hon. Member will be aware, clause 9 of the Health and Social Security Bill is intended to increase the range of representation on tribunal panels.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister admit that when the panels were first set up just after the war, at a time of relatively full employment, they consisted mainly of people from the employers' side, a minority from the trade union side and good representation for the lawyers? Given that under the Tory Government we are destined to have about 4 million people unable to find work and that there are more than 2 million disabled people, does he agree that it would make far more sense to put some unemployed people on the panels, as the unemployed are the main applicants for supplementary benefit, to include disabled people as of right on local appeal tribunals, and perhaps even to go a stage further and have representation for pensioners as well? Does he agree that that is far more sensible than the proposal in the Health and Social Security Bill?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear that I rather agree with him. [Interruption.] I thought that that might cause a bit of a stir. We are proposing the changes because the system whereby trade unions have had virtually 50 per cent. of the nomination rights since the war has produced precisely the unsatisfactory situation which the hon. Gentleman wants us to change.
    Mr. Hannam: In considering the role of local tribunals, will my hon. Friend take account of the recommendation in the Oglesby report that mobility allowance appeals should be referred to local tribunals rather than, as at present, to the very slow and cumbersome medical tribunals?
    Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend will know from various controversies in the past week or so, the Oglesby recommendations about improving the administration and adjudication of mobility and attendance allowance cases are a subject to which we attach considerable importance and on which we are currently conducting extensive consultation.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Does the Minister agree that one of the problems is that many of the tribunals meet in premises completely inaccessible to disabled people? What is he doing to ensure that the tribunals meet only at venues fully accessible to people with disabilities?
    Mr. Newton: There is a real problem there, and also with some of our social security offices. I have taken this up in various ways with the Property Services Agency, as I agree that everything possible needs to be done to overcome such problems.

    Severe Disablement Allowance
    Ms. Richardsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on the new severe disablement allowance.
    Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from organisations and individuals.
    Ms. Richardson: Is it not a disgrace that the Minister cannot say how many people, apart from married women, will be disadvantaged by the abolition of the non-contributory invalidity pension? Will he confirm that he has received representations from RADAR, the Disability Alliance and the Child Poverty Action Group but has not yet replied? Would it not be better if he dropped clause 4 of the Health and Social Security Bill and went back to talk to those who really understand about people with disabilities?
    Mr. Newton: Taking those questions in reverse order, if we withdrew clause 4 of the Health and Social Security Bill we would be left with the disgraceful household duties test invented in 1976 by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), which everyone regards as quite wrong. On the second point about the letter from RADAR, it has, indeed, written to my right hon. Friend, and he will be replying shortly. I hope that there will be an opportunity for a discussion with RADAR.

    Child Abuse
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements are made by his Department to record the number of child abuse victims in England and Wales each year.
    Mr. Newton: The Department maintains no central records of the number of child abuse victims. The responsibility for the protection of children from abuse lies with local authorities, and the Department has issued guidance on the records that should be kept locally. I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend, however, that the Department's child abuse group has now started work on a review of our guidance in this field to revise, improve and consolidate it. We also hope shortly to consult on new guidance about the handling of child abuse inquiries.
    Mr. Townsend: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recall that, way back in 1976, the NSPCC suggested a national register, and events since that date have made it seem a very sensible suggestion? Is there not a clear lack of co-ordination at present?
    Mr. Newton: I should not want to endorse that specific suggestion at this stage, but I have had a number of useful
    132
    talks with Dr. Gilmour and others from the NSPCC, and we shall certainly take account of its views and ideas in the course of the review.

    Association of Directors of Social Services (Survey)
    Mr. Boyesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has yet studied the report of survey, December 1983 produced by the Association of Directors of Social Services; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Patten: The survey had only a two thirds response, and on some aspects Government statistics are more complete and up-to-date. Nevertheless, the survey provides helpful indications of local authorities' past record of protecting vulnerable people, and of their positive response to our community care policies.
    Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister aware that the Association of Directors of Social Services has issued a press release today announcing that it anticipates a spending cut of 12 per cent. because of ratecapping? To illustrate that, it means approximately 50,000 home help cuts for elderly people, 50,000 fewer meals-on-wheels for elderly people and 7,000 fewer places in old peoples' homes. Is it not criminal, wicked and evil that our old people are paying for Tory Government policies?
    Mr. Patten: I was not aware of the press release to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The last time the association issued a press release it suggested that the growth in revenue experienced by social service departments in this country in 1983–84 would be 1·75 per cent. That was wrong. It has been about 2·5 per cent., so I would need to look very carefully at the basis of the figures before putting too much weight on them at this time.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that the report of the Association of Directors of Social Services said that 4 per cent. real growth is necessary each year simply to maintain existing standards of community care because of the greater numbers of elderly people? His Department has said that the absolute minimum is 2 per cent., yet the Government's published plans for this next year propose only 1 per cent. Does not this big cutback expose the Government's talk of community care for the charade that it is, which is dumping old people on the community, often with nobody to look after them?
    Mr. Patten: There have been no cutbacks of the sort that the hon. Gentleman suggests. He would do well also to address his mind to the critically important issue in the personal social services of getting social services which are effective and efficient, and which deliver good value for money. He needs to address his mind to comparing the unit costs of the provision of social services around the country, which vary greatly. Those are the questions that need to be asked.

    Portable Oxygen Equipment
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are dependent on portable oxygen equipment being regularly supplied to their own homes.
    Mr. John Patten: We have no information centrally on the number of people supplied with oxygen equipment

    133
    which can easily be carried by the user. I understand that it is comparatively rare for such units to be supplied through the National Health Service.
    Mr. Flannery: I am surprised that the Minister does not have the numbers. A very large number of people under the DHSS have had canisters delivered for years. They are very ill, and many of them are quite old. The new equipment, which they are all glad to have, now has to be plugged in, and results in their electricity bills rising on average £2 per week. Will he be kind enough to look into this and see that something is done to help them, because they are paying out new money which hitherto they did not have to pay.
    Mr. Patten: We estimate that between 35,000 and 40,000 people are using such equipment in their homes, and most of them need rather large canisters and supplies. We are exploring the use of oxygen concentrators, which are now being examined by the Department. We hope that when a cost evaluation has been done we shall be able to make a further policy statement on this important matter.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Given the number of people involved in the revelations in the past few weeks about the BOC contract with the National Health Service, would it not be wiser for the contract to be widened beyond the BOC stake to include all BOC's competitors? Is it not wrong that work carried out by BOC, which was sponsored by the DHSS, should have been made available only to that company and not to the many people interested in it?
    Mr. Patten: That question has nothing to do with the supply of domiciliary gases for use in people's homes.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Fatchettasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with a delegation from the Scottish TUC. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Fatchett: If the economy is improving in the way that the Prime Minister claims, why do the Government still feel it necessary to cut the housing benefit of about 1·5 million old-age pensioners?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have increased the amount spent on housing benefit by about 80 per cent. in real terms since the Labour Government were in office. We are already spending about £3·7 billion on it, and that should be sufficient to cater for all those who are truly in need.
    Mr. Kinnock: Has the hardship experienced by many badly-off families during the recent spell of severe weather caused the Prime Minister to change her mind about imposing unsolicited and unnecessary increases in electricity charges?
    The Prime Minister: The increases in electricity charges are the first for two years. They amount to some 2 per cent. over two years, which should be contrasted with a 2 per cent. increase every six weeks under Labour.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am sure that the Prime Minister and I could hold a very interesting discussion about the past, but those people are cold, not in the past, but now. They will be further disadvantaged by the price increases which the Prime Minister and her Government are directly imposing on them. May I appeal to the Prime Minister to put herself in the position of a young mother with children at home who cannot afford properly to heat her home? Will the right hon. Lady undertake to restore to the poor the £70 million obtained from the higher electricity prices which she is levying, and so help them with their fuel bills?
    The Prime Minister: The Government have an excellent record of helping the poor with their fuel bills. We are now spending £350 million on that special help.
    Mr. Churchill: When my right hon. Friend tomorrow meets the leaders of the Civil Service unions on the question of GCHQ, will she explain that they have no one but themselves to blame for the Government's decision, because several years ago those union leaders decided to try to involve the staff at GCHQ and to use them as a weapon in bargaining against the Government?
    The Prime Minister: The decision to bring GCHQ into line with the rules applying to other intelligence agencies was right. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that in the Civil Service disputes between 1979 and 1981 the general Civil Service unions called out people in areas which they thought were particularly sensitive, including GCHQ. In one of the campaign reports of the Council of Civil Service Unions it states:
    "48 hours walkouts have severely hit secret monitoring stations belonging to the Composite Signals Organisation. The Government is clearly worried and will be subject to huge pressure from NATO allies. The latest walkouts are at two stations"—
    which the council then names. The council also said in campaign report No. 1:
    "Our ultimate success depends upon the extent to which revenue collection is upset, defence readiness hampered, and trading relations disrupted by this and future action."
    That was the attitude it took in trying to use strikes to force increases in pay.
    Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that it does the Government's reputation no good for the idea to be put about that the people working at Cheltenham are somehow unreliable? Is she not aware that that report contrasts strongly with the message sent to them after the Falklands operation by Sir John Nott when he said:
    "I would go so far as to say that we could not have done without you."
    Does the whole episode not reflect badly on the way the Government conduct their industrial relations?
    The Prime Minister: No, it does not. We have special rules under all Governments for people working in intelligence agencies. The overwhelming majority of people who work there loyally observe those rules and often do more than is necessary, because sometimes they have to cover for other people who are on strike. The accounts that I read out were from the campaign report for the Council of Civil Service Unions during the time when it was deliberately selecting where it could take the most damaging action.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: In the course of her extremely busy day will my right hon. Friend give some thought to getting a message through, by whatever means possible, to the

    135
    President of the European Commission suggesting that his officials spend their time dealing with their real duties rather than dreaming up ways in which they can get back from the United Kingdom money which is not really owed to them?
    The Prime Minister: I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to the reports about disallowing moneys due to this country by virtue of the activities of the milk marketing boards. We would regard it as absolutely intolerable if the Commission were to try to disallow this expenditure. It would be without precedent and would not be justified in any way. The Commission has authorised the milk marketing boards under the rules laid down and has not attempted to withdraw that authorisation.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the Prime Minister say what legislation exists which forbids membership of a trade union? At tomorrow's meeting with the trade union leaders, will she bear in mind that one of the most important rights in a democracy is the right to belong to a trade union and to be represented by it? Is the right hon. Lady aware that trade unionists at GCHQ or anywhere else need no lessons in loyalty from some of the people who were featured in last night's "Panorama" programme and who seemed to have far more in common with Fascism that with parliamentary democracy?
    The Prime Minister: I reject utterly what the hon. Member said in the last part of his question. With regard to the first part, the certificates issued under the employment protection legislation simply say that the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 provisions relating to trade union membership and activities no longer apply. However, it can be a condition of service that staff should belong only to a staff association approved by the director of GCHQ. Staff who wish to remain members of their existing trade unions may seek to transfer to another branch of the Civil Service.
    Mr. Hickmet: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the decision of the Nissan car company to open a car manufacturing plant in the United Kingdom in 1985? To what does she attribute the decision of Nissan to come to the United Kingdom? Does she agree that the plant would best be sited in south Humberside, more properly known as north Lincolnshire?
    The Prime Minister: I must disappoint my hon. Friend. So far no announcement to that effect has been made. I hope that there will be an announcement shortly, within a few days.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) last night, the Foreign Secretary gave a list of industrial disputes to which the Prime Minister has already referred. In the quoted briefing today it is stated that those disputes could have had serious consequences for national security. Two of the disputes on the list refer to events in the Falklands before and after invasion day. Did those disputes in any way affect operational capacity vis-a-vis national security in the Falklands?
    The Prime Minister: I tried partially to answer the right hon. Gentleman or one of his right hon. or hon. Friends the other day. If one loses a great deal of time in continuous surveillance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am trying to answer but Opposition Members will not listen. If 10,000 working days are lost in an agency which is concerned with continuous surveillance it is not possible to know what information has been lost or what its relevance may have been, but one will not have had it continuously. The right hon. Gentleman referred the other day to a question which John Nott, as he then was, answered. He was referring only to military operations. GCHQ did not come under his then Department and does not now.
    Mr. Terlezki: As my right hon. Friend is to visit Hungary, will she ensure that she stresses that it is imperative and vital that visits between the people of Great Britain and Hungary occur as often as possible, as that is the way in which to ensure peace and prosperity in Europe and the rest of the world?
    Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman is a wetzki.
    The Prime Minister: I am looking forward to my visit to Hungary. It would be of great advantage in the atmosphere between East and West if we were able to look forward to more visits from people who live in iron curtain countries to the Western world. We hope that that will happen. We also hope that the full agreement which was signed in Helsinki will be honoured in that regard.
    Mr. Sean Hughesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister find time to explain how it is right to spend £7 million building 54 houses in the Falklands when my borough council, which has an enormous housing problem, has had its capital housing allocation limited by the Government to £6 million?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the need to replace in the Falklands some houses which were damaged and to build new ones. All of the necessary equipment must be taken from Britain. A substantial part of the cost is taken up by transportation and erection and preparation of the site. Labour is short in the Falklands so we must send people from Britain to do that work. I do not think that many people will begrudge the Falkland Islanders those houses, although I understand that Opposition Members do.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Is there not something inherently unsatisfactory about a system under which the staff at GCHQ have been represented in negotiations on their grievances by national officers of unions who have a lower level of security clearance than the staff?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has put his finger on an extremely important point. It is vital in future negotiations with the staff at GCHQ to negotiate entirely local agreements with people who work there. A staff association would achieve that.
    Mr. Strangasked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Prime Minister aware that workers are occupying the Henry Robb shipyard because they are determined to fight for their jobs, for shipbuilding at Leith and because there is a widespread belief throughout that community that the yard should and could be saved with the help of a public sector contract which is in the pipeline and well suited to Leith? Will the Prime Minster give an assurance that the Secretary of State will receive an all-party deputation from Edinburgh to discuss what practical measures might be taken to save the yard?
    The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for having given notice that he would raise this matter. I recognise that he is disappointed that some orders recently went to other yards. I understand that the reason given was that none of the yards being closed had prospects of winning new work on acceptable terms. I recognise the disappointment, but one of the orders went to an Aberdeen yard and another went to a yard in north Humberside. It is customary to receive deputations if there is a closure in a constituency.
    Mr. Pawseyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pawsey: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the CBI survey, which was quoted in The Standard today? It shows that we have the highest orders for seven years. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the impact that those orders will have on unemployment, industry and the nation?
    The Prime Minister: I saw, and welcome, the CBI survey today. It shows a picture of rising demand and activity levels spreading more widely through the
    138
    economy, and rising investment. Those trends are welcome, but we cannot expect sudden great improvements in the labour market. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, in an excellent speech, our GDP is about the same as it was in 1979—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We are producing, by virtue of not having overmanning and by improved technology — [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Opposition Members expect to be able to ask their questions in silence. The Prime Minister should be allowed silence in which to reply.
    The Prime Minister: By improved technology and increased efficiency we are producing the same output, with 1·7 million fewer people in the work force. None the less, there is good news in the fact that there were more that 210,000 new jobs in the service sector in the first three quarters of 1983.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on to the statement.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been several interruptions during Prime Minister's Question Time, which began later than usual today. In view of that, I wonder whether you will invite the Prime Minister to answer the question on the Oman deal, put to her yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the shadow Leader of the House? I am sure that she would like to answer it.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have seen from the clock that Prime Minister's Question Time began at 3.16 pm and ended at 3.31 pm. Therefore, the time allowed for questions is accurate.

Vocational Education and Training
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about vocational education and training.
The Government are today publishing a White Paper entitled "Training for Jobs". It is presented jointly by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science, for Scotland, for Wales, and myself. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
A well trained work force is essential to a strong economy and to win back jobs; to achieve that, vocational education and training must be properly directed to the demands of the market place.
Two years ago we published our first White Paper on training. At that time we set out three objectives: first, to improve vocational education and the transition from school to work; secondly, to modernise apprenticeship and other skill training; and thirdly, to open up wider training opportunities for adults.
Since then we have made considerable progress. Already more than 300,000 young people have entered the youth training scheme. Our new initiative in co-ordinated technical and vocational education for young people from 14 to 18 was launched last September. Fourteen local education authorities co-operated in pilot schemes, and a further 46 have now been invited to join the scheme, starting in September.
In the reform of apprenticeship arrangements, important improvements have been made in engineering, electrical contracting, printing and the construction industries. The Open Tech programme is now well under way, with as many as 50,000 people expected to take advantage of that new facility next year.
Those specific new initiatives represent a major achievement by the Manpower Services Commission under the energetic leadership of its chairman, David Young, and his fellow commissioners, but they would be the first to acknowledge the part played by employers, trade unions, local authorities, voluntary organisations, colleges, schools and the careers service and, indeed, the support and interest of many hon. Members, to which I readily pay tribute.
The White Paper also sets out the criteria against which we shall make our future plans, and announces certain specific proposals. Central and local government have an important part to play in vocational education and training, but real success depends crucially on the part played by employers and trainees themselves. The decisions as to who is trained, when and in what skills, are best taken by employers—and, indeed. the individuals concerned—who know better where the real needs are. So investment in training must be cost effective, flexible, adaptable to changing technology and free of old-fashioned restrictions.
The Manpower Services Commission recently submitted to me proposals for a new adult training strategy. We fully support the commission's call for a national campaign to raise awareness among employers and all concerned of the vital importance of training.
We support, too, the need to provide wider opportunities for the training of adults to meet new skill requirements. We therefore endorse the commission's proposals to restructure its existing programmes to double
140
the total number of adults trained under MSC courses to over 250,000 a year. That will include a significant increase, to some 125,000, in the number of unemployed receiving training.
The Government have agreed to consider further two proposals by the commission. The first is that there should be some training included for people on community programmes. The second is that some adult trainees could be helped by a guaranteed loan scheme to enable them to obtain training not otherwise available to them. The Government recognise that that could well be of interest to a number of people, and I confirm that we shall be ready to consider it further with the MSC and others concerned.
The White Paper also announces important new arrangements within vocational education. It is vital to get the closest possible collaboration at local level between employers, local education authorities and colleges, and other providers of vocational education and training, in identifying and meeting the real needs for future employment in their areas. The MSC, which includes representatives from industry, as well as local authorities and professional educational interests, and which has an established local network, is well placed to assist in that role.
The Government have therefore decided to ask the commission to extend its range of operations so that it can discharge the functions of a national training authority. We propose to increase the commission's resources devoted to work-related non-advanced further education in England and Wales from some £90 million now to some £155 million in 1985–86 and £200 million in 1986–87. That will then represent about one quarter of the total public sector provision for that area. The resultant reduction in the need for local authority expenditure will be taken into account in settling the relevant rate support grants for those future years.
The commission is being asked to begin consultations immediately with educational interests, employers and other interested parties so that plans can be settled in good time for the beginning of the 1985–86 academic year.
In 1983–84 we expect to spend £960 million on training. In 1984–85 we plan to increase that to £1,100 million. That is in addition to the £2·5 billion spent by employers, and the substantial sums within the further education sector. It is therefore vital to ensure that those funds are all used to the best possible effect. The White Paper sets out the Government's continuing programme to ensure that as a nation we are properly trained to meet the challenges of the years ahead.
Mr. John Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that training for young and old must be seen against the background of a continuing collapse in our manufacturing industry and the consequent collapse in the number of apprenticeships available in manufacturing industry? Will he also bear in mind, when he indulges in some of the vacuous self-congratulations that were littered throughout his statement and the White Paper, that this Government's economic policies created the standing army of young unemployed that some of these proposals are supposed to help? Will he come directly to the financial consequences of his statement? He announced certain increases in expenditure by the MSC as the national training authority. The right hon. Gentleman then announced that there would be a resultant reduction in

141
local authority expenditure. Is it not true that not a halfpenny of new money is being provided by the Government for this so-called new advance?
Secondly, will the Secretary of State explain why he made so many references to consultation and the need for collaboration with trade unions, local authorities and others, when he has not consulted any of them, and when this is announced as a White Paper, instead of a Green Paper which is available for consultation with all the interested parties? Will he explain the scarcely veiled reference in the White Paper to forcing people on supplementary benefits to take part in YTS schemes? Is he aware that, if the voluntary character of YTS disappears, it will not be possible to get genuine co-operation from people conscripted from supplementary benefit and pushed into schemes to put up the numbers for the sake of the Government's statistics?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also explain his reference to loans? He will be aware that when the Manpower Services Commission put forward its suggestion about loans it did so in the context of an overall review of the funding of the MSC. The right hon. Gentleman puts it forward on its own, with no such reference.
In the White Paper and in his statement, the Secretary of State referred to the need to make training financially attractive. Is he aware that those of us who have a wider knowledge of the people involved believe that that attractiveness is confined to the employer? Is it not ridiculous that people on the YTS scheme should still receive £25 a week when, in line with inflation, it should have gone up to £34 a week? Is not the time overdue for a substantial increase in the allowances paid to people on YTS schemes?
The Secretary of State announced that another 125,000 adults would be brought within the scope of adult training. However, he did not explain whether any extra money would be provided for that purpose. Is it not true that the same amount of money will be made available for adult training, but that the jam will be spread much more thinly?
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to ask about the educational impact of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but will the Secretary of State confirm that there is little point in having schemes for training people, whether those schemes are short-term or long-term, if there are no jobs for those people at the end? Will it not all be a waste of time, unless there is a recovery in manufacturing industry, instead of its continuing collapse?
Mr. King: I am disappointed by the totally ungracious and unconstructive way in which the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) approaches the White Paper. If he wishes to bandy insults across the Floor of the House, I have to recall that he was a member of a Government who could not even get agreement in their own Cabinet when Shirley Williams, who was then a Member of the House, sought to introduce training schemes. Moreover, what that Government finally introduced was a youth opportunities scheme which had no training content whatever. It was merely a special employment measure.
142
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about consultation, he seemed to overlook the fact that, for example, a considerable part of my statement concerned the Government's response to the Manpower Services Commission's adult training strategy—itself the result of widespread consultation and put forward by the MSC—and that its commissioners, comprising representatives of industry and trade unions as well as educational interests, produced a unanimous recommendation. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that our proposals, particularly for adult training, are the result of close consultation with the MSC. The latest proposal on vocational education and training will now be the subject of substantial consultation.
On the question of supplementary benefit, the White Paper reaffirms the present position. I am glad to say that, on the latest survey figures available to me, only a tiny number of people are affected. When people have the opportunity of a proper training scheme and work experience, and they reject that opportunity on no good grounds—no grounds that would satisfy independent scrutiny—it would be quite wrong to give them the free option of taking supplementary benefit instead of taking the opportunity available.
I was asked about loans and the need for an overall review. The hon. Gentleman will read in the White Paper that we considered in some detail what the respective goals for funding should be and what contributions should be made by the Government, the employees and the trainees themselves towards achieving the most effective training programme. That being so, we feel that we do not need an overall review at the present time.
We do not believe in loans as a substitution for the rest of the programme, but there is a genuine argument, when people in mid-career are looking for an opportunity for additional training that may not be available within the normal services, for such people to be able to get a guaranteed loan. That might enable them to improve their training resources. We shall consider that possibility with the MSC.
The adult training strategy put forward by the MSC involves more effective use of the funds that are being employed at the moment, but, as I have said, we intend to spend a significantly higher overall sum on training in the coming year.
Mr. David Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hesitancy shown by many young people towards taking part in the youth training scheme was caused by doubt whether the training was real training for a real job, and a real extension of education? I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would, like me, have welcomed the presence here today of the Secretary of State for Education and Science alongside my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is here."]—because those two Departments are bracketed in making a real advance in education and training.
Mr. King: I very much appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. Since I took over my new responsibilities, one of the matters that has made the greatest impression on me has been the work done in setting up the youth training scheme. I have been enormously impressed by the very close co-operation between my Department and the Department of Education and Science on the matter of training and vocational education. Some previous training

143
schemes have been employment measures—just a way of making work—but the youth training scheme now offers some very exciting opportunities to young people and, despite what some people say, will provide, for many young people, the best possible route to a permanent job.
Mr. David Penhaligon: Many will welcome the provision of more training. That must be the right trend. However, can the right hon. Gentleman cut away the verbiage and let us know whether or not net central Government expenditure on training as outlined in this document will increase, when one takes account of the change in the amount of money going to local councils?
Secondly, what sort of courses does the right hon. Gentleman believe the local authorities should scrap? That must be what the statement would entail.
Thirdly, will there not be a further transfer away from democratically elected authorities to the central quango that deals with training and education?
Mr. King: We must distinguish between two things. Our proposal on vocational education is not for next year but for the following year and its purpose is to ensure that the customer—the employer, the trade or the industry—has more say, through the structure of the Manpower Services Commission and its local network of employers, trade unionists and educationists, in ensuring that the courses provided and the training being offered are those that offer the best possible prospect of jobs thereafter.
We wish not to centralise but to ensure that there is more local involvement and a much closer working co-operation with employers, with those providing the training and with the trainees themselves, in order to achieve the best possible prospects of jobs. One of the features of the present situation in training is that a considerable amount of money is being spent, and a great deal is being wasted.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I welcome the White Paper and the emphasis placed by my right hon. Friend on vocational education — I fully support all the additional resources being directed to training — how does he equate his comments with Staffordshire county council's decision to close the textile department of the Leek college of further education without further consultation with the Macclesfield or Leek textile employers who send many of their member companies employees to that college and department? Bearing in mind that the textile industry is the country's third largest employer, will he assure me that he will make representations to the Staffordshire county council to reconsider its decision to close that department at the end of this financial year? It took the decision without any consideration about what those in the middle of their course will do about completing it.
Mr. King: My hon. Friend will understand that I am not familiar with the details of that matter. Anyone who has made even the most superficial study of this problem knows that there is a need for a much closer understanding and co-operation between employers and the educational services. We seek to facilitate that by this change.
Mr. Derek Foster: How can the Secretary of State talk about securing the greatest co-operation of people locally, including education authorities and further education colleges, when he has announced a major change in the way in which a
144
substantial section of further education is delivered, without any consultation on this point with colleges or local education authorities? Is it not a disgrace that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is sitting alongside him, has allowed this statement to be made without those consultations?
Mr. King: My right hon. Friend recognises and attaches enormous importance, as those who have studied his recent speeches on this will know, to the fact that the education services must be effectively attuned to the nation's needs. The academic side of further education is not an issue here. We are dealing specifically with the technical and vocational education aspect — preparing people for jobs. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What jobs?"] The hon. Gentleman did not appear to show that he was aware that at present the MSC is investing some £90 million in this area. In 1985–86 we are proposing to increase that figure to £155 million, and in 1986–87 to £200 million. I hope that, after all the shouting has died and people get down to consultation, many people in local authority education departments, who are far more forward-thinking than one or two Opposition Members, will recognise the benefits that can come from this scheme.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people leave school without anything that society values, in particular members of the ethnic minorities, will welcome as promising the package of a possible loan in some cases and greater access to adult education and training in others?
Mr. King: I am persuaded of the vital need to adapt training and educational provision to the new circumstances that appertain in this country. Hon. Members have not raised a whole range of different matters — for example the modernisation of the apprenticeship system, which is vital if we are to equip ourselves for the challenge of new technology. It is important in so many different ways, not least that of open access, that at any stage in someone's career or life he is not debarred from acquiring new skills. I endorse what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Jim Callaghan: Does the Minister agree that many local authorities, including Conservative-controlled ones, are worried that the Government are holding back part of the rate support grant in favour of Government-sponsored schemes in schools? Does he not feel that this report will further the local authorities' resentment?
Mr. King: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has heard of the technical and vocational education initiative which was launched, with Government support, by the MSC. It gives additional funds to local education authorities to launch four-year schemes in technical and vocational education. That is an illustration of the way in which co-operation with local education authorities can be developed, not in the spirit of recrimination and hostility that the hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest. We have now launched a scheme in which we have invited local authorities to co-operate voluntarily and to which we have had an enormous response.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most colleges are first-class and do an excellent job? However, should we not concede that the Manpower Services Commission is closer to employers

145
than local education authorities? Would not increasing clientship between the MSC and colleges be the sort of effective effort that we wish to see?
Mr. King: I certainly pay tribute to the excellent work of so many colleges in the FE sector, but we would be less than frank if we did not also recognise that some colleges do not achieve the best standards. I am sure that close contact and involvement with the customer is a vital way to ensure improvements.
Mr. James Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition are very much in favour of the training of youngsters, but deeply concerned about the lack of apprenticeships? As the upsurge of interest to which the Government refer may be a non-starter, we could be training youngsters only to find that they have to return to the dole.
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) about why the Government have not increased the allowance from £25 to at least £27 a week? Will not the Government bear in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) found that he could not live on £26·80 a week? Therefore, how do the Government expect youngsters to live on £25 a week, which is an inadequate allowance?
Mr. King: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. From one or two comments that I have heard, I was beginning to wonder whether Opposition Members approved of training youngsters or merely wished to carp about the statement. The increase in allowances is a difficult issue. As we have finite resources, the question is how those resources should best be applied. If the allowance is higher, the resources available for backing training schemes will be less.
Mr. Dave Nellist: You have underspent this year.
Mr. King: The White Paper deals frankly with the issue. We have made it clear already that, for this year, we believe that it is not unreasonable to ask trainees in these schemes—which provide excellent training and work experience—to make some contribution to the costs of training through a restrained training allowance.
Mr. Nellist: Twelve pounds 50 pence a week.
Mr. King: It is sadly true that a great deal fewer apprenticeships are currently involved. That is due partly to the change in the industrial pattern in Britain, and partly due to the fact that in the new and emerging industries traditional apprenticeships do not apply—for example in electronics or microelectronics. However, we want to ensure that throughout training we obtain the most effective use of available resources.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome and constructive statement, which contrasts so starkly with the unconstructive and sterile attitude of the Opposition. What will be the long-term implications of his statement for British industry?
Mr. King: We are all aware of the concern of British industry that, when unemployment is far too high, there is yet a shortage of skilled workers in certain key areas.
146
We are also concerned about how the new industries, as they develop, can sustain their position in the market, given the lack of those with necessary skills. I hope that our determination to ensure that the training we provide is effectively directed to the real needs of Britain will be welcomed.
Mr. Nellist: I am sure that it is a coincidence that this anaemic statement has been produced on the same day as my private Member's Bill, which offers a real alternative for training.
If the Secretary of State is prepared to announce today that there are changes in budgetary allowances for training spread over the next three years, why will he not give similar figures about the date when he intends to increase the YTS allowance from 25 quid a week, which represents a theft of £12·50 from the YTS allowance during the life of this Government, to a level more closely related to trade union rates for apprentices, which represent a decent training allowance?
As the White Paper refers in paragraph 29 to health and safety, will the right hon. Gentleman respond to the requests that have been made to his Department—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that trainees be given a proper——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am anxious to call as many hon. Members as possible, but long supplementary questions make that very difficult.
Mr. Nellist: —that trainees be given a proper contract of employment so that they are covered by all industrial legislation? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure —[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that every workplace in which YTS trainees go is first inspected by a qualified health and safety inspector to prevent serious and fatal accidents, which are running at 300 a year under his leadership of that Department?
Mr. King: Every time I hear the hon. Gentleman speak I get the impression that he is more interested in making political capital out of any problems that he can dredge up from individual circumstances than directing himself to the real importance of providing an effective training scheme for this country. His never-ending attempts to denigrate the youth training scheme do great damage to the opportunities and possibilities for hundreds of thousands of young people in Britain.
Mr. Richard Needham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, regardless of the resource problem, a proposal which for the first time involves both the employers and trade unions, through the area boards, in non-advanced further education should be welcomed as a constructive step forward by Opposition Members, who may not yet have received their proper briefing from the TUC?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments, because I have been extremely surprised at the reaction of Labour Members. Perhaps they thought that they were obliged by being in opposition to oppose rather than to look at the serious and constructive proposals which have been set out, which I think will be widely welcomed by both sides of industry.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have two important Scottish debates to follow and a ten-minute Bill. I propose to allow questions to run until 4.15, but I ask hon. Members to be brief in their supplementary questions.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Although one welcomes any new training initiatives, will the Minister make clear the answer to the question that has been posed to him by other hon. Members? Is any new money, any further funds, being put in as a result of his statement? Secondly, if he is interested in cost effectiveness, does he not consider that the time has come to have one Department responsible for training and education, rather than two, at national and local level, where there is a dual track of training and education development and public funds are squandered?
Mr. King: The answer to the last point is that training under the present structure is closely linked to employment, and I think that is the right approach. There is obviously an argument about which way it should go, but that is the way in which it has been structured. It is the way in which previous Governments have operated it and I believe that it is the right line to follow.
Mr. Nellist: What about money?
Mr. King: Opposition Members keep talking about money, and claim that I have said nothing about money. I said in my statement, and I repeat, that in 1983–84 we expect to spend £960 million and that in 1984–85 we plan to increase it to £1,100 million. If that is not clear to them, I will try to make it even clearer later.
Mr. Michael Carttiss: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in contrast to the carping criticism of Opposition Members, many young people will welcome the opportunity that is being provided, not least the young people in the six high schools and two colleges in my constituency, for whom £1·6 million has just been announced under the technical and vocational education initiative?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his positive response. I believe that his is much more the proper reaction to my statement than the extremely carping criticisms by Labour Members, who show themselves out of touch with the fact that much of what I have announced is the sum of a great deal of co-operation between industry, trade unions, educational interests, colleges—a whole range, across the board. Despite the living anachronism that we see before us—Labour Members living in a world of their own, a world in which they have increasingly little influence—the rest of the country will, I hope, welcome what we have announced.
Ms. Clare Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who have been concerned for many years to see the expansion and modernisation of adult training are very concerned indeed that the Government are taking resources from local government and handing them to the MSC which, despite Government rhetoric, is floundering in its attempts to provide high quality training for young people? Is he further aware that the youth training scheme in practice is often cheap labour getting very low-level training? Now that the MSC is to be handed another chunk of education money, we are likely to see more that is worse, and certainly no improvement.
Mr. King: The hon. Lady specialises, on every occasion that she can find, in destructive comments about the efforts of an enormous number of people who are playing their part in making the youth training scheme the success that it undoubtedly is. I accept, of course, that with a scheme of this size—300,000 and more are already on it—there will be problems, but I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the TUC for the part that it has played. That is representative of the feelings of many more people than the hon. Lady might pretend to represent.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: With skill shortages already appearing in parts of the economy, is not the main objective to get the relevant training to the right places as quickly as possible? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the virtue of his scheme is that it will enhance that prospect?
Mr. King: It is absolutely vital to ensure that we get the most effective use of the training funds. [HON. MEMBERS: "What funds?"] We hear from Opposition Members the same parrot cry on every statement—"new money" or "more money"—but the first requirement, the first responsibility, of every Member of Parliament and Minister is to ensure that we get value for money. The truth is that in the present training situation we are spending a great deal of money training people for the wrong courses, for which there are not jobs, whereas, as my hon. Friend points out, in other areas there are skill shortages, and that is a national disgrace.
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph 19 of the White Paper concerning Scotland? Will the Scottish participation in the TVEI, which has been grudging so far, take place along with new money? Will any of the schemes which will be involved in the Scotish participation be subject to the kind of local scrutiny and control to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in the statement? In other words, will the Minister ensure that the Scottish committee of the MSC has a larger role in the control of these schemes and that it is not given to Sheffield, which is, to all intents and purposes, an alien education experience if it has the say-so in the new set-up?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the position; the announcement on the new arrangement within vocational education is not applicable to Scotland, which has recently introduced new arrangements for 16 to 18-year-olds, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland wants to give that time to settle down before taking a view on any changes that might be made. The more technical details of the Scottish arrangements I shall leave as a bilateral matter between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the progressive statement which he has made today is in addition to all that the Government have achieved in this sphere since coming to office? With regard to apprenticeships, is he aware that employers are saying that, after 18 months, there are many youngsters whom they would like to keep in apprenticeships but whom they might not be able to afford to keep without some support or assistance from the Government or the MCS? Will my right hon. Friend take that on board, since apprenticeships are a vital part of training?
Mr. King: I am aware of my hon. Friend's close interest in this matter and I assure him that we are aware of the importance of the point he makes. He will be aware of the changing needs of industry and the fact that the relevance of apprenticeships is changing in a number of areas, in particular with the new industries and with the new technologies applicable in the old industries. Having said that, I assure him that I shall take note of what he said.
Mr. Robert Parry: The Secretary of State has received representations from me concerning a large number of people on MSC projects who are getting into financial distress through the use of bank cards. Will he advise all young people on these projects of the dangers and tempations of getting into debt, particularly in view of the low payments that are being made?
Mr. King: I am not aware of the details, but I will look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous enthusiasm which the YTSߞno doubt this will be the response to the new scheme that he has announced ߞ generated among schoolmasters, lecturers, businessmen, parents and all those in the local community? We have had much experience of this, and I am sure that his statement will be welcomed. Has he made any announcement on the pioneering technical and vocational education initiative, which was taken a year ago? Does that initiative need a further extension? We must begin training for industry right back into schools, and not only at the stage when 16-year-old leave them. Will he make arrangements also for the colleges of higher education to be able to keep the money that they earn from co-operating with local firms and local education institutes in offering their services as consultants so that they may go ahead and provide more training in the local area?
Mr. King: I am well aware of the enthusiasm for the youth training scheme among a considerable number of employers. There is no doubt that it is starting to have a major impact on the induction training that they offer their normal employees. That is a major improvement that will provide lasting benefit.
The technical and vocational education initiative started as a pilot scheme, but it will now build up very quickly. There are 14 local education authorities involved and I have invited another 46 to join the scheme. Those authorities have responded to my invitation and proposals have been offered to them. As we move from the 14 authorities to the full-capacity scheme, about 60,000 children will be part of it.
Dr. John Marek: The White Paper states:
"The new Skillcentre Training Agency established by the Commission will ensure that Skillcentres adopt a commercial approach in identifying and supplying the training that the commission and employers want."
Will the Minister give an assurance that no more skillcentres will be closed in future and that it will be his aim to ensure that present facilities are fully used?
Mr. King: Obviously, we want the present facilities to be fully used, but if the courses for which the skillcentres are equipped are not appropriate to the needs of the market in the area, it may be difficult to ensure that they are fully used. I have sought to explain—I hope that the White Paper makes this clear—that we must ensure that money
150
for training is used for training people and not for providing subsidies for unfilled places. The moneys must be directed to the training of people if we are to ensure the best use of the funds available. We must try to take an intelligent and constructive approach in the interests of those who need training. Our job is to ensure that the maximum funds are applied where they are really needed.
Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for a long time there has been an artificial divide between education and training and that we now have an opportunity to grasp the nettle and close the divide, especially in relation to apprenticeships, so as to allow City and Guilds and other examinations to be undertaken within the education system and carried on into training, thereby allowing full apprenticeships to take place and giving encouragement to the youngsters who will embrace the various skills in future?
Mr. King: The White Paper is supported by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland and jointly presented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and myself. That shows that it is the Government's view that there must be the closest co-operation. The initiative recognises exactly the force of what my hon. Friend stresses—the need to break down the barriers between the tradition of technical education and the tradition of training in employment. I hope that we can combine the traditions effectively. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I will seek to give a lead in that respect. I hope and believe that we shall have the support of many in the education and industrial sectors.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Labour Members welcome real training and real jobs, but we do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman is crowing about the failure of the Government when set against the three objectives which he set. Does he recognise that he has sawn through the bridge between school and work, because there are no jobs, that he has presided over a decrease in the number of apprenticeships, and that wider training opportunities are no more than a mirage as there are no jobs for people to go to when they have completed their training?
Mr. King: That was a rather laboured intervention. It appears that the hon. Gentleman has been infected by the rather sour odour that is floating up to him from the Opposition Front Bench instead of considering the Government's proposals in a constructive spirit.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in Scotland we have many jobs in high technology and that some trade unions have refused to co-operate with the Government's training scheme. Can he assure the House that the trade unions are being pursuaded to accept the scheme and that the change in training is essential, especially for occupational skills in view of the fundamental changes in attitude, particularly towards training for new industries?
Mr. King: I am sorry to hear that. I am aware that there has been a refusal to co-operate in some instances, and I shall look into that. Otherwise, a feature of the launch of the YTS has been the tremendous efforts made by the trade unions in organising conferences and meetings to explain to their members and officers the importance of getting the

151
scheme off the ground. The attitude of those trade unions is a pleasant contrast to some of the sour comments that have come from one or two Labour Members.
Mr. Giles Radice: Will the Minister now admit to the House that his White Paper proposals involve no new money? Is he aware that at the beginning of the year the Secretary of State for Education and Science made a speech in Sheffield calling for a new partnership? Does he believe that the best away to create the new consensus is to keep local authorities, teachers and colleges completely in the dark while a secret Government committee plans the future of non-advanced further education? Does he realise that the proposals for further education represent yet another example of central Government interference in how democratically elected local authorities spend their money — for example, penalties, rate capping, the educational support grants and now the MSC takeover of work—related further education and a consequent loss of rate support grant? Where will it end?
Finally, does the Minister accept that the MSC takeover of responsibilities means that, as with the TVEI, the Secretary of State for Education and Science loses out in the Whitehall power battle, educational needs take second place and once again education gets a bloody nose?
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: So dramatic.
Mr. King: If I thought that the hon. Gentleman believed what he has just said, I should be even more convinced of the death wish of the Labour party. He made an appalling contribution. I have been asked about the amazing secrecy surrounding this matter. For once, a White Paper has not been leaked in toto in advance of publication. That appears to be the major example of Government secrecy. We have made it clear in the White Paper that there will be the fullest consultation on the vocational education proposals. It is right that that should be so. I believe, from my discussions and from the comments that have been made to me over the years by those in the education service as well as those in industry,
152
that there will be a much better understanding of the reasons that lie behind the proposals that we are making, which we are putting forward in a constructive sense.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): Hear, hear.
Mr. King: My right hon. Friend is joining me in this approach, which is much more constructive than the hon. Member for Durham, North suggests.
Mr. Speaker: Ten-minute Bill——
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I recognise, Mr. Speaker, that you are not responsible for the answering of questions by Secretaries of State. However, I should like your guidance on a point which has arisen from the recent exchanges. The Secretary of State for Employment was answering questions on behalf of Departments in addition to his own. When he was asked a question of a specific nature which was pertinent to the document that is being introduced, he relegated the question to the level of bilateral discussions between the questioner and the appropriate Secretary of State. Is this not an entirely inadequate system of briefing? In this instance, the needs of Scotland are being ignored.
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member has correctly stated, I am not responsible for ministerial answers.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an issue for Parliament. The matter of the department of pharmacy at Heriot Watt university is the responsibility not of the Secretary of State for Scotland but of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The effects of its closure, if educational needs are to be tailored or attuned to the needs of the nation, as the Secretary of State for Employment puts it, is a matter for the Department of Employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) made a valid point. Will you, Mr. Speaker, consider it and give a ruling tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: I say again that I am not responsible for which Minister of State the Government decide should answer questions or make statements. That is not a matter for the Chair, but is entirely one for the Government to decide.

Maternal Surrogate Clinics
4.20 pm
Mrs. Anna McCurley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the operation of maternal surrogate clinics in the United Kingdom.
Maternal surrogacy has been with us since biblical days, so I do not seek to explore the nature of the principle but rather to examine the effects of one practice. I am aware that the Warnock committee will report some time this year on matters relating to artificial insemination by donor, in vitro fertilisation techniques and surrogacy, and that there will be a full and well-informed debate thereafter, possibly leading to legislative action on a variety of issues. It is of great concern to me, however. that in the intervening time between discussion and action several abuses may occur which will be contrary to the spirit of the law as it stands, which will consciously seek to circumvent the law and which will be rejected by the vast majority of people.
I was alerted by an article in The Mail on Sunday to the possibility of maternal surrogate clinics being established in this country. They are already a feature of life in some states of the United States of America — other states have abandoned them—and in the Federal Republic of Germany. Those clinics bring together on a highly commercial basis infertile couples desiring a child and women, usually in their mid-twenties, who are married and have borne at least one child from their union, who lease their uterus and ovum for artificial insemination by the male partner of the infertile couple. If a child is born subsequently, it is handed over to the couple by the surrogate within 48 hours of delivery.
Assurances regarding selection and counselling of the contracting parties have been given by those who are already in this practice, but there is no legislative control over who should select and advise — for example, no medical qualifications are required. In effect, anyone can start such an operation in this country. I believe that the average cost of a baby born because of this practice is about £16,000, which includes the surrogate fee and private clinic facilities. Existing legislation would appear to have banned the buying and selling of children for profit. The Adoption Act 1958 strictly forbids any money changing hands in adoption placements. The agent or clinic dealing with the contracting parties — the prospective purchasing parents and the surrogate mother —must be approved by the DHSS.
It should be made clear that the only way that prospective purchasing parents can take on full legal responsibility for the child is by adoption. The woman who carries and gives birth to a child is legally the mother, and she has full responsibility for the child. If she is married, there is a legal presumption that her husband is the father of the child, with legal responsibilities, unless paternity is brought into question; then the burden of proof lies with the man. The sperm donor has no legal rights over the child. The child is illegitimate as surely as is a child born of an illicit or adulterous relationship. The child then must be adopted by the paying couple.
154
The Law Society is of the opinion that any contract between purchasing couples and surrogate mothers would be null and void because it would be contrary to public policy and unenforceable in the courts, but there has been no legal test case on which we can draw for reassurance. Cases on this issue in the United States of America have been brought to court, but not as yet where any payment has been involved.
Loopholes in the law must be tightened. Is this action the provision of a service or the sale of a child? Offering one's body in such a service invites comparisons with parallel illegal acts. If we do not act swiftly on this issue. children may be born by this method before the law takes account of them.
I am sympathetic to anyone so desperate that he or she would do anything to have a child. On this issue, however, I have support from the churches, the WI, many nurses, doctors, lawyers and colleagues. I do not presume to speak specifically for those bodies that have reported to the Warnock committee. Those who counsel the childless have offered their support also. I wish to voice the anxieties that have been expressed about the welfare of the child — for example, about one who had been born handicapped. Would the contract stand or would the child be rejected? Would it become the responsibility of the State?
Consider the surrogate's mental state after birth, her husband's rights and feelings, the possible problems for the infertile adopting mother— remembering that the child is not biologically hers but is biologically her husband's—the threat to family life and pair bonding, call it what we will.
Scientific developments should not always be equated with progress. In this field, we have knowledge but no control and no guidelines. There is a danger of the unscrupulous as well as the well-meaning operator cashing in on the delicate, highly personal emotions of unhappy people. I have heard this practice called the greatest gift one person can bestow upon another and a supreme act of charity but, alas, that charity is available not to the poor, who also want children, but to those with the ability to pay. The Bill will discourage those who are active in trying to establish such clinics in the United Kingdom. Swift action is the only course open to us to prevent conditions developing that would be maze-like in their legal complexities and, potentially, socially explosive
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Anna McCurley, Mr. John Ward, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. Colin Moynihan and Mr. Christopher Murphy.

Maternal Surrogate Clinics
  MATERNAL SURROGATE CLINICS
  Mrs. Anna McCurley accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the operation of maternal surrogate clinics in the United Kingdom And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 March and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

Rate Support Grant (Scotland)
4.28 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.
I take this opportunity to remind the House that this is the third successive year in which it has proved possible to hold this debate in prime time. I am sure that both sides wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for making that possible. Lest Opposition Members be tempted to complain about the time devoted to this important measure, I remind them that before 1982 debates on this subject always took place after 10 pm.
Before dealing with the details of the order, I should sketch the background essential to any debate on local authority finance at this time. Local authority expenditure is still too high and must be reduced. Scottish local authorities as a whole are budgeting to spend more in 1983–84 than they actually spent in 1979–80, even after taking account of inflation. That is in the face of the clear necessity for a substantial decrease in public expenditure to free resources for economic growth. Local authorities are responsible for a quarter of all public spending and must therefore reduce their expenditure if the general policy is to succeed.
It has been said often enough that, despite those necessities, it is not possible for local authorities to make savings. After all the discussions that we have had in recent years, I hope that we shall hear no more of that argument in this debate. Just under one third of all Scottish local authorities have cut their spending since I came to office five years ago and I congratulate them on that. Nor are all those authorities of the same political colour. I hope that the councils of Cunninghame, Dumbarton, Falkirk, Monklands and Motherwell will not take it amiss if I express my appreciation of their efforts in reducing their spending since 1979–80, even if they cannot quite come up to the standard of prudent economy set by Eastwood district council, which recorded a reduction of more than 20 per cent. in the same period.
I am glad to observe that the gap between the Government's provision and the authorities' spending has recently narrowed — partly due to the increases in provision that I have made to make it easier for authorities to bring their spending into line, and partly due to the selective action that I have had to take against some particularly high-spending authorities. Incidentally, the increases in provision were made in part at the expense of my other programmes at the Scottish Office. Opposition Members may care to reflect that years of local authority overspending have led to pressure on other areas of expenditure to which no doubt they and certainly I attach great importance.
Thanks to our policies, ratepayers have experienced some definite improvement in their position. Instead of average rate increases of up to 30 per cent., rising to 34 per cent., followed by 15 per cent., more recently increases have been 2 per cent., reduced in effect to 0·5 per cent. by selective action, in 1983–84. The average rate bill, excluding water rates, climbed from £183 in 1980–81 to £286 in 1982–83, but rose by only £1 to £287 in 1983–84. That is very satisfactory in one sense, but the figure should in fact have fallen rather than remaining
156
more or less constant, so the picture is still unsatisfactory. That is why I have had to seek and, unfortunately, to use various powers granted by the House to take action to reduce local authority spending and that is why we now seek the authority of Parliament to strengthen those powers. I very much hope, of course, that I shall not have to use the powers, but if it becomes necessary I shall certainly do so.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: If the Government's powers have been so successful already, why do they need the additional powers in the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill to set and limit rates? Why cannot they rely on the facilities which they already have to cut the rate support grant?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, and I have made it clear that I hope never to have to use these powers, but if he had experienced the alarmingly high rate increases that I have described—the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that they have improved, but that is only because the Government took action—he would realise that we must have a fallback position to protect the ratepayers' interests if such increases ever recur.
The order embodies adjustments to the rate support grants for 1982–83 and 1983–84 and my proposals for grant and its distribution in 1984–85. These matters have been discussed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The format of the order is significantly different from earlier years. The schedules describing the basis for distributing the needs element, which constitutes about 87 per cent. of RSG, have been replaced by a schedule showing for each authority the amount of needs grant as initially estimated for 1984–85. This change results from my decision, of which I informed the House on 15 December, to distribute the needs element on the basis of the client group approach to assessing the relative expenditure needs of local authorities. The report on the order provides full details of the factors which I have taken into account in arriving at the amounts of grant set out in schedule 2 to the order. I hope that hon. Members will accept that these changes meet the criticisms voiced in previous years about the complexity of the order.
For 1982–83 the order proposes a very modest reduction of £1.3 million in grant, because the actual rate of interest affecting loan charges payable by local authorities is lower than the forecast used in the earlier calculations of grant. There is nothing unusual about this. It is an accepted feature of the system that adjustments are made, whether to the advantage or disadvantage of central or local governments, once the actual interest rate is known.
On 2 November 1983 the House approved the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1983 which reduced rate support grant by £45 million for 1983–84. The reduction was made because, even after some £19 million had been saved by the selective action which I initiated against four authorities, expenditure in local authority budgets remains more than £100 million in excess of the figure considered appropriate by the Government. The order now before the House provides for a further grant reduction in 1983–84 of £1.5 million, mainly because the present forecast of interest rates affecting loan charges is lower than the forecast used in the initial calculation of grant.
The order also revises the amount of needs element to be shared among authorities whose actual expenditure in

157
1982–83 was within current expenditure guidelines. The amount in respect of 1983–84 and its distribution will be reviewed in the autumn when actual expenditure is known. This provision means that an authority whose expenditure conforms to the guideline will bear no part of the general abatements of rate support grant made for 1982–83 and 1983–84 on account of the overall level of local authority expenditure. I regard this as eminently fair, as does the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I hope that the House will also accept it.
For local authority current expenditure in 1984–85, on 27 July I announced a provisional figure of £2,730 million. The final figure of £2,736·6 million shown in the report is almost unchanged except for certain technical adjustments. This figure is £64 million above the White Paper figure. In the Government's view, the enhanced figure should be attainable by local authorities. Within the total provision there is a margin of £75 million which is not allocated to services, reflecting the fact that authorities have been given more time to bring their spending into line with the Government's plans. After taking account of the four financing items detailed in the report, the total figure for relevant expenditure in 1984–85 is £3,205·9 million.
The current expenditure guidelines issued to local authorities on 18 November 1983 add up to the provision for relevant expenditure, including the margin of £75 million not allocated to services, but excluding the provision for expenditure on the urban programme. As in 1982–83 and 1983–84, the guidelines have been derived from the client group assessments of the relative expenditure needs of local authorities. These assessments apportion in a systematic and equitable way the total of relevant expenditure provided for the various services within the rate support grant settlement. For some authorities the guideline is set at the level of the client group assessment, but for the majority it has been necessary to make some adjustments. In accordance with the views of the convention, these adjustments have been kept to a minimum, but they have two simple purposes. The first is a limit on the client group assessments where, for an individual authority, they would imply a marked increase in expenditure. I am aware that some hon. Members are concerned about this, but to do otherwise would be wholly inconsistent with our policy of securing reductions in the level of local authority expenditure. The second adjustment is to increase the client group assessments where they are more than 5 per cent. below what authorities are spending. I consider the guidelines to be fair and certainly to be attainable, and I urge authorities to make every effort to bring their expenditure into line with them; as so many have already done.
Mr. Barry Henderson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has helped the transition to the client group approach. Will he confirm that he is willing to continue to discuss with COSLA and with local authorities possible ways of improving and refining the methodology of the client group approach?
Mr. Younger: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that that is desirable. I am, indeed, only too ready at all times to discuss this further with COSLA, and I think that that would be very helpful.
158
I deal next with grant. In determining the grant for 1984–85. I had to weigh carefully the interests of ratepayers and the continuing need to reduce local authority expenditure. As I informed the House on 15 December, the maximum aggregate grant consistent with these considerations and broader policies is £1,930 million. This is more in cash than initially determined for 1983–84, some £25 million more than assumed by authorities when fixing rates for 1983–84, and represents 60.2 per cent. of relevant expenditure. This is 1·5 per cent. less than in 1983–84 and continues the policy of successive Administrations of reducing grant as a means of securing reductions in expenditure. Those who say that this transfers the burden from central to local taxpayers are missing an important point. The rates burden will increase only if authorities refuse to reduce expenditure. About £216·8 million of aggregate grant will be distributed as specific grants in support of expenditure on particular services. The balance of £1,713·2 million will be distributed as rate support grants, and this is the amount provided in the order before the House today.
The order also provides for the distribution of the grant, about which there has been extensive discussion with the convention. The domestic relief is to continue at 3p in the pound. The balance of the grant is allocated between needs and resources element in the ratio of 7:1. The resources element will be distributed in accordance with the normal statute. The amount of the general portion of the needs element to be paid to each authority in terms of this order is set out in schedule 2 and gives effect to the fundamental change made in the needs element distribution for 1984–85.
For a number of years distribution of the needs element has been based mainly on population and population-related factors, but in years up to 1979–80 it also took account of the actual expenditure of each authority. That meant that high spending could result in higher grant in a later year, and was at variance with the Government's commitment to securing reductions in the expenditure of local authorities. Since 1980–81, needs element distribution has been designed to secure stability in grant. However, this was clearly no more than an interim measure, and an alternative approach had to be developed.
I think it is fair to say that all concerned agree that the new system, namely, the client group approach to assessing the relative expenditure needs of local authorities, offers a fairer and more systematic basis for distribution of grant. I quite accept that the convention officially would have preferred to delay the changeover until the method had been further refined, but I carefully considered all the views given to me about timing, and I concluded that there was nothing to be gained from delay. While 1984–85 is the first year in which the client group method will be used for grant distribution, it has been used in the calculation of current expenditure guidelines since 1982–83. It seems to me logical that there should be a single assessment of relative expenditure needs underlying current expenditure guidelines and grant distribution.
The report accompanying the order describes the client group approach. Its central aim is to estimate the relative expenditure needs of authorities by taking into account the variations in the demand for services and the cost of providing them with a similar degree of efficiency.
The expenditure provision made in the rate support grant settlement for any particular service is allocated among authorities undertaking the service mainly on the

159
basis of the factor which most directly determines the need for the expenditure. For example, provision for school teaching staff is apportioned on the basis of the number of school pupils in each authority. This assessment may be adjusted in the light of other factors which could affect the demand for a particular service or the cost of providing that service. In the case of schools, again an adjustment is made for the higher ratio of staff in rural areas. The table to appendix F to the report lists the various factors used for 1984–85. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who has responsibility for Home Affairs and the Environment, will be happy to give further details of the system should hon. Members wish. For grant distribution, estimates have also been made of other factors, mainly loans charges and income from specific revenue grants. That method has been agreed with the convention.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the effect of the introduction of the client group approach, will he recognise that some authorities, such as Lothian and, indeed, Highland and Strathclyde, are adversely affected by that change? Is it his intention to take that into account when he comes to assess their overall level of expenditure in the forthcoming year?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. First, I must say that we have deliberately dampened such an effect. If it is unfavourable, it is less unfavourable because of the phasing effect which we deliberately introduced. Secondly, we will, of course, take into account stresses and strains which this may put on the budget of an authority when considering whether any expenditure it incurs might be considered excessive and unreasonable.
Mr. John Maxton: In considering client groups, particularly those of the elderly and the disabled, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Scotland is being seriously disadvantaged compared with the rest of the United Kingdom because of the failure of the Secretary of State to carry out joint funded schemes in this area with health boards, which is happening in England and Wales? The Secretary of State for the Environment has specifically allowed extra money to local authorities for this purpose, but in Scotland it is simply not taking place.
Mr. Younger: I am disappointed that it has not been taken up more widely in Scotland, but this is largely a question of the differing interests of those concerned being difficult to reconcile. It is desirable that there should be more of a meeting of minds on these matters. As to the spending of money, Scotland certainly gets more per head of the population for this matter than England and Wales, which is a point well worth remembering.
The objective of the needs element distribution is to enable authorities undertaking the same range of functions to levy the same rate for the same amount of expenditure per head of population. As this would mean significant changes from the present level of grant, I have limited the reduction from 1983–84 needs grant to £6·45 per head, a 2½p rate, at regional level and £2·58 per head, a 1p rate, at district level. This is a fundamental change to the basis of needs element distribution. I have agreed with the convention that officials should review the method used for 1984–85 and consider whether further refinements might usefully be made for later years.
160
The effect of the settlement upon rates depends upon final decisions yet to be taken by most local authorities. I have read, however, in the press that the rate in Glasgow next year is likely to be 58p, the level to which it was reduced this year as a result of the selective action taken by me against that authority. If that turns out to be the case, hard-pressed ratepayers will welcome it, I am certain, but I must confess to being disappointed that the council, in all the circumstances, does not intend to reduce its expenditure nearer to the guideline, which could have led to reductions in the rates, which would have been even more welcome to the citizens of Glasgow. Since 1979 I have consistently made clear to local authorities the Government's determination to secure reductions in the level of local authority expenditure, in the interests of ratepayers and the economy generally. I hope that reductions in expenditure will be the prime consideration of all authorities when they come to determine their rates for 1984–85.
As I said during the exchanges following my statement on 15 December, budgets in line with the expenditure provision made in the settlement could result in average rates falling in the coming year by between 5 and 6 per cent. It has been argued by the convention and others that, on the contrary, higher rates are inevitable, but what they omit in their assumption is that expenditure will be around the level of local authority budgets for 1983–84. That, in the light of all the expectations, cannot be regarded as acceptable. If authorities do not heed the warning given about the level of their expenditure, I shall end up inevitably having to take whatever action I consider appropriate to secure expenditure savings.
The order is important and provides for a very large amount of central Government grant in support of a considerable amount of local authority expenditure in 1984–85. I believe it to be a fair and reasonable settlement, and I therefore commend the order to the House.
4.50 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: This debate is important, and is held annually. On this occasion it has, perhaps, been rather overshadowed by industrial events in Scotland. The local authorities—their elected members and those whom they represent—would not want us to forget that crisis. Whatever may be happening elsewhere, and whatever we may read in the press, particularly about the lower Clyde and Scott Lithgow, I hope that no irrevocable decisions will be taken about slates being wiped clean or sales being made without the Secretary of State explaining to the House exactly what is happening and the impact on those involved.
I know that the Secretary of State will note that point, and I hope that he will bear it very much in mind. In his usual detached and unemotional way, he has given us a well-prepared script, full of bad news. I suppose that we are used to bad news. After all, it has become almost routine over the years. The Secretary of State continually gives us more of the same. He has sketched a pretty dreich and dreary outlook for Scottish local government in the rate support grant.
One of the Secretary of State's great weapons is tedium. [Interruption.] Not every hon. Member has served on the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, so that may be something of an "in" joke. However, the right hon. Gentleman's weapon is tedium and it is sometimes difficult to tell what the Government's intentions are from

161
the right hon. Gentleman's low monotone. Nevertheless, the outlook is dreich and dreary, and the temper and morale of local authorities are not being improved by what has amounted in the past year or two to a campaign of misrepresentation. Indeed, I believe that that campaign is still being conducted by Scottish Office Ministers. Their general tactic is to create a crisis, deny what they have done, and then duck for cover, blaming everyone else in sight. I am sure that the Secretary of State's favourite slogan is, "It wasna me." But many of the troubles that we now face can clearly be laid entirely at his door.
The Secretary of State constantly poses as the ratepayers' champion, and has done so again this afternoon — [Interruption.] We hear the usual loyal bleating noises from behind him whenever that is said, but the reality is that there is a simple deception. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there has probably been an increase in real terms in local authority expenditure, in constant prices, since 1979–80. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts the calculation that COSLA has done, but it amounts to 1·6 per cent. I understand that there is to be some joint consultation, and the figure may be adjusted. However, I think that it will be of that order.
Therefore, although there has been an increase in expenditure, it has been marginal. But during the same period, the average payment by a domestic ratepayer has increased by about 133 per cent. Accordingly, the answer must lie not in the marginal increase in expenditure but in the persistent reductions in central Government support, which have been the hallmarks of the Secretary of State's policy. The inescapable conclusion is that, for the ratepayers, the Government's fiscal policy has been the villain of the piece.
Of course, the Secretary of State would be right to say that that conclusion is not inescapable, in the sense that if local authorities were prepared to demolish essential services, they could no doubt escape the grim arithmetic of successful rate support grant settlements. However, that option is not open to them, because they have a duty to maintain essential services. It may not be necessary to expand or to go for the ultimately desirable, but they must at least maintain the fabric, for example, of their social, education and cleansing services, as every ratepayer and citizen expects. I object to the campaign of deception. We are being invited to finalise a rather bitter past and to accept what I fear, in the 1984–85 figures, is a grim future.
I turn to the general abatements for 1982–83 and 1983–84. As hon. Members will know, in the first year there was a clawback of £27 million and in the second year a clawback of £45 million. As the outturn figures are very different from the estimated expenditure in many local authorities, we shall be faced this year with a substantial grant reduction and with a redistribution of the burden of the abatement among several authorities, which will amount to more than £8 million.
During discussion of clause 1 of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill we made our protests, but we got cold comfort from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). However, I still believe that we should not look upon the general abatements as being routine. It is an indictment of the system that £185 million has been clawed back under this Government by that method. The general
162
abatement and the selective action taken are now unashamedly tied to the guidelines. The Minister has talked at great length about the client group approach. I do not join in any general satisfaction about the guidelines and the way in which they have been drawn. It is significant that no fewer than 36 local authorities have guidelines for 1984–85 which contain less than their budgets for 1983–84.
Although the gap may have closed, as the Minister claimed, many of the guidelines are still totally unrealistic. Strathclyde regional council is an important authority and by far the largest in terms of expenditure. Its increase in guidelines this year over last year is only 1·5 per cent. In real terms, that must represent a very substantial cut. To talk about general satisfaction with the guidelines suggests only that the Secretary of State has not bothered to talk for long to Strathclyde. If he has done so, he has not listened to what the council had to say. Therefore, we should not forget the general abatement. The situation is unsatisfactory. The cover has been blown, and the guidelines are clearly now part of the very oppressive structure that the Secretary of State has put on the statute book in the past year or so.
The main item on the menu is the settlement for 1984–85. It is true that the relevant expenditure figure is up by just over £75 million. I think that the figure is £75·5 million or 2·8 per cent. However, that, of course, is very much less than the rate of inflation, however it is calculated, and represents a real decrease. The extent of the disaster can be seen by taking the current year's estimates. Let us assume that expenditure in real terms is static and that inflation is taken into account. In that case, local authorities would be paying about £140 million above the Secretary of State's planned figure of about £2,750 million. That would involve an increase of more than 4·9 per cent.
Some of the gaps that have appeared between the Government's settlement figures in specific areas of policy and local authorities' projected expenditure are dramatic. The Secretary of State will be familiar with the figures of 7·4 per cent. for education, 24·6 per cent. for transport and just over 33 per cent. for leisure and recreation. Although I seem to be dealing with rather academic and abstract concepts, they will mean substantial problems for local authorities which, in the real world, have to plan and maintain services.
I shall cite some examples from the areas that I have already mentioned. I may have a particular interest in transport and the section 20 grants that are paid by Strathclyde regional council. My understanding is that in 1984–85 these grants are likely to amount to some £32 million. When the subsidies for buses, ferries and other means of transport are added, Strathclyde is budgeting next year for about £55 million. The whole figure for Scotland in the Secretary of State's settlement is just over £56 million, which hardly covers Strathclyde, never mind making provision for all the other authorities. That is the measure of the unreality of the Secretary of State's arithmetic. On several occasions recently, at Question Time, when my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I have raised the matter, we have heard that the Secretary of State and his people are considering section 20 payments and the way the section 20 figure is arrived at. Yet nothing seems to be happening. I hope the Secretary of State will bear this matter very much in mind.

163
In regard to concessionary fares, if Scottish local authorities were to meet the targets which the Secretary of State claims are reasonable and which he has set, the concession on the fare for senior citizens would be reduced to about 20 per cent., which is hardly generous. If Strathclyde were to meet the figures, the concessionary fare of lop would have to go up to 20p. It will not, and I hope we will not get carping criticism from the Secretary of State about profligate and unrealistic councillors if they try to protect senior citizens from that kind of burden.
On education I had correspondence recently with the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) about a scheme in England under which money is being given to voluntary bodies by the Department of Health and Social Security to help with projects for the under-fives. It is expected that in the next two years expenditure will be about £2 million a year. When I asked the Under-Secretary about the Scottish equivalent, I was told that there will not be one, because it is all being done through the rate support grant. There was a great deal of bogus concern about the appropriate way of doing these things being by taking account of local circumstances and the needs to which these gave rise. I should like to take account of local circumstances and the needs to which they give rise. How can an education authority do that if there is a substantial cut in its provisions? It is bunkum to say these things when hard-pressed authorities will not be able to provide for the kind of expansion that would properly mirror the scheme put forward by central Government south of the border.
I do not want to labour what has already been said about the employment of teachers, but I understand that there is room for dispute about the figures for pupil numbers given by COSLA and the Secretary of State. Again, if the target laid down by the right hon. Gentleman is to be met, there will be a substantial decrease in the number of teachers employed in 1984–85. Let us not forget that COSLA is projecting on the basis of a drop of 800 teachers to account for falling school rolls. It reckons that, if it does what the Government ask, there will be 3,191 fewer teachers employed in Scotland. I invite the Under-Secretary to tell us whether he accepts that figure or to what extent there is margin for error.
There will be widespread distress and dismay in my constituency and every other constituency if local authorities are to do as they have been bid by the Secretary of State. He is relying on them not doing it because the outcry about the damage that would be done to education would be terrible.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will my hon. Friend accept that the discrepancy in the figures may relate partly to the fact that many pupils have gone back to school because they have not been able to find productive and reasonable employment? Therefore, the number of teachers should be increased rather than decreased.
Mr. Dewar: What my hon. Friend says is true. It is another example of how the Government's economic policy increases public spending in the worst of all possible ways. It leads, first, to enormous and insupportable dole queues and, secondly, to the situation to which my hon. Friend has referred. The Minister owes us a specific comment on the horrific loss in teaching staff that his figures seem to imply.
Not just relevant expenditure is down in real terms but, as the Secretary of State conceded, the grant percentage
164
has been reduced too. It is down by 1·5 per cent., which I am advised is equivalent to 4p on the rate poundage. If the cut of 1·5 per cent. had not been imposed and the original grant had been made, local authorities in Scotland would have had another £48·1 million. Therefore, it is not something to be shrugged off. It represents a substantial cut in real income.
It is unfortunate that there should be a squeeze at each end of the calculation. Local authorities may well feel that they are losing in every way. For the Secretary of State to appear at the Dispatch Box and give the impression that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds is the height of hypocrisy. It is unsatisfactory. Relationships between central and local Government will be further soured and damaged if Ministers continue down the path on which they seem to have set their way. The only thing they are doing is bringing in many irrelevant measures in the rating and valuation legislation which no one wants.
I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that there seems to be no point in the rate-capping provision, given the formidable battery of weapons that has accumulated on the statute book since 1979. That view is shared by many Tory councillors, including, for example, the leader of the Tories on Edinburgh district council who put the point eloquently to us recently on a visit to Westminster. I was delighted to find that we had unexpected but welcome allies in Edinburgh chamber of commerce, which finds the whole rate-capping provision constitutionally offensive. It is to its credit that it has been prepared publicly to make that point.
Individual authorities have suffered, as the Secretary of State accepts. In regard to the needs element distribution formula, in 1983–84 Strathclyde was getting £680 million; in 1984·85 the figure is £665 million, a substantial drop. It is not a case of a rise being overtaken in real terms by inflation, but a drop in cash terms. I am informed that that is the equivalent of a loss of about 7p in rate poundage. It is to some extent offset by an increase in the resources element, but the damage is still real. Experiences like that have embittered people right across the political spectrum in local government.
In the Glasgow Herald of, I think, last Friday there was reported a speech by councillor John Young, a very senior Conservative, who was talking specifically in the context of the shipbuilding crisis. I find it interesting that he should say:
"Merely condemning George Younger isn't going to achieve anything."
He did not try to defend the Secretary of State. He went on with a counsel of despair and cry of pain, asking that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) should be recalled to Scottish politics as Minister for the Clyde. It is worth recording in Hansard as a remarkable piece of loyalty that the hon. Member for Southend, East, while saying that it was a splendid idea, felt he had to decline the honour; he said:
"I can assure people that George Younger is proving to be a real tiger fighting at every level for the country's interests".
The right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) never struck me as a veritable tiger fighting for the rights of Scotland at every level. That phrase becomes perfectly laughable when we consider the right hon. Gentleman's record on rate support grant settlements in the past few years.

165
Strathclyde, Glasgow and west coast authorities are not the only ones that are worried. I have referred to some of Edinburgh's anxieties about the Government's legislative initiatives. Also in the Glasgow Herald we have a statement by Brian Meek, the convenor of the Tory-controlled Lothian Region, who was reported as saying:
"it was almost inevitable that the rates would have to rise. Taking all the factors in the rate support grant settlement the region was starting with an additional rate bill of 7p."
If we remember the constant prating of Conservative politicians about how they have championed the ratepayer —no doubt it will be commonplace again during the district elections in May—it seems extraordinary that such a well-known Conservative as Mr. Meek should be saying that what the Government are doing to Lothian this year will put a substantial impost on the ratepayers there. Perhaps the ratepayers will not have to bear the full burden, because many councils such as Glasgow and Strathclyde will try to ensure that they are to some extent sheltered from the arithmetic and logic of what the Government are doing. The trouble with that, however, is that they will not be thanked by the Secretary of State. Indeed, they will be met by carping criticism and probably by harsh and unnecessary penalties. That is why the Government's proposals are so offensive.
This is a dishonest campaign, which will work out unjustly and inequitably. The Government's policy in the past few years has been a sham— a ramshackle and illogical hypocrisy. Because of that, we shall protest against their record and against what they are promising in this rate support grant settlement in the Lobby tonight.
5.11 pm
Sir Hector Monro: I seem fated to speak after the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), with his histrionics and short memory. We get used to them. He always fails to recall what his party did when last in government—it cut the rate support grant by a bigger percentage than any previous Government. Indeed, the Labour party must be in the "Guinness Book of Records" for the number of times that it reduced the rate support grant. The Opposition reduced it by as much as 4 per cent. in one year. Yet we heard nothing of that today.
Mr. Dewar: My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) got tired of this gramophone record. I intend to try to deal with it only once, whereupon I hope to be able to ignore it. Will the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the 4 per cent. decrease to which he referred was much heralded and came after a hike in the rate support grant to allow for the one-off costs of reorganisation when the regions and the districts were created? If the hon. Gentleman is worried I suggest that he does not go back to ancient history but examines the record of the Government whom he supports. They have reduced rate support grant by 8 per cent. since coming to power and seem intent on doing more damage.
Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman has given us another lesson in economics. I am not impressed, as a 4 per cent. cut in one year is far more dramatic than a 1 or 2 per cent. cut in an ordinary year. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that being restrictive in public expenditure has been part of the Government's economic
166
strategy for the past five years. Within that calculation, local government must be taken into account when considering Government expenditure.
Mr. Maxton: Why?
Sir Hector Monro: Within the context of that policy, I do not disagree with the overall determination for this year, but I should like to make some constructive criticisms about the distribution of the rate support grant and about the fairness of the formula. I should also like an assurance that the client group method will bring advantages in 1985–86 to local authorities that keep within the guidelines.
In Committee, two weeks ago, I told my hon. Friend the Minister of my anxiety about how the formula will work for rural areas. He was good enough to tell me that he was acutely aware of the situation. I hope that he will go further today. Before the equivalent debate on the English rate support grant order, there was media comment to the effect that there would be concessions on rate support grant settlement to assist the counties and olive branches to the shires. I hope that rural areas in Scotland will receive similar comment. To that end, I should like rather more than refinements.
Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Hector Monro: Of course, but the hon. Gentleman should not interrupt while I am standing.
Mr. Maxton: I cannot interrupt the hon. Gentleman unless he is standing. In view of the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about rural areas, does he agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) who suggested recently that one way in which to get extra money for rural areas was to rate farmers and their land? Does he agree with that, and will he propose such a course of action?
Sir Hector Monro: No, I most certainly will not. It is a complete waste of time giving way to the hon. Gentleman. The remarks of councillor Sewel of COSLA in today's newspapers about inconsistencies are utterly incorrect. The Government are right to set an example by reducing public expenditure. It is therefore also right that the Government should, by legislation, do all within their power to ensure that local authority expenditure is kept down as much as possible. I see no inconsistency in that. A few weeks ago councillor Sewel said that Conservative Members had no local government experience. I suspect that one or two have had more experience as elected representatives in local authorities than councillor Sewel has.
I have studied circulars 13 and 14 of 1983 and the statutory instrument. To say that they are complicated is a major understatement. I should like to examine the rate support grant and the proposed payments relative to the guidelines. Dumfries and Galloway council kept expenditure down, in the national interest, in the interests of ratepayers and in the interests of encouraging industry to the area.
That was highly commendable. The rates fell this year by 8p in the pound, to about the lowest level in Scotland. I shall not dwell on the compilation of the relevant expenditure by the Scottish Development Department, which includes loan charges and does not include specific grants such as those for police, which produces the rate support grant figure. There is a small element of domestic

167
expenditure—one eighth for resources and seven eighths for needs. In future the resulting figures will be called the guidelines under the client group formula.
In 1983–84 the Dumfries and Galloway guideline was for £60,420,000. In 1984–85 it should have been £67,742,000 under the new formula, but it has been artificially reduced to £63,225,000 by the Scottish Development Department. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would explain how the change in the formula was arrived at, as it seems to transfer the guidelines amount from some local authorities to others which are classed as high spenders.
The reduced figure of £63·2 million is not matched by the RSG and, in cash terms, it is lower than it was in 1983–84. Surely my right hon. Friend will agree that the RSG settlement should at least match inflation. While we have obtained an increased guideline, we have been saddled with a reduced grant.
Thanks to extremely prudent housekeeping by the regional council, through the use of reserves it may not be necessary to put the rates up the full amount. Under the present circumstances, the rates will inevitably have to go up, perhaps by 4p or 5p in the pound. The reason for that, as my right hon. Friend said when presenting the proposals, lies in the reduction to 60:40 in the relationship between local authority and Government contributions. In the interests of forward planning by local authority treasurers, can he say whether the formula of 60:40 is final? Will it continue to be in the Government's favour in future?
The client group method of compilation should, in theory, benefit rural areas. According to figures that were given to me, the new formula would mean an adjustment of 0·4p this year in Dumfries and Galloway. If that continues, it will be many years before the authority reaches the figure for proper distribution produced by the formula. Will my right hon. Friend say how far he will move towards a proper distribution by means of the new client group method?
I hope, too, that my right hon. Friend will say a little more about a matter that he touched upon in Committee. He dealt with the needs element for rural areas, and said how important it would be for them to achieve a more worthwhile settlement for 1985–86. The Government have stated that prudent authorities that keep within the guidelines will receive better settlements than those that are profligate with public funds.
Many of the issues that I have raised in relation to expenditure in sparsely populated areas, where more is spent on transport and other services, will affect district councils in the same way. I hope that the Minister will say something about the problems in rural areas affected by the RSG formula as well as in the regions, with which I am mainly concerned.
Capital spending in my region will remain virtually static compared with the current year, although my right hon. Friend has made detailed changes in the regions. I cannot but notice that the Borders, Central, Fife, Highland and Tayside have increases in capital expenditure, while Lothian and Strathclyde have less. However, Dumfries and Galloway has not been allowed an increase, although it has set as fine an example as any local authority in Scotland.
I should like to see a much more equitable distribution of RSG next year. I hope that we shall hear some encouraging news when the Under-Secretary winds up the
168
debate. While the Government's policies are right overall to keep down public expenditure, the distribution formula as it affects rural areas is inconsistent with the Government's aims.
5.25 pm
Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Like the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), I have served on a local authority. I was elected to serve on a local authority in 1952, more than 30 years ago. I hasten to add, for the benefit of my junior colleagues, that I was elected as a young 23-year-old. I have had an interest in local authority matters for all those 30 years. I cannot think of any time when elected members of local authorities were more frustrated and demoralised than they are at present.
The hon. Member for Dumfries quoted yet again a set of selected figures. I have talked to councillors from both urban and rural authorities, and they often say that they much preferred the 68·5 per cent. rate support grant which they had from my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) when he was Secretary of State to the rate support grant which they now receive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that it had been suggested by a Glasgow Tory that we should go outside Scotland, to Southend, to find someone to tackle our problems. That proposition does not appeal to me. The Secretary of State and his colleagues must realise that much anger and bitterness are felt by local councillors of all parties. They are doing a thoroughly good job. They are the people who know best the problems of their areas. It is only right and proper, if democracy means anything at all, that they should be allowed to get on with that task.
Those people bitterly resent—I would, too, if I were still a member of a local authority—the constant cutting of what they deem to be essential services. The hon. Member for Dumfries naturally and properly spoke about the problems of rural areas. However, I am sure he will concede that those who represent urban communities have serious problems too, and I hope to deal with them in a few moments.
Local councillors also resent the sneering cynics who tell them from time to time that they are nothing but big spenders. The Secretary of State said that again today. In a sweeping way, he said that local authorities were still spending far too much. I wish that the Secretary of State and his Ministers would get it into their heads that one of the reasons why local authorities are now under an obligation to spend more than they have had to spend for some time is that the problems with which they must deal, mainly created by this Administration, are greater now than they have ever been in the 30 years that I have been associated with local government.
We recently debated the Rates Bill, which is concerned with rate capping, which is an unfortunate expression, because people do not know what it means. It means simply that the Secretary of State will be the Big Brother of 1984 and will tell everyone what they should do. However, nothing much was said about the the Bill in Scotland.
Mr. Maxton: There are no Conservative rebels there.
Mr. Mackenzie: There was not a cheep from Scottish Conservative Members. Nobody bothered about the matter and it was only last week, when their English counterparts

169
came to the fore and rebelled, that the issue suddenly took life in the House. Those who represent the Conservative party in Scotland would be well advised to talk to local councillors about what they think about rate capping, and then tell us and the Secretary of State their views.
Conservative Members should also have a word with some of their colleagues in councils about another matter which they resent. The point was made effectively by a former Conservative Cabinet Minister last week, when he said that it was a crime for local authorities to be asked to reduce costs and be compelled by the Government to reduce expenditure at a time when central Government expenditure was increasing by 2 per cent. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) gave the figure, and I can only repeat what he said.
I am bound to tell the Secretary of State, through his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, that some of the services on which the money is being spent are not first priorities on our list. I read—I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—that we are to spend £800 million on an airstrip on the Falkland Islands, I have a great deal of sympathy with the Falkland Islanders, but then I think about what a district council in Scotland could do with that amount of money. The Falklands are hardly the size of Millport, but money is being poured in there. If such money were poured into the deprived areas of Scotland, the Secretary of State would get our genuine support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden referred to the COSLA paper on recreation and leisure. He said that the COSLA estimate of the shortfall there was about 33 per cent. I have seen the closure of sporting facilities in my constituency. In the region we have seen swimming baths and other sporting facilities closed. We have seen the posponement, yet again, of the building of running tracks, athletic fields, and so on, at a time when there are more unemployed young people than we have had in Scotland in all the time that I can remember. Instead of harnessing the energies of these young people into good, healthy sporting activities, this Government, in their concern about rates, are prepared to allow those young people to roam the streets of our big cities and often cause great mischief while doing so.
I have a number of deprived areas in my constituency, where there is massive unemployment. Let me give one example. I am privileged, in companionship with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), to represent the people of Castlemilk. I am told that unemployment among young people there is about 50 per cent. I have also seen the housing in that part of the city. We do not have boarded-up houses or blocks of flats; we have boarded-up streets. It is a most depressing sight. One has to see it to believe the deprivation that exists there. There is no encouragement for young people to stay in their own homes. I should be rebuked by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were to refer to the next order, but that has been laid, because the local authority has not been given the proper resources to carry out effective and essential repairs.
There are many good local organisations in Castlemilk which do useful voluntary work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart and I know well. However, our councillors tell us constantly that they could do a great deal more if the resources were available to help these young people. I have heard many complaints, particularly during
170
the past year—very proper complaints, and from all sides of the House—about glue sniffing, vandalism and young people taking drugs. I would rather the Secretary of State spent money on a new swimming pool or running track in my constituency than on trying to cure young people of glue sniffing and drug addiction. In my opinion, they are closely linked. If we are to harness the enthusiasm and energy of young people, that is what we must do.
Mr. Maxton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problem of drug addiction in Scotland has been made marginally worse by the Government, who have cut back on Customs and Excise officers to such an extent that Scottish ports are no longer manned on a 24-hour basis, thus making drug smuggling that much easier?
Mr. MacKenzie: I have heard that, and I deprecate the fact that it is making it easier for many people to take drugs.
At the other end of the scale—I shall not rehearse the arguments which I gave in the Scottish Grand Committee a few weeks ago—councillors in Scotland are genuinely concerned about the pathetic treatment by the Government of our elderly citizens. In the last couple of days our national newspapers have contained serious criticisms of that treatment. All of us, as Members of Parliament, have received representations from voluntary organisations such as the Crossroads Care Attention Scheme, which has been a useful adjunct to the services provided by local authorities.
We begin to realise that we shall not get much change out of the Secretary of State. Local councillors, and the local people whom they represent, know what they want to do for old people, if the Secretary of State does not know. They want more old folks' homes, certainly more day-care centres for the elderly, more home helps than the order will permit, sheltered housing, which will no doubt be considered on the next order, and the provision of better trained people to look after these old people and keep them in their own homes.
Frankly, the resources which the Secretary of State is giving local authorities will not match the growing problem of the elderly in Scotland. The Under-Secretary of State should pay more attention to this matter. When he winds up the debate, I hope that he will say something about the concessionary fares, which are much used and appreciated by elderly people — that is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he has the good fortune to catch your eye.
Most of us know—certainly I do—from talking to our local councillors, COSLA and the people whom we have the privilege to represent, what they want to do for both the young and the old in the community. If local democracy means anything, the Secretary of State should listen to the voices of the councillors and not just to the special interest groups, which he seems to favour more than the people who have been elected to do the job.
The Secretary of State recently offended all of us by taking unto himself powers greater than any Secretary of state has taken before. A few weeks ago, one of his right hon. Friends said to the Secretary of State for the Environment that Secretaries of State were taking on more powers than were given to Ministers even in time of war. That is something that we should all deprecate. If the Secretary of State for Scotland wants to be convenor, lord provost and Secretary of State all wrapped up in one, he

171
should go out into the streets in Scotland. The people there will tell him what they want. They will tell him that they want a great deal more assistance for the local authorities.
5.40 pm
Mr. Gerald Malone: It is interesting to note that the fire has gone out of Her Majesty's Opposition during the debate. We have heard a lame rehearsal of the arguments that we hear time and time again.
The truth is that this is an issue upon which there is almost a consensus. It has been recognised for a significant time that restrictions on local authority spending are essential. That was recognised by the Opposition when they were in Government. We should compliment the Labour Government on its success in cutting manpower levels. Between 1966 and 1967 it achieved much more than we have achieved, cutting manpower by 10,000. There is a consensus that local authority expenditure is important and that it would escalate if the House did not put some ceiling upon it. The measures proposed by the Government today are sensible and impose a reasonable constraint.
I am pleased to note that local authorities that have behaved responsibly in the past will not now be penalised as they have been. Among those authorities I can include Aberdeen district council in whose area my constituency is located, because after its annual outturn last year its rate support grant will not be cut.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Grampian regional council is Tory controlled. It is bitter about the fact that, despite its pleas to the Secretary of State, its education budget has been severely cut. The City of Aberdeen district council, too, is very upset because the proposed leisure centre that has been on the stocks for some time has now been finally vetoed by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that he is wrong about the leisure centre. I believe that Aberdeen district council received a letter from the Secretary of State yesterday and discussed it at a council meeting. The Secretary of State made it clear that this was the first time that he had had to consider a proposal for a leisure centre on such a scale. He gave the council the option of seeking private funds, if it chose to build a substantial leisure facility. Within the area of Aberdeen there are already substantial leisure facilities. I believe that this special complex should be supported, but not exclusively by the rate support grant or by central Government.
The hon. Gentleman referred to complaints from Conservative councillors in Grampian region. Conservative Members of Parliament must meet criticism from Conservative councillors head on and explain to them as to Labour councillors both in regions and in districts that restraint is necessary. As long as the restraint is imposed fairly, I think that it is right.
We will always be met by requests for more money, but there comes a time when we must stand up to those requests. That is why we are having this debate, and why I consider that the levels of rate support grant that have been set are fair.
Restraint will encourage more efficiency in local government. Efficiency should be encouraged wherever
172
possible, and there is still scope for improvement. I congratulate Aberdeen district council for meeting its budget and running an efficient local authority. Like most people, the council wants more money, but it has managed to work well within its budget. That should he a source of satisfaction to all hon. Members.
Finally, I cannot believe that, in their hearts, the Opposition want an increase in local authority expenditure. When in office, the Labour party always did what we have done. Are the restraints being spread fairly throughout the community? That is the test, and I believe that they are. Manning levels in local authorities are in no way below what they have been during the past five or six years. Pupil-teacher ratios are better than they have ever been. If services are run efficiently, they can be better than in the past. It is the duty of the House to respect not only the ratepayer but the taxpayer. The taxpayer is being respected and supported by the Government in setting the rate support grant at this level. The Government are to be congratulated. The battle has been fought constantly by Governments of both parties. The Opposition will do themselves no good by being turncoats and suggesting that they would have done anything different.
5.45 pm
Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) talked about a consensus. He is right in one respect. There is a consensus among Scottish councillors of all political parties against the Government's action over the rate support grant. That is made clear in the press every day.
In his opening address the Secretary of State implied —as he has done before—that reductions could be made by reducing extravagance or ending unnecessary expenditure and that there was some great excess of fat to be trimmed away. However, even in far more affluent days, the local authorities which I have served never had any excess fat to trim away, and their position has become worse in recent years.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) referred to the heavier costs of rural areas, but he made a mistake which is often made by Conservative Members. He avowed support of the Government's intention to reduce expenditure, but he does not want it to be done on his doorstep. I have a rural constituency which is in great financial difficulties, but I oppose the reduction in rate support grant on behalf of the whole of Scotland.
The hon. Member for Dumfries was right in claiming that control or reduction of the rate support grant is not a new policy.
"Concern to control local expenditure is not new. It existed throughout the period of the last Labour Government."
Those are not my words or the words of my party. Those are the words of Dr. Arthur Midwinter, of Strathclyde university, who is an expert on administration and local government in Scotland, and he is correct. The Labour Government in 1976–77 and 1977–78 made cuts in Scottish local government spending, and it was the Labour Secretary of State who introduced the spending guidelines and cash limits. Using such guidelines, the present Secretary of State, now with increased powers of intervention and diktat, can break the chains of local democracy and accountability by coming between the local authority and its electorate. He can now determine expenditure and, effectively, rate levels, by deciding that expenditure is excessive and unreasonable.

173
The Secretary of State has chanted the phrase "excessive and unreasonable" in the hope that the public will come to believe it. Perhaps he has only succeeded in convincing himself that it is true, because no one else, outside his band of Tory monetarists, believes it. The methodology which underlies the determination of what is excessive and unreasonable is flawed and has no intellectual credibility. It would have none whether it was a Tory or Labour Secretary of State who uttered those now infamous words, because the guidelines themselves are unstable, illogical and unfair.
I shall give some details of the rate support grant. In 1976 the grant made up 76 per cent. of the planning total of Scottish local government expenditure. By 1983–84 it comprised only 61·7 per cent. of total relevant expenditure. In the coming financial year, 1984–85, it will have been reduced to just over 60 per cent. That drop in rate support grant means, inevitably, that local authority rates must rise if services are to be maintained at a satisfactory level. It seems, however, that the Government are determined that such services should be cut to the bone, and we all know what is happening in our constituencies.
The proposed settlement of the grant for 1984–85 is, in cash terms, only a 3·8 per cent. increase on the final 1983–84 settlement. In other words, given the rate of inflation over the past year, it is a cut in real terms. Just as with the housing support grant, which has been slashed to the point of non-existence in Scotland, the Government are determined to tighten the financial screw on Scottish local authorities.
As Mr. John Sewel, the president of COSLA said:
"The two announcements together show that the Secretary of State is determined to hammer both ratepayers and local authority tenants."
There is good reason why we should not have to suffer in this way. Last year, Scottish oil revenues alone contributed some £9 billion to the Treasury, and that figure will increase during the next few years. In 1980–81, expenditure under Scottish Office control amounted to 5·65 per cent. of total United Kingdom expenditure. That expenditure has dropped steadily over the years and stood at only 5·3 per cent. in 1983–84. Other figures given in the Official Report on 2 December 1983 show that, in real terms, in the 1982–83 financial year the Scottish Office received only 96 per cent. of the spending total that it was awarded in 1975–76.
Taking 1975–76 as baseline 100, the Scottish programme plummeted to 90·8 per cent. of that in 1977–78 under Labour, and by 1982–83 it had still not recovered to its 1975–76 level. That is an appalling state of affairs, given what Scotland contributes to the Treasury. Whichever way one looks at it, it is daylight robbery, and it will go on.
Those who are supposed to be protecting Scotland and who claim the Scottish mandate — members of the Labour party—are allowing this to happen because they have bowed weakly before Westminster's sovereignty. The Scottish mandate exists, but has force only when it is wielded by those who believe in freedom and self-determination for the country, not when it is claimed spuriously by those whose real desire is to regain power at Westminster.
Mr. Maxton: I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House how, if we cannot achieve a Scottish Assembly or get matters through the House, the SNP proposes to do it, except by undemocratic means.
Mr. Stewart: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's statement about undemocratic means. We shall achieve it by a mandate from the Scottish electorate. We will come to the House and ask Parliament to recognise the wishes of the Scottish people. From what I heard during the devolution debates, I believe that there are sufficient English Members who will see justice done in accordance with the democratic wishes of the Scottish people. If they do not, we will stand on the United Nations charter and claim the right which the Scottish people have demanded.
The present Tory Administration in Scotland are not based on democracy and therefore we should not be surprised if they act undemocratically. Their actions are an affront to the Scottish tradition of local government and local autonomy. They have no moral basis for their actions, and unfortunately the Labour party in Scotland shows no signs of action to back up their moral right. Thus, Scotland is twice the loser and our people continue to suffer hammer blow after hammer blow.
No SNP majority which could legitimately claim the Scottish mandate would have allowed this dreadful position to develop. With the Scottish mandate behind us, an independent Scottish Parliament would already exist.
5.54 pm
Mr. Michael Hirst: My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) made a passing reference to comments in the Glasgow Herald. For the edification of my colleagues and, I suspect, Opposition Members I wish to quote what Councillor John Sewel had attributed to him in this morning's Glasgow Herald. He said:
"Scottish Conservative MPs will lose any semblance of consistency and integrity if they vote in support of the Scottish Rate Support Grant settlement."
I take great exception to Councillor John Sewel making such a statement. That is rich coming from the representative of a party who made the largest single cut in the rate support grant.
The Opposition have an amazing facility for forgetting unpalatable political facts which reflect upon their years in office. We have watched synthetic indignation from this side of the House. The Opposition's pathetic attendance bears testimony to the fact that they are not interested.
There is a tendency for the Opposition to forget that local government expenditure takes a sizeable proportion of the resources available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and that overspending preempts funds that could go to other projects that Conservative Members happen to cherish.
Mr. Maxton: Like the Falklands.
Mr. Hirst: Let us move on from the Falklands. I shall reiterate a point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). He grudgingly conceded that spending was higher in real terms in the current year than it was under the last year of the Labour Government. That gives the lie to the muted opposition that we are hearing this afternoon.
The rate support grant order provides a challenge to Scottish local authorities. They employ, on average, 20

175
per cent. more manpower than corresponding authorities south of the border. That is making allowances for the differences in services. There lies the challenge. If local authorities can contain their manpower, clearly they will be able to live perfectly easily within the rate support grant without having to cut services or increase rates.
I am hopeful, and I have justification for so being, that local authorities will take notice following the selective orders that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland found necessary to impose on four local authorities last year. The experience of Glasgow, and the opposition some monthe ago to the selective order, would have prompted one to believe that services there would have fallen apart. The contrary is true. It now appears to me and many Conservative Members that Glasgow is so flush with funds that it can, during an election year, offer the bribe of no increase in rents.
The Opposition cannot have it both ways. They cannot stand up as did the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), who complained about the quality of housing in his constituency, and ask what can be done to improve it if, at the same time, the ruling Labour group refuses to increase rents.
There is a tendency in such a debate to be somewhat parochial, and I make no apology for that. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) will appreciate this point because until recently he represented my part of the world. In Strathkelvin district council, which is unfortunately, but only until May, run by the Labour party, the provost has said that nothing is sacred in the district council's quest to get its budget down to near the guidelines set for it. I genuinely see that as welcome evidence that the district council has recognised that it has an obligation to its ratepayers to bring its spending into line with guidelines.
The experience of my other local authority suggests something very different—that it is possible to maintain services and to hold rates steady, or even to decrease them, while bearing a reduction in rate support grant. Conservative-controlled Bearsden and Milngavie is an excellent example of a prudent local authority that gives its ratepayers value for money. That district council has had an impressive record during recent years in balancing the need for economy with maintenance of services and protection of the ratepayers' pockets. Year after year, through prudent housekeeping, it has succeeded in keeping its final outturn of expenditure in line with its guidelines. Yet in the past, that authority has been penalised together with all the overspenders through a general abatement of its rate support grant.
In four years the Conservative administration has succeeded in keeping its rates increases to an absolute minimum. I am confident that the outcome of this year's budget will result in a further reduction. I wish to place on record my admiration for that district council. I am sure that hon. Members understand that the Conservative councillors will be glad that I have placed my appreciation on record.
Those achievements have been won in the face of the difficulties imposed by the cuts in rate support grant and the fact that the size of the authority makes economies especially difficult. If a local authority has 12 people in a certain department, it can reduce that number. But in departments in a small local authority such as Bearsden and Milngavie it is difficult to make a cut from two to one.
176
There have been no complaints from councillors, of whatever political hue, about rate capping or selective orders. They know, as all sensible councillors in Scotland know, that if they engage in prudent management and sensible policies within their councils, the prospect of rate capping or selective orders will not materialise.
Mr. Maxton: A large number of the services provided for the hon. Gentleman's constituents are actually provided by Glasgow ratepayers—for example, leisure activities. The hon. Gentleman is explaining the difficulties of small staffs in small district councils. Would it not be better, therefore, to return to the original Wheatley proposals and include such areas as Bearsden, Bishopbriggs and Eastwood within Glasgow district council?
Mr. Hirst: That proposal will be greeted with horror by my constituents because they would not wish to be governed by the people who returned the hon. Gentleman to Parliament. I wish to nail firmly the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about constituents who live just outwith the Glasgow city boundaries. They make a significant contribution to the well-being and the provision of resources within Glasgow and the west of Scotland. Not only are they people of enterprise and talent who create jobs and pay rates in Glasgow, but the rateable value of the property outwith Glasgow is artificially high. That means that they pay substantial contributions to the Strathclyde budget.
I do not want Glasgow Members to draw again across the scene that red herring about the advantages enjoyed by my constituents. I am confident that if the example of such local authorities as mine is followed throughout Scotland, in 1984–85 thus will have a great opportunity to bring their budget into line with the guidelines. In that way, they will avoid the necessity for selective orders or the fear of rate capping referred to by the Opposition.
6.6 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: If the plight of poor people in many parts of Scotland could be remedied by pomposity and platitudes, many of them would be better off having listened to the load of drivel from the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst). He should realise that there is a world outside Strathkelvin and Bearsden. The rosy, affluent comfortable picture which confronts him when he returns to his constituency at the weekend does not exist in many other parts of Scotland.
We know that the Government are culpable in the Highlands region, because they have caused industrial and social devastation by not supporting the Invergordon smelter, which had to close despite the fact that an entire population was dependent on it.
The Prime Minister's only response was that people should move elsewhere. Yet many people, as a deliberate part of the repopulation policy of successive Labour and Conservative Governments, had moved out of the central belt to the Highlands—to the Corpach pulp mill at Fort William and to Invergordon. Yet all that the Government can say is that they should move yet again. That is the true level of social concern shown by this Government.
Sir Hector Monro: What about the enterprise zone?
Mr. Kennedy: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the enterprise zone opened amidst dubiety and doubt about its

177
funding I was present at the opening of the zone, but the hon. Gentleman was not sufficiently interested in the plight of my constituents to be present. When the Scottish Office Minister for Industry opened the zone, he acknowledged that there were problems, and I compliment the Government on doing something about that—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
Sir Hector Monro: No.
Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman has obviously expended enough energy for one evening.
I shall return to the rate support grant order. The change of method from the demographic to the client group approach affects the Highlands regional council. It has been estimated that, without any alteration in the level of services, it will add 2·5p to the rates this year, 2·5p next year and, over the three years during which it is to be phased in — and I welcome the fact that it is to be phased in only gradually — it will add a total of 7p to the rates. Last week the distribution committee of the local government finance working party, which includes representatives from the Scottish Office, acknowledged that there was a need for further refinement and investigation of the client group approach, and we welcome that.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was at particular pains to stress the problems faced by rural areas, and I agree with him on that. The Government must recognise that rural areas will be affected by the change in methodology to the client group approach. I hope that if increased costs are placed upon local authorities later in the year the Government will not turn round and use a heavy hand approach. They must acknowledge that 7p will be added to the rates in the Highlands regional council area simply because of the change. I ask for tolerance from the Government.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, far from asking the Government for tolerance, he is on very thin ice indeed, because his constituents are already more than privileged by getting a subsidy of nearly £100 per head from the Highlands and Islands Development Board? Those of us with rural constituencies who are not so privileged look on the efforts that are made by the Government on his behalf with some envy. He would do well not to bite the hand that feeds him.
Mr. Kennedy: My constituents will be interested to hear that an hon. Member from the Stirling area feels that they are privileged. That kind of patronising attitude will go down like a ton of bricks when the next Conservative candidate fights Ross, Cromarty and Skye, and in fairness to the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) I shall remind my constituents of his words.
The Secretary of State acknowledged that some local authorities were spending more in real terms now than they were a few years ago. When the three Members of Parliament whose constituencies take in the Highland regional council area met representatives of the council during the Christmas recess—I refer to my hon. Friends the Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) and myself—the problem that is faced by the Highlands was highlighted by the sort of comparison that the Secretary of State made.
178
In real terms, Inverness district council was spending on 400 miles of roadway on Skye one half of what the entire Highland regional council now has to spend on 4,000 miles of roadway throughout the entire Highlands region. The Secretary of State is perhaps being selective in his choice of statistics when he portrays an image of local authorities spending more and more in real terms. In the Highlands regional council area that is certainly not the case.
I urge the Government, despite the draconian measures which they have introduced in the last two years for local government finance and the change in methodology which they are introducing this year, to be tolerant of the problems of the Highlands. We need no pomposity and patronising, but Government support.
6.12 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: We have just listened to what I would describe as middle of the road drivel and we know what happens to people who occupy the middle of the road. They get run over.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) said, the problems of the Highland area are recognised by the Government, so much so that they are permitting expenditure of £100 per head in excess of that which is spent in the Highland area of Perthshire.
Mr. Kennedy: We appreciate that, but that money would have been better spent, for example, preserving a pulp mill in Fort William instead of which trees are now being cut down, sent to Scandinavia, turned into pulp and brought back to the Highlands to produce paper.
Mr. Walker: I shall not drift into an area that is not covered by the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have been asked to limit my remarks and I have agreed to do so. Anyone who tries to run a business when the customers are not prepared to pay the true cost of the goods must expect that business to disappear. That is the logic of the real world, and the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) should be satisfied that real efforts are being made to assist his constituents.
I have news for the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart); I agreed with him about the guidelines being unfair. However, I believe that they are still too high for authorities with a history of high spending and high borrowing. But as they are less unfair than they were, there has been an improvement in that respect.
From the speech of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) one would imagine that he had never been in government—that he was not part of the Administration who reduced expenditure massively at the behest of the IMF—and I regret that he is not in his place. He has a marvellous facility for ignoring the failures of many decades of Labour councils and many years of Labour Government. He said that we should listen to councillors. Labour Members did not listen to councillors when they savagely reduced the rate support grant during their years in office.
We must debate this issue against the background of the Government attempting—I put it no higher than that—to contain local authority expenditure in Scotland. After all, 53 per cent. of everything that the Secretary of State has in his budget is local authority expenditure, so the Secretary of State cannot ignore what the local authorities are doing

179
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) was right to say that there is a consensus across the Chamber on the question of restricting local government spending. There may be differences in emphasis and view about how it is to be achieved, which is no doubt why we are having such a muted response from the Opposition.
In the current year, Scottish local authorities budgeted to overspend on the Government's target by £126 million, or nearly 10 per cent., and that could not be ignored. The RSG settlement for 1983–84 allowed an unallocated sum to give local authorities more time in which to bring their expenditure into line. They did not do so, and when that is taken into account, we find that planned spending was still £121 million higher than the Government required, 4·5 per cent. higher than was assumed in the 1983–84 settlement.
That was why the Government were forced to act against four local authorities to reduce their rates by the equivalent of £19 million, and on 2 November 1983 a general abatement of £45 million was enacted. Unfortunately, when there are general abatements of that kind, the good guys suffer with the bad. That is unfortunate because the good authorities — there are many of them in Scotland—must watch the bad guys benefiting at their expense. That meant that 52 per cent. of local authorities' overspend for the 1983–84 period was contained. My complaint is that 48 per cent. was not. I find that disturbing and I should like to see even tougher measures taken to bring under control authorities which overspend.
It is against that background that we are debating the order for the rate support grant settlement for 1984–85, which shows a cash increase of 3·7 per cent. on the previous year. That sum takes into account the lower level of national insurance surcharge payable and changes in the administration of the housing benefit. I accept that this settlement represents a cut in the percentage rate support grant of 1·5 per cent.—from 61·7 per cent. to 60·2 per cent. — but that must be seen against the 1977–78 Labour Government cut of 4 per cent., and that was the year of truly savage cuts.
Bearing that in mind, we must consider the manpower of local authorities in Scotland. We have heard that it is about 20 per cent. higher per head of population than in England, and that cannot be explained away by the sparsity factor alone. Some authorities with large and extensive rural areas, such as Perth and Kinross, have relatively low staffing ratios, while in many city authorities they are relatively high.
Perhaps that explains why, since 1978–79, expenditure by Scottish local authorities has increased by 97 per cent. compared with only 85 per cent. in England and Wales. That is why the rates in Scotland during this period have increased by about 128 per cent., whereas the Scottish grant has gone up by about the rate of price increases. That has meant the ratepayers being forced to fund the increased expenditure. In other words, in my constituency the ratepayers and taxpayers are losing out to high-spending, high-rate authorities such as Dundee. If the Dundee rates were remotely near the rate levels of Perth and Kinross and those of Angus district council, the Tayside health board would have an extra £1 million or more to spend every year. There is a threat to rural hospitals in Tayside because of the high-spending and high-borrowing Labour authority.
Mr. Maxton: Hospitals are run by health boards.
Mr. Walker: Those in the Tayside region face hundreds of thousands of pounds of extra rates because of the Dundee district's high rate. The schools in Dundee are rated, and because of that the rural schools in Perthshire and Angus are forced to make economies. High-spending and high-borrowing authorities such as Dundee filch money that should be spent on education, health and other services. If those were the only areas of central Government expenditure to be affected by rates, that would be sufficient reason for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to intervene. However, many other central Government bodies face massive rates increases, not least the Ministry of Defence. Every time the rates increase, the Ministry of Defence faces a bigger bill.
Against that background, I welcome the changes being made. I recognise the position of low-borrowing and low-spending authorities, such as Perth and Kinross and Angus district council. They take into account the historical low base and allow for that in the calculations for the guidelines and their expenditure.
It is nonsense to talk about the destruction of local authorities. Staffing levels in schools show a pupil-teacher ratio of 20·3:1 in primary schools and 14·3:1 in secondary schools, the best that have ever been achieved. Parents are involved in school councils and they have the ability to select the school to which they want to send their children. They have the opportunity to buy their own homes, that is, their council houses. We should welcome the present situation and not carp about it.
6.23 pm
Mr. Gavin Strang: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) had the effrontery to describe this as a muted debate. I do not agree with him. If there has been anything muted about it, it has been the remarkable failure of Conservative Members to criticise the Government's local government policies. Year in and year out, we have Conservative councillors coming to Westminster from Scotland to tell us how much damage central Government are inflicting on local government.
Mr. Bill Walker: Name one.
Mr. Strang: I shall name a councillor in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, or, to be more precise, in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). Only at lunch-time today Councillor Proudfoot was telling us how disastrous this year's rate support grant would be for local authorities. Throughout the Christmas recess we were subjected to press reports in Scotland of English Tory Members of Parliament who were prepared to tell the Secretary of State for the Environment that the Government would not get away with their proposed impositions on local government. The Scottish Conservatives have gone along with rate capping. The Secretary of State's rate support grant cut is bound to force up rates, but not one Tory Member has raised a note of criticism.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman name the councillor to whom he has referred outside the House?
Mr. Maxton: Scottish Labour Members will support my hon. Friend—in court, if necessary—because we were all present at the meeting to which he referred.
Mr. Strang: I am surprised at the hon. Member for Tayside, North. As I understood it, Councillor Proudfoot was speaking for his local authority at an open meeting with Labour Members of Parliament. I am sure that he will be disappointed by the speech made by the hon. Gentleman.
The Secretary of State justifies the Government's policy on the need to impose further cuts in local government spending. The Opposition believe that those cuts in public expenditure are doing enormous damage to Scotland. They are responsible for mass unemployment and the standing army of young unemployed. For the first time, the majority of school leavers do not have proper jobs to go to, and they end up on the dole or on a youth training scheme. In addition, we have a Government with a grotesque sense of priorities. They are prepared to spend £800 million on the Falklands airport, and 10,000 million on Trident — that massive escalation of nuclear weaponry that will be based on the Clyde.
We are fundamentally opposed to the Government's policy towards local government. It is a bit slick for the Secretary of State to argue that cutting the rate support grant does not lead to an increase in rates. He says that they leave one factor out of the equation — that local authorities can cut their expenditure even more. We all know that in theory that is possible, but the reality is that the lower the percentage of rate support grant from central Government, the higher the rate will be.
Massive cuts in services are being imposed in the Lothian region. In response to the rate support grant settlement, we have to contend with the thinking of the Conservative chairman of the finance committee. On Saturday, 10 December, after the settlement was announced, the Evening News reported the chairman as saying:
"Higher rates in Lothian and further cuts in social work and education frills were forecast today by the region's finance chairman, Councillor Malcolm Knore."
He added:
"Even if we kept within the Secretary of State's guidelines on expenditure, it would be impossible to achieve lower rates."
By the way, among the services that he described as "frills" was nursery education.
The reality is that Lothian is suffering from the cuts. Last week Labour Members representing constituencies in Lothian were received by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for the Health Service, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the effect of the cuts. In Lothian we have a real cut in expenditure on the National Health Service this year. Hundreds of nurses' jobs have been destroyed already. Over 1,500 households have been deprived of a home help since the cuts were imposed. More than 1,500 housebound people are now deprived of a home help.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred especially to teaching. If there is any education area that is suffering cuts, it is Lothian. In last night's Evening News a front-page headline read:
"Schools in cuts alert. Catastrophe lies ahead warn Lothian teachers."
The article reads:
"Lothian teachers today warned of the 'catastrophic' effect continued cash cuts could have on education."
182
The teachers went on to outline the hundreds of jobs that have been destroyed in teaching. It appears that over 1,500 jobs have been destroyed in teaching since the Government started imposing the cuts.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not advocating that we should increase the number of teachers, even though the number of children in our schools is declining. There are fewer teachers because there are fewer children in the schools.
Mr. Strang: Falling rolls provide an opportunity to improve education in our schools. However, real cuts in the standard of education are being imposed in Lothian schools. If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, I suggest that he speaks to any cross-section of Conservative voters in Edinburgh. At least, they will bear that out if they send their children to state schools.
The national vice-president of the EIS, Mr. Henry Philip, who I think is to be the local chairman of the EIS in Edinburgh and who I know is not a Labour supporter, said:
"Lothian used to be the leading education authority in Scotland, because of the richness of the curriculum it offered its pupils and because of its care for the individual child. It is slipping back into mediocrity.
The short-term savings on maintenance and equipment are already proving more costly in the end. Effects on material things always show up sooner."
The most remarkable feature about the report is the response of the education chairman, Councillor James Gilchrist, who said:
"I think this proves that the EIS are more opposed to the Conservative group than to the cuts."
He suggests that the teachers are against the Tory administration in Lothian, but are acquiescing in education cuts in Strathclyde.
I doubt that the EIS is acquiescing to that extent in accepting the cuts that the Government are trying to impose on Strathclyde. That chairman says that there will be virtually no end to the cuts in the standard of education that will be imposed in the forthcoming year on Lothian.
Constituents who supported the great campaign to reduce rates in Lothian believed that they would be much better off, but they did not realise what a pittance the rate cuts would be for the vast majority. Some, who have had significant reductions in their rate bills, were RAGE supporters. They are taking part in deputations to the education committee and doing everything possible to persuade local and national Tories that there must be some halt to the damage that is being done to services in Lothian. I hope that the Minister who replies—he is also a Scottish Member— will address himself to the enormity of the Government's actions in Lothian.
6.31 pm
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: I shall not detain the House for long. The quality of life of ordinary working people on low incomes depends enormously on the services provided by local councils — housing, education, roads, police, recreational facilities, concessionary fares for old people and meals-on-wheels. The Tory Government, who are composed primarily of wealthy people, see that as anathema to their philosophy. They do not like the idea of ordinary working people receiving such services at the expense of taxpayers and ratepayers. They do not like a redistribution of wealth in terms of services.

183
My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. Mackenzie) made that point earlier when he talked about our objections to listening to the smooth speech of the wealthy Secretary of State for Scotland. He does not know how ordinary people live. He talks about spendthrift local councils, but he is a Cabinet Minister in a Tory Government who are to spend at least £700 million a year in each of the next three years on the Falkland Islands, with more than £100,000 on each prefabricated house that is being built there. Just this afternoon the Prime Minister said that we should not begrudge that expenditure, but the Government begrudge expenditure in Glasgow and Edinburgh. They should take Glasgow and Edinburgh to the Falklands and they would then have some idea of the catastrophe that must be faced. This is a matter of priorities and the will to spend money in the right directions.
Fife, Glasgow, Edinburgh and urban and rural areas throughout Scotland are deprived because the Government are not providing them with the resources to undertake measures to solve the unemployment problem. Youngsters, bricklayers, plumbers and electricians are raring to go, and throughout the country there are housing lists the length of an arm. For God's sake, bring the two together. Nurses and doctors throughout Britain are unemployed, yet they could be employed by the sensible, intelligent use of our resources.
We can indulge in an argy-bargy about figures and selectively cite one figure or another, but the basic question is: how do we distribute the country's enormous wealth? I take issue with the Scottish National party when it pretends that the simple solution is somehow to cut off Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom and everything will be all right. The problem is more fundamental than that.
In past years, we have had a succession of debates similar to this. Local democracy, with democratically elected councils, is in great peril. We are in 1984 and are seeing Orwell's prophecies coming into effect as a direct result of the Government's actions. That is why over the years all-party delegations from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities — Tories and Liberals — have said, "For God's sake, raise your voices against the dangerous trend upon which the Government have embarked." It is important that the people outside Parliament understand the problem. We are seeing dictatorship from the centre — the man in Whitehall and the woman in No. 10 Downing street with her son who know what is best for the British people. This is disgraceful and highly dangerous for the people of Scotland and the rest of Britain.
I wish to heaven that the Scottish Tory Members of Parliament had as much guts as their English colleagues showed last week when they made it clear that they did not like what they were seeing and would revolt too. In a previous debate I said to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that if the Government murdered his grandmother he would say that they had done the right thing. He is an example of the type of spineless individual and the type of Lobby fodder that one finds on the Conservative Benches. That is why the Government are doing this evil thing, and why we shall vote against the measure.
6.37 pm
Mr. Jim Craigen: Something that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr.
184
Hamilton) said about local authorities being imperilled made me recall the days when the Tories talked about keeping politics out of local government. We have come a long way from that. One of the most depressing aspects of today's debate has been the way Government Back Benchers seem to think that their role is to attack local authorities constantly while the defence of those authorities is left to Opposition Back Benchers. That is the message that is drummed out in many debates by people such as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). He seldom has a good word to say about local authorities.
Mr. Bill Walker: I have never in this Chamber criticised Perth and Kinross district, the Tayside region or the Angus district authorities.
Mr. Craigen: They will be relieved to know that. The Government can hardly chastise local authorities for local taxation when the Government came into office in 1979 with a mandate to cut taxation and taxation has increased since then by £18 billion. If we are to regard local authorities as a Government Department, that Department must be one of the most over-administered and much scrutinised because its affairs receive much attention from Government Back Benchers and Ministers. They have elevated local government to a blood sport. Government Members seem to show a certain relish in pursuing this matter.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for enabling this rate support grant order to be debated in prime time as I remember the debates that used to take place after 10 pm, although one ruefully recalls that there were more resources for local authorities in those days. We now have more time but less money. The Secretary of State should be more forthcoming when addressing the general public. By failing to match the rate of inflation or prevailing interest rates and lowering the percentage of grant the rate support grant order will bring about a 4p in the pound rate increase at a stroke, irrespective of any action by any one of the 65 Scottish local authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out, 36 of them will have a worse deal and lower guidelines for 1984–85 than they had for 1983–84.
I hope that the Minister will deal specifically with three further complaints raised today. Why are there to be 3,100 fewer teachers in Scotland, in addition to the 800 that local authorities currently estimate will not be in post, at a time when there is a real opportunity to raise education standards due to considerably improved pupil-teacher ratios, especially in the inner cities?
When bus fares in Glasgow are perforce so high, why are grants for transport being cut? Why are old-age pensioners and others eligible for concessionary fares likely to receive only a 20 per cent. discount when it is generally acknowledged that it should be 50 per cent.? The Secretary of State said that the Government recognised that the Strathclyde passenger transport authority had a special problem. I hope that he is dealing with that and not just giving out the old soft soap. We should make a fortune if we were in charge of a soap factory, as we certainly get plenty of it.
At a time of such high unemployment especially among young people, how can the Secretary of State say that the Government will cut the money available for leisure and recreation by 33 per cent.? At the very time when we need

185
to use local authority facilities, schools and public buildings cannot be used as much as they otherwise would be to cater for young people outside school hours.
The truth is that on rating reform the Government have fled the field and the local authorities have to bear the burden.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy)—what a mouthful! [HON. MEMBERS: "What a man!"]—referred to the Fort William pulp mill. Since they came to office in 1979 the Government have eroded the rateable value base in Scotland. At the time when the closure of the pulp mill was announced I was with a Select Committee delegation in Thurso taking evidence on the employment situation in the highlands and islands. One man told me how he had left Glasgow many years before and bought a house in Fort William in the belief that a whole new life was opening up for him, but all those hopes were dashed by the inept policies of the Government. The rateable value of the Invergordon smelter was £923,000 in its last year of operation. The rateable value lost to Fort William was £352,000. The rateable value lost with the Linwood car factory was £887,000. I recall leading a delegation to the Secretary of State at the time when the Singer sewing machine factory was closed. He told us one thing, then went next door and told the press something different. The factory closed anyway and the rateable value lost was £487,000. I hope that he is working a good deal harder than he seems to be in respect of Scott Lithgow as the rateable value of those operations is more than £500,000. If the rateable value base disappears fewer resources are available for local authorities.
Finally, local authorities should not be punished for the Government's economic failures. The authorities get all the stick but very little of the credit when they do their very best to operate within the guidelines. The most depressing aspect of the debate has been the way in which relationships between local and central government have been poisoned by the Government. That augurs very badly indeed for the present and the future of Scottish local government.
6.45 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): As I have suggested on other occasions, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) should speak louder, or none of us will hear him.
The hon. Gentleman did the House a great favour in drawing attention to the rateable values of industries in Scotland. Nothing could better emphasise the fact that, in talking about rate levels and poundages, we are talking about the money that industry and commerce have to pay and in so doing endanger the jobs of those working for them. Perhaps inadvertently, when no one else had thought to do so, the hon. Gentleman provided the possible case for the rate support grant levels proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Craigen: I know that the Minister has hardly begun, but I want an answer. Will he respond to the suggestion that I made on a number of occasions as a Back Bencher, that if the Government were serious about helping the plight of manufacturing in Scotland they would abolish industrial rating altogether?
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman cannot have consulted his own side if he regards that as Labour party policy. He may have suggested that when he was a Back Bencher, but I shall not embarrass him now that he is on the Front Bench by taking that as Labour party policy until he has had the chance to discuss it with his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the hon. Member for Garscadden has had time to ask permission to go to the Shadow Cabinet for endorsement of that policy.
The hon. Member for Maryhill made the usual point about the rate support grant order forcing up rates, but he never stopped to think about the effects of possible expenditure reductions on rates. One cannot talk about the one without considering the other.
The hon. Member for Garscadden claimed to have proved that rate support grant orders increased rates so that the Government were responsible for the increases in rates. He said that expenditure in real terms had risen by a very small percentage, which he gave as 1·6 per cent., in the past five years, whereas rates had risen by 133 per cent. in the same period, so it must be the Government's fault. He failed to realise, however, that the expenditure figures that he gave were at constant prices, whereas the figures for rates were at cash prices. Had he compared like with like, he would have discovered that the cash increase in expenditure over that period was 113·5 per cent. compared with a rate increase of 133·5 per cent. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the Government are responsible for rate increases in Scotland in the past five years.
When challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) about the Labour Government's record in reducing the proportion of rate support grant, the hon. Member for Garscadden said that he wanted to put to bed once and for all the suggestion that the reduction made when his right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) was Secretary of State had anything to do with trying to control local government expenditure. I suggest again that the hon. Gentleman should talk to his right hon. Friend the Member for Govan, because that is not what his right hon. Friend said at the time. According to my understanding, the explanation given at that time was that it was to reinforce the Government's public expenditure policy by reducing in real terms the financial resources that local authorities would receive from the Government. That is not what he said to the House tonight. Before making categorical statements of that sort, I believe that the hon. Gentleman ought at least to check their accuracy against the record of the Labour Government.
The hon. Gentleman dealt with a number of specific points. I am sure that he will realise that, in the time available to me, I cannot answer them all. However, there are one or two that I want to answer. He spoke about teacher redundancies, but failed to point out that pupil numbers are declining. That point was very properly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). The Government's provision reflects that fact. If it did not reflect it, it would be very strange. Local authorities are aware of the Government's view that teacher numbers should decline as pupil numbers decline. It is for local authorities to determine their own policies and priorities, but resources necessarily expended in one area—this is something about which all local authorities must think

187
—mean insufficient provision for others or, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, higher rates. It is for local authorities to look at their budgets in those terms.
The hon. Member for Garscadden claimed that the rate in Strathclyde was likely to increase by 7 per cent. because of the grant changes. That is not so. The grant loss is £14·65 million, which is the equivalent of a 2·4p increase in the rates without expenditure savings. I believe that if savings of 1 percent. of Strathclyde's budget can be made, no rate increase would be necessary.
Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is, I think inadvertently, misrepresenting me. I said that the changes in the distribution formula, the needs element, had cost the Strathclyde region the equivalent of 7p in the pound. I was careful to go on to say that there were some compensating factors, by coincidence in other parts of the distribution formula. The authority that I said was claiming the final result was a 7p imposition was the Lothian region, which was quoting Brian Meek, the hon. Gentleman's Conservative colleague.
Mr. Ancram: If I have misquoted the hon. Gentleman, I apologise; but I think it is worth pointing out—and this can be demonstrated from the figures that I have just given— that looking at the raw figures is no way of assuring that the answers one gets from them are correct. What the hon. Gentleman has just said tends to underline that.
I shall deal briefly with one or two of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries. He knows, I think, that the distribution system introduced this year has been damped—and my right hon. Friend said this in his opening remarks — in order to protect those who might have lost most from having too great a change in their budgets in one year. I am sure that he would appreciate, from his time in local government, that one of the essentials in local government budgeting is to be able to assume a degree of stability over a period of time that will allow forward planning. For that reason, we agreed in our discussions with COSLA that the damping effect that we have introduced on the distribution system this year would occur. It is from that, I think, that his complaint arises. I think he understands, too, that had we not changed the distribution system and introduced the client approach this year, his regional authority would have received less in cash than it is receiving now. He may not be satisfied with what it is receiving now because, had we not damped, it would be rather more.
It is the same in the case of the hon. Member for Roxborough and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). At the same time, I hope that he will point out to his regional authority, before it complains too much about the new system, that, had we not introduced it, it would have received less cash in grant support this year under the old system than it is receiving even under the damped system at present.
One of the important facets of the client group approach is that it is capable of being refined. There are primary indicators on which one makes the first calculations, and one can then adjust them by applying secondary indicators. The best example I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, in terms of his own region, is in education. The primary indicator may be the number of children. As against that, the sparsity in the number of schools, because my hon. Friend is in a rural area, would
188
be taken into account as a secondary indicator. Rural considerations are, therefore, taken into account. I accept that the system is capable of further refinement, and COSLA and my Department are prepared to look at it again in future.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that Banff and Buchan district council, on the rating review, was the lowest spending rating authority in Scotland, yet it had granted to it from the guidelines, 1983–84, only £50,000? Can he tell me what happened to the £120 million, about which my right hon. Friend spoke in July 1983 when discussing the rate support grant, that he said he would make use of to give relief to local authorities which were not high spenders, such as East Lothian?
Mr. Ancram: I think my hon. Friend must accept that a detailed question of that nature requires notice. I hope he will accept that I shall write to him on the subject.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), made an unusually political speech tonight. He raised the issue of concessionary fares, and asked me to deal with it. We are aware of the disparity between local authority budgets and the provision for concessionary fares. The planned level of provision is a general judgment of what can be afforded. It would be difficult to devise a criterion as the cost of concessionary fares depends on many variable factors, and there is no standard that could be applied to all local authorities. Within the constraints on public expenditure, my right hon. Friend has arranged that increased provision be made for concessionary fares. As a consequence, the provision for these fares is set at 27 per cent. above that provided in the 1983 order. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept, therefore, that his point was taken seriously at an earlier stage, and that my right hon. Friend has already acted on it.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not deal with all the points that they have made. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), following an attack on one of my hon. Friends for referring to his constituency, made a fair case for his constituency during the course of his remarks. I think it is worth his considering the effect of the order on his constituency and, in particular, looking at the guidelines because, as I am sure he will accept, his regional authority has done well out of the guidelines. The guidelines accept some of the specific difficulties in that area. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have made efforts to damp the changes in the distribution system. Overall, therefore, I believe that some of the complaints he made tonight were more in the cause of effect rather than based on reality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) made an important point, which was touched on by several hon. Members, when he talked about the leisure centre. He made it clear that he accepted the need for private investment in such projects. I believe that, if that message were heard throughout the local authorities of Scotland to a far greater degree than that, he would be able to see the sort of provision that so many people want without having to rely always on the public purse to provide it.
Every year since taking office, my right hon. Friend has reminded authorities and the House that local authorities must pay particular attention to their manpower policies. Manpower in Scottish local authorities fell by

189
approximately 2 per cent. in the year to September 1983. That trend has continued. It is welcome, but it is slowing down. When we talk about local government expenditure, it is worth looking at the figures. After allowing for some previous under-recording, local authorities are still employing about 5,000 more than in the summer of 1977. Even this comparitively modest target masks the true situation. In 1977, there were 4,000 more teachers than there are today, simply because there were more pupils. In addition, such reductions as there have been elsewhere have been concentrated on manual workers. There are now 11,000, or 16 per cent., more non-manual local government workers than there were in 1977, and nearly 7,000 more than when we took office. I find these figures very difficult to square with charges of wholesale destruction of local government services, about which we hear so much from Opposition Members.
I suggest that Opposition Members should go back to their local authorities and ask them to look very carefully at their manpower figures. They should also tell those local authorities that before coining to the House, they should look at their own budgets and ask themselves whether they are being as efficient as they could be. If local authorities did that, very few of them would be able to put their hands on their hearts and say that they were doing what they could. Few of them have the courage to test that claim in the market place.
When we ask local authorities to put their services out to tender, we are not necessarily asking them to contract out. We are asking them to test them in the market place. Until local authorities do that, it is hard to take seriously their claim that they have been cut to the bone.
Mr. Maxton rose——
Mr. Ancram: Tonight's debate has generated much heat, but again it has been synthetic. Opposition Members know full well that local authority expenditure cannot be divorced from national economic requirements, and that the claims made to them by their authorities, like the claims made by Glasgow district to the hon. Member for Garscadden—which he echoed so faithfully last summer when we asked it to cut its rates—will ultimately turn out to be untrue.
Glasgow district said that the rate level that we forced on it last year was unacceptable, but it can now tell the people of Glasgow that it can sustain it. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should ask that authority why it pulled the wool over his eyes last summer. He should then ask it to reconsider its expenditure and to see whether it can reduce its rates, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wishes.
The order provides for a large amount of central Government rate support grant to a still considerable level of local government expenditure. It seeks nothing which cannot reasonably be achieved, and demands no further burdens on ratepayers. It looks for greater efficiency, greater responsibility, and greater value for money. Those should be the common goals that unite us all. Therefore, the order deserves our support.
Question put:—
The House Divided: Ayes 273, Noes 201.

Division No.148

[7 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Hanley, Jeremy

Alexander, Richard

Hannam, John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Harris, David

Ancram, Michael

Harvey, Robert

Arnold, Tom

Haselhurst, Alan

Ashby, David

Hawksley, Warren

Aspinwall, Jack

Hayes, J.

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Hayhoe, Barney

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Hayward, Robert

Baldry, Anthony

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Henderson, Barry

Batiste, Spencer

Hickmet, Richard

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Hicks, Robert

Bellingham, Henry

Hind, Kenneth

Bendall, Vivian

Hirst, Michael

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Holt, Richard

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hooson, Tom

Bright, Graham

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

Browne, John

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Buck, Sir Antony

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Butcher, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Butterfill, John

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

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

Hunter, Andrew

Carttiss, Michael

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Chapman, Sydney

Irving, Charles

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

Jackson, Robert

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Cockeram, Eric

Key, Robert

Colvin, Michael

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Cope, John

King, Rt Hon Tom

Cranborne, Viscount

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Dicks, T.

Knowles, Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Knox, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Lamont, Norman

Durant, Tony

Lang, Ian

Evennett, David

Latham, Michael

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lawler, Geoffrey

Fallon, Michael

Lee, John (Pendle)

Farr, John

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Favell, Anthony

Lester, Jim

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Fletcher, Alexander

Lightbown, David

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Forman, Nigel

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lord, Michael

Forth, Eric

Luce, Richard

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lyell, Nicholas

Fox, Marcus

McCrindle, Robert

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Freeman, Roger

Macfarlane, Neil

Fry, Peter

MacGregor, John

Gale, Roger

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Galley, Roy

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Maclean, David John.

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Glyn, Dr Alan

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

Goodhart, Sir Philip

McQuarrie, Albert

Goodlad, Alastair

Major, John

Gow, Ian

Malone, Gerald

Gower, Sir Raymond

Maples, John

Greenway, Harry

Marland, Paul

Gregory, Conal

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

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

Mates, Michael

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Mather, Carol

Grist, Ian

Maude, Francis

Ground, Patrick

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Gummer, John Selwyn

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Mellor, David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Merchant, Piers

Hampson, Dr Keith

Meyer, Sir Anthony

191

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Miscampbell, Norman

Speller, Tony

Moate, Roger

Spence, John

Monro, Sir Hector

Spencer, D.

Montgomery, Fergus

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Moore, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Squire, Robin

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Moynihan, Hon C.

Stanley, John

Mudd, David

Steen, Anthony

Neale, Gerrard

Stern, Michael

Needham, Richard

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Nelson, Anthony

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Newton, Tony

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Nicholls, Patrick

Stradling Thomas, J.

Normanton, Tom

Sumberg, David

Norris, Steven

Tapsell, Peter

Onslow, Cranley

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Oppenheim, Philip

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Temple-Morris, Peter

Ottaway, Richard

Terlezki, Stefan

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Parris, Matthew

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Patten, John (Oxford)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Thornton, Malcolm

Pawsey, James

Thurnham, Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Pink, R. Bonner

Trotter, Neville

Pollock, Alexander

Twinn, Dr Ian

Powell, William (Corby)

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Powley, John

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Viggers, Peter

Prior, Rt Hon James

Waddington, David

Proctor, K. Harvey

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Raffan, Keith

Waldegrave, Hon William

Rathbone, Tim

Walden, George

Renton, Tim

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Rhodes James, Robert

Waller, Gary

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Walters, Dennis

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Watson, John

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Watts, John

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Wheeler, John

Rost, Peter

Wiggin, Jerry

Rowe, Andrew

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Winterton, Nicholas

Ryder, Richard

Wolfson, Mark

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Wood, Timothy

Sayeed, Jonathan

Woodcock, Michael

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Younger, Rt Hon George

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Mr. Tim Sainsbury and

Silvester, Fred

Mr. Michael Neubert

Sims, Roger

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Blair, Anthony

Alton, David

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Anderson, Donald

Boyes, Roland

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ashdown, Paddy

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Ashton, Joe

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

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Bruce, Malcolm

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Buchan, Norman

Barnett, Guy

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Barron, Kevin

Campbell, Ian

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Bell, Stuart

Canavan, Dennis

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

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Bermingham, Gerald

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Bidwell, Sydney

Cartwright, John

192

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Leadbitter, Ted

Clarke, Thomas

Leighton, Ronald

Clay, Robert

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Cohen, Harry

Litherland, Robert

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Conlan, Bernard

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Loyden, Edward

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

McCartney, Hugh

Corbett, Robin

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Corbyn, Jeremy

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Cowans, Harry

McKelvey, William

Craigen, J. M.

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Crowther, Stan

Maclennan, Robert

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McNamara, Kevin

Cunningham, Dr John

McTaggart, Robert

Dalyell, Tam

McWilliam, John

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Madden, Max

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

Marek, Dr John

Deakins, Eric

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dewar, Donald

Martin, Michael

Dixon, Donald

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Dobson, Frank

Maxton, John

Dormand, Jack

Maynard, Miss Joan

Douglas, Dick

Meacher, Michael

Dubs, Alfred

Meadowcroft, Michael

Duffy, A. E. P.

Michie, William

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Mikardo, Ian

Eadie, Alex

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Eastham, Ken

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Ellis, Raymond

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

O'Brien, William

Fatchett, Derek

O'Neill, Martin

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Park, George

Fisher, Mark

Parry, Robert

Flannery, Martin

Pavitt, Laurie

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Pendry, Tom

Forrester, John

Penhaligon, David

Foster, Derek

Pike, Peter

Foulkes, George

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Prescott, John

Freud, Clement

Redmond, M.

George, Bruce

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Richardson, Ms Jo

Godman, Dr Norman

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Golding, John

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Gould, Bryan

Robertson, George

Gourlay, Harry

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Rogers, Allan

Harman, Ms Harriet

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Ryman, John

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Sedgemore, Brian

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Sheerman, Barry

Haynes, Frank

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Heffer, Eric S.

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Skinner, Dennis

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

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

Howells, Geraint

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

Hoyle, Douglas

Snape, Peter

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Soley, Clive

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Spearing, Nigel

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Stott, Roger

Janner, Hon Greville

Strang, Gavin

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Straw, Jack

John, Brynmor

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Johnston, Russell

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Tinn, James

Kennedy, Charles

Torney, Tom

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Wainwright, R.

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Kirkwood, Archibald

Wareing, Robert

Lambie, David

Weetch, Ken

Lamond, James

Welsh, Michael

193

White, James

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Wigley, Dafydd

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Tellers for the Noes:

Wilson, Gordon

Mr. James Hamilton and

Winnick, David

Mr. John Home Robertson.

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.

Housing Support Grant (Scotland)
7.13 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.
The details of the settlement are already widely known and are described in the report which accompanies the order, and I need not delay the House long over them. There has, indeed, been a considerable measure of agreement between the Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the technical aspects of grant distribution; and I should like to place on record my appreciation of the very helpful way in which the convention joined in the consultations. Rather than concentrate on the technical aspects, therefore, I should like to set the proposed settlement in the context of our general policy on housing.
For 1984–85 we have estimated eligible expenditure at £322·3 million and relevant income at £269·8 million. We have accordingly set housing support grant at £52·5 million to be distributed among authorities which cannot, in our view, be expected to raise sufficient income to cover their reasonable costs. While we judge that some authorities will be able to generate surpluses on their housing revenue accounts, we have not deducted these surpluses from the total amount of grant which will be distributed among authorities which continue to qualify for housing support grant.
The sum of £52·5 million will then be distributed among 26 authorities. Two authorities — Ettrick and Lauderdale and East Lothian—have fallen out of grant because of deductions made to take account of overpayment of grant in 1980–81; the remainder, as I say, could in our view generate a surplus on their housing revenue account next year. These figures compare with a total of £72 million distributed among 36 authorities in the current financial year and £228 million among all 56 authorities in 1980–81. Opposition Members may seek to present the figures as indicating a lack of concern for public sector housing and may suggest that they will give rise to unacceptable increases in rents. Before they do so I should like to demonstrate why they would be wrong.
The £52·5 million which we are distributing reflects the difference between what authorities can reasonably be expected to receive in income and what they can reasonably be expected to spend on their housing revenue accounts. Shelter has claimed — I quote from The Scotsman of today—that the fact that the majority of housing authorities are left without grant breaches
"the long established principle that local authorities are entitled to central support to meet housing costs."
I find that long-established principle difficult to understand. I do not know how the practice that the Government help housing authorities to balance their books became elevated to a principle of this kind. Whatever the position in the past, there can be no justification for subsidising the costs of authorities which can reasonably be expected to balance their own books now. Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene?
Mr. George Robertson: The fact that the Minister is conceding time for interventions is almost as important as the principle of continuing to subsidise

195
housing. As he pours so much scorn on the principle of public support for housing, will he start questioning the principle of income tax relief for mortgage holders?
Mr. Ancram: I do not think the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I was saying. Perhaps it was unfair of me to ask him if he wished to intervene, but he was sitting there like a terrier that has seen a rat. His anticipation was such that I noted it out of the corner of my eye and I felt it would be unfair to proceed without giving him the chance to intervene.
I am sure that he, as a reasonable man, would not support a principle which suggested that where there was sufficient income to meet housing needs without requiring public subsidy, nevertheless a subsidy should be paid as an ex gratia payment on the basis of principle. He will realise that any principle of that sort—which appears to be the principle enunciated by Shelter—is completely out of touch with economic realities.
Nor is it appropriate to compare the total of housing support grant now with that paid in the past without taking account of the drop in interest rates which has occurred over the past four years. Since loan charges account for 62 per cent. of authorities' expenditure on their housing revenue accounts, the costs which they have to meet naturally fall at a time of declining interest rates. We have assumed an average pool interest rate of 10·2 per cent. for the settlement before the House today, compared with 13·27 per cent. assumed for the 1980–81 order. Housing expenditure is extremely sensitive to changes in interest rates: a fall of a mere 0·1 per cent. leads to a drop in expenditure of £3 million and the 3 per cent. drop since 1980 is equivalent to savings of £92 million for housing authorities.
We have assumed, for the purposes of the settlement, that expenditure on management and maintenance will remain constant in real terms and that cash expenditure will increase by 5 per cent. bringing the figure to £262 per house. To those who argue that this provides insufficient resources to keep the housing stock in good repair I say that we are not convinced that there is a need to allow for an increase in real terms in the resources allocated to management and maintenance in the housing support grant settlement.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: The Minister says that he is not convinced of the need for extra funding. We met representatives of COSLA today. On what basis do the Government reach the assessment that no more funding is needed?
Mr. Ancram: In cash terms there is an increase of 5 per cent. I am talking of a real terms increase. The provision for housing management and maintenance expenditure is being held level in real terms. The hon. Gentleman asked how the assessment was made. This year half the Scottish local authorities have budgeted for management and maintenance expenditure which is lower than that provided for in the current year's settlement. That shows that our judgment is probably absolutely right.
Hon. Members might argue, however, that, whatever happens on the expenditure side, authorities can balance their books only if they make unreasonable increases in rents. As hon. Members might know, we have assumed that, for the purposes of the housing support grant settlement, rental income will increase by £1 per week per house over the level assumed for the current year, bringing
196
our assumed figure up to £11·59 per week. I am aware that COSLA suggested that the combined effect of this increase and of the reductions which we have asked authorities to make on their rate fund contributions will be to compel authorities to raise rents by an average of £2·50 per week. I do not know how it did its sums, but it seems clear that it has ignored the changes on the expenditure side which have to be taken into account to determine the impact of the settlement and of the rate fund contribution limits on rents in the real world. We estimate that the combined effect of these changes can be met with an average increase throughout Scotland of not more than £1 per week, even when one allows for an increase of 5 per cent. in the cash spent on management and maintenance. It does not seem unreasonable to expect authorities to make an increase of that size.
The impact on individual authorities will vary. Authorities which have unreasonably held back rents in the past and incurred housing expenditure limit penalties might have to raise rents by more than the average but it was their decision to take that course of action. For next year we have set the aggregate limit to rate fund contributions at £100 million, which is an 11 per cent. reduction on the limits which we set for this year, so that the requirement to make reductions will fall most heavily on authorities which this year chose to exceed the limits and incur capital penalties. I might say in passing that we were disappointed that authorities budgeted to exceed the limits this year by a full £13 million, a sum which could be met only through reductions in capital expenditure.
Despite the variations, I regard the rental assumptions underlying the settlement as entirely reasonable. I need not remind the house that a relatively high proportion of Scotland's housing stock is in public ownership. I am sure that during the debate Opposition Members will draw attention to the need for substantial sums of capital expenditure to bring the stock up to modern standards. There is, however, only a limited sum of money which can be spent on housing generally. There is an idea prevalent in some quarters that the links between housing support grant and rent levels, and between rate fund contributions and capital allocations, are artefacts invented by accountants. Such an idea ignores the facts of life. The deeply ingrained habit of pre-empting a significant proportion of the sum available for housing to subsidise housing revenue — which of course means rents — through housing support grant and through excessive contributions from the rates has limited the amount available for capital expenditure on the housing stock for many years and has caused many of the difficulties which we face today. The point is brought home forcefully when one considers that council tenants in Scotland pay an average of £9·87 per week compared with £14 in England and Wales, while average manual workers' earnings in Scotland are, at £145·80 per week, slightly higher than in England and Wales.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Is there not a distortion with regard to earnings in Scotland, as workers in the north-east now receive higher earnings than before? Is it not also the case that the level of earnings is falling in parts of the country where most council houses are found?
Mr. Ancram: To say that there might be variations in wages is to state the obvious. I was careful to say that the

197
figure was an average. That is also true for the level of rents which I gave. Nevertheless, the comparison is valid and should be made. The figures show that a manual worker receiving average earnings in Scotland pays less than 7 per cent. of his weekly income on housing. If I am criticised—I suspect that I shall be—for ignoring the unemployed or the low-paid, I remind the House that some 50 per cent. of tenants receive support for the cost of their rent and half of them have their rents paid in full.
Several hon. Members who represent Glasgow constituencies are present. If the citizens of Glasgow or another Scottish housing authority complain that their houses are in urgent need of modernisation—the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) made this point in the earlier debate— I suggest that they need only look at their rent demands to find out why.
As hon. Members know, we have made provisional allocations totalling £244 million on the housing revenue account for the financial year 1984–85. With the £160 million that we have allocated on the non-housing revenue account, that represents a considerable investment in the modernisation and improvement of our housing stock in the public and private sectors. I point out to hon. Members who have suggested that these allocations are too low that the £404 million provisionally allocated in December is £54 million greater than that allocated in December 1982 for the current financial year. Moreover, authorities will be able to increase the resources available to them by maximising the sale of council houses. I have never hidden the fact that I want there to be a vigorous sales policy, in the interests of tenants, councils and the economy as a whole. The 45,000 house sales which have been completed since the right-to-buy policy was first introduced in 1979 are a welcome beginning, but we have a long way to go.
The capital available to housing authorities next year will, as I have said, depend on their own decisions about rate fund contributions. The fact that the ruling group in Glasgow district has already decided to pre-empt capital resources to increase the subsidy on its tenants' rents suggests that it does not regard capital expenditure as being as important as do some of the hon. Members who represent that area in the House.
The housing support grant settlement represents, in the Government's view, a reasonable level of support for authorities which remain in need of assistance, and it assumes rental levels and expenditure which are, in the circumstances, entirely appropriate. It is in the interests neither of the country as a whole nor of individual tenants to continue to underwrite a low rents policy at the expense of capital expenditure on the housing stock. Those who argue for continued high levels of Government support to sustain such a policy cannot have thought through the impact of their proposals. The settlement before the House is fair to tenants, ratepayers, taxpayers and local authorities. On that basis, I commend it to the House.
7.29 pm
Mr. Jim Craigen: It is unusual for the Minister, who normally is not very forthcoming in answering our questions, to anticipate our questions on these issues. The housing support grant is heading for extinction under this Government. This is a miserable little order for £52 million. Despite what the Minister says, it
198
will result in 58 per cent. of the housing stock no longer receiving financial assistance and backing from central Government. Much of the council housing in Scotland is beyond the pale to the Government, who have lost interest in it and no longer provide the support that they should.
Since the Secretary of State came to office there has been a steady erosion of the housing support grant. That is perhaps understandable when we recollect that housing is no longer seen as a priority, which is reflected in the Secretary of State's general approach to housing. The construction industry and housing stock have taken the brunt of public expenditure cuts. These cuts have had a very unhappy effect on the construction industry and the employment openings that it provides.
The housing support grant has been reduced in real terms since 1979–80, when it covered about 39 per cent. of the annual housing costs. Last year only about 11 per cent. was covered and, there will be a further reduction. Despite what the Minister says, the housing support grant is a misnomer, because it no longer caters adequately for the needs and priorities of Scottish housing.
I must take up the Minister's retort to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who referred to open-ended tax relief. There is a difference between the positive approach of the Government paying subsidies, and what might be regarded as the negative approach of forfeiting revenue, which the Government might prefer for political reasons.
Because of the very high interest rates which prevailed not so long ago, when they touched 15 per cent., and when mortgages were very high, the Treasury has been forced to forgo a considerable amount of revenue which might otherwise have been brought in. There is no question in that case of means testing, so there cannot be any evenhanded approach to public expenditure on housing.
The Minister tried to make light of maintenance and repair. Some of us in the Opposition had maintenance and repair up to the gills in the Committee on the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill. The Minister will recall that he tried to persuade Committee Members to accept his consultation document on the right to repair. It is interesting to note that it was pointed out to me only this afternoon that when the Perth and Kinross district council studied the theory in that document and reflected on the possibility of each of its tenants claiming £500 towards repairs, it estimated that rents would have to be increased by £10 a week.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman quoted a source which he has not named. Does he agree that if that were to happen it would be because no repairs had been done for tenants in Perth and that under the scheme they would wish to claim the money for those repairs to be done? Is he suggesting that that is so in Perth and Kinross? If so, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) might like to ask him to make that suggestion outside the Chamber.
Mr. Craigen: I was not complaining that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was not here. I did not say that the practicalities had been considered. I said that the district council had been looking at the theory of the document. I am not a journalist, so I can give the Minister my source—Councillor Jim Proudfoot. He was on the COSLA delegation. What he said made nonsense of the Minister's consultative document. In fact there were many nonsenses in that document.

199
The Minister commented on the fact that local authorities were reducing maintenance and repairs. That is a double-edged sword. There is evidence that because of the public expenditure cuts which the Government have been imposing on local authorities, and because the repairs and maintenance budget is invariably large, it is the first to be examined when possible reductions are considered. However, in the long term that will not do the housing stock a favour.
Some authorities are becoming increasingly alarmed at the cost of structural repairs to non-traditional housing which they are likely to face. I understand that Lochaber district council has been trying to arrange a meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss a problem affecting 167 Dorran houses which have major structural defects, fire hazards which must be urgently seen to and asbestos cladding. I do not know whether the Minister has been able to accede to that request. However, it is only the tip of the iceberg of the pressures on local authorities and the responsibilities which they must take on if they look after the interests of their tenants properly.
I am glad that the Minister talked about the disparities between the estimate from the Scottish Office of the likely rent increase and the figures produced by COSLA some time ago. It is difficult to reconcile what I call the Ancram £1 rent increase with the figure of £2·60 which COSLA originally suggested would result from the Government's battery of housing policies. I hope that when he replies to the debate the Minister will take up that point. It would surprise me if a Minister who claimed that he so regularly consulted COSLA told us that he still did not know how COSLA arrived at those figures.
The Minister also referred to Shelter in Scotland. Only today right hon. and hon. Members have received a circular drawing their attention to the considerable concern in many households about the threatened £3·10 reduction per week in benefit, which will affect about 90,000 youngsters daring to live at home. It is absurd that when the Prime Minister preaches the virtues of family life, young people are being encouraged to seek alternative accommodation because under the Government's crazy system of social security they will be financially better off. The Minister should explain why, if rents are not too high, the majority of households in Scotland are on incomes which make it necessary for them to have rebates and assistance of one form or another.
I hope that the Minister will deal with some of the problems which continue to plague us on the non-HRA aspect. There is a considerable amount of legally committed work in the pipeline. The home improvement grant repairs scheme was a success, and it is much to be regretted that the Government decided to cut it in its prime. There is so much to digest now that there may be little scope for new work, never mind work which would have been in the pipeline if applications had been in in time and approval had been given before the circular letter of 19 October of last year.
The Minister tried to suggest that we should not worry about this housing support grant order. He said that it would not minimise the importance which the Government attach to housing in Scotland. In fact, it is just one of a series of measures which are economically daft. The cost of repairs that are not carried out, sheltered housing that is not completed, and so on, is incalculable, and the Government's whole approach to housing will be socially disastrous.
7.42 pm
Mr. Barry Henderson: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has great experience of housing, but the most disappointing aspect of his speech was that he allowed his practical knowledge and experience to be submerged in the advocacy of outdated housing concepts to which the Labour party is thirled. The Labour party has fixed ideas on the subject and cannot change them, although housing priorities in Scotland have been changing rapidly for some time.
During the past few years, we have moved to a stage at which there is just about equilibrium between the number of households and the number of houses. That is dramatically different from the position that obtained during most of our lifetimes, when there was an essential need simply to create more houses. That difference is at the root of the need to review and take a different view of housing priorities today and in the future. It is discouraging that the Labour party does not seem able to speak about the new priorities, new ideas, new methods and new attitudes that we need if we are to solve the housing problems of the future.
One of the new needs that is emerging is that of rectifying the faults of previous generations of house building — not least some of the vast concrete filing cabinets in some cities, particularly Labour-controlled cities—often at vast cost, and often sharply criticised by Conservatives at the time.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman include Edinburgh in what he is saying? It seems to have had its share of that problem, and it was Conservative-controlled for most of my lifetime.
Mr. Henderson: We have the high rise problems in many cities, but the problem is particularly difficult in Glasgow, which spent large sums of money, against all sensible advice. The hon. Gentleman should think about the red road flats and all the controversy that surrounded them when they were being built. Their building costs were very much more than the cost of normal council houses at that time. Could the hon. Gentleman say whether anyone is anxious to live there now, in view of the present condition of the flats?
Mistakes have been made in the past. The Select Committee heard evidence from many groups, local authorities and professional people about the difficulties that face us today as a result of design and building errors in the past. That is a priority now, and I believe that it will become an increasing priority in future housing needs.
Mr. George Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that whatever the errors—usually made in good faith—of some of the housing ideas after the war, it was the criminal failure not to provide proper and adequate housing for people before the war that necessitated the crash programmes that were undertaken after the war?
Mr. Henderson: That is a ridiculous point. The hon. Gentleman will remember that a Minister of Health, later a Conservative Prime Minister, started the whole concept of providing houses through municipal endeavour at reasonable rents for people who could not afford decent accommodation. Here again, major changes have taken place. The hon. Gentleman must accept the changes that have taken place in society and in public provision of all kinds, not least those in social and housing benefits, since

201
before the war. The fact that the Labour party cannot get up to wartime, never mind 40 years later, makes the point that I made at the beginning of my speech.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my hon. Friend accept that the real crime of the post-war was the vendetta that was pursued by the Labour party and others against the private rented sector through the Rent Acts, which put great pressure on the public sector demand for houses?
Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend is right to point out the disadvantage of the distortion that has occurred in the housing market, for all sorts of interventionist local authority reasons. On top of that, for many years there was a desperate need to increase the number of houses.
Now we have to improve the stock of older houses. I hoped that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman would have said something to the Government's credit in this regard, because there are now 37,000 fewer houses below the tolerable standards. As we move towards an era of large-scale building each year, we shall need to pay more attention to improving the older stock. Apart from the financial implications, I hope that we shall learn more about the management implications, because the improvement process is sometimes a traumatic experience for tenants.
Last but not least, I wish that the Labour party could take on board the fact that the new priorities are different. There is an increasing need to concentrate resources for new build on the special categories which now emerge as areas of priority, such as housing for the elderly, single people and couples. There is a serious shortage of such housing everywhere—it is particularly marked in my own area—and I hope that increasingly the resources of new build, including sheltered housing, will be addressed to such categories. There will be some local problems associated with local needs for houses of special kinds, but the broad emphasis of policy should change. Rather than just building houses anywhere, we should recognise special needs and attempt to satisfy them, at the same time as improving and rectifying older houses.
The second important change in housing policy has been the development of the sale of council houses. That has not only been of great social and economic benefit to the tenants who wish to buy, to the areas in which they buy and to the community as a whole, but it has helped to reduce the burden on local authorities in managing their housing stock. In the short term, selling council houses involves administrative costs, but in the long term it reduces the burden of management costs which local authorities have to bear.
More dramatic still are the financial benefits to tenants and ratepayers from the sale of council houses—the way in which the product of the sales comes back to the council. That takes me back to my original point about the need to match the resources of today with the priorities of today. The most dramatic benefit of the sale of council houses is that enjoyed by the whole community. Such sales give the local authorities new resources — resources which would not otherwise have been available — to meet today's housing needs and priorities.
The Minister with responsibility for home affairs and the environment — my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram)—is not present at the moment. No doubt he is taking a brief and well-earned rest
202
during a very long day in which he has helped us considerably. However, I should like to ask him whether a more sophisticated method might be evolved for the determination of housing support grant. The procedure has largely grown out of the historical expenditure practices. Very few efforts have been made to determine what the needs are, what resources are available to meet those needs, and why one local authority may have higher management or building costs than another.
In my own area, a small district council owns council houses which are spread around in many different communities. That housing stock is more difficult and expensive to manage than the stock of a council whose houses are in a tightly knit complex. Similarly, the large numbers of listed buildings in my area, in both the public and the private sectors, must have cost implications.
Mr. Craigen: The hon. Gentleman has made two interesting points. Does he share my regret that the Scottish housing advisory committee was abolished by this Government? That committee could usefully have examined such matters and made recommendations.
Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman's point may be fair, but perhaps if the committee had done such things it would not have been abolished.
A variety of factors affect the costs of providing and managing local authority houses. The housing support grant could be determined on a more clear-cut, fair and rational basis. For example, the councils which do not get any housing support grant at present must feel bitter about the fact that tens of millions of pounds go to Glasgow in housing support grant. According to the 1983 rating review, average expenditure on management and maintenance costs per home per year for Scotland is £276, but the figure for Glasgow is estimated to be £368. That difference between the Scottish average for the cost of management and maintenance and the Glasgow figure takes a lot of explaining. It may be argued that Glasgow has greater problems, because it is a large city with inner city difficulties. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) appears to agree.
However, let us compare Glasgow with two other great cities —Liverpool and Manchester. According to local authority comparative statistics, produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy in 1983, the figures for Liverpool and Manchester are only £220 and £253 per home. Both those figures are lower than the Scottish average, which itself is significantly lower than the Glasgow figure. My right hon. Friend should draw the attention of Glasgow district council to the fact that its management and maintenance costs are enormously different from those of other local authorities. He might suggest that some effort to rectify the situation would be of great benefit to every other local authority. Perhaps an improvement in the formulae for working out the housing support grant would help to explain why such differences arise.
My penultimate point is about rate fund contributions. I understand that in 1983–84, 27 district authorities deliberately chose to forgo £13·5 million that they could have spent on capital projects if they wished. It is generally accepted throughout the House that there is an unfortunate tendency for local authorities to reduce expenditure on capital and to increase expenditure on revenue account. There is a feeling that more effort should be devoted to

203
expenditure on capital. At present, the Government can encourage local authorities to take a responsible view of the rate fund contributions to housing revenue accounts only through their ability to reduce the amount of capital allocated to councils if they overspend on the rate fund contribution. That has resulted in a reduction in capital spending when, in many places, an increase is probably needed. I am glad that there is a clause in the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill—I hope that the Committee will debate it before long—that will give my right hon. Friend powers to impose a limit, by order, on the contributions that the local authority rate fund can make to the housing revenue account. That would help to create a better balance between revenue and capital expenditure.
The hon. Member for Maryhill talked as though the order would create terrible problems in Scotland—that rents would rise and houses would not be built. It might be helpful if I drew the attention of the hon. Gentleman to an announcement on 26 January 1984 made by the North-East Fife district council. That council, which receives no housing support grant and does not make a rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account, has announced that it
"will not be increasing rents of Council house tenants for the forthcoming financial year."
The chairman of the council said:
"This will be achieved without any Rate Fund contribution to the Housing Revenue Account and despite the fact that the Council will receive no Housing Support Grant in 1984–85."
That has everything to do with the reality of housing today. One of the two reasons given for that by the chairman was the receipts from council house sales. The chairman said:
"North East Fife District Council have achieved a very high rate of sales, having sold some 13 per cent. of housing stock since 1980. The receipts have been applied directly in reducing the outstanding Loan Debt on the Housing Account."
Another reason was that interest rates were lower than had been anticipated. Interest rates would not have been lower than anticipated if the Government had not been worried about public expenditure, including local authority expenditure.
I believe that it is true, as COSLA is saying, that attitudes to expenditure have changed. The efforts of my right hon. Friend and his Ministers to persuade local authorities to take a more responsible attitude have been successful in most cases. It is probably true that local authority expenditure is coming under control. We are not far away from the target that my right hon. Friend has always sought to achieve—total expenditure not greatly different from that of 1978–79. It is still a little above, but not much. It has been difficult to make local authorities understand the necessity to control expenditure.
I hope that central and local government have reached broad agreement on expenditure levels and that we can move towards dealing with the present generation's problems, and achieve the stability that will enable local authorities to plan for long-term development.
8.2 pm
Mr. George Robertson: If I had started by calling the Minister a rat I should rapidly have been called to order, if only to defend the rodent population. To have the Minister confess to a similarity to that animal is a remarkable achievement. After this evening we might refer to the Minister as the "Roland Rat" of the Tory party. The only problem is that he has the opposite effect on the
204
ratings to those of the famous rat on TV-am. That is a lighthearted introduction to the proceedings and a warning to the Minister that quickness of tongue can land him in trouble.
Mr. Craigen: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that there may be a spark of truth in what comes from the Scottish Office?
Mr. Robertson: It is clear that the Minister was trying hard to be frank, but perhaps his reference to terriers and rats was the closest that he came to frankness. The theme of his speech was fairness. His peroration, which bore the hallmark of his work as distinct from that of his civil servants, which characterised the remainder of his speech, was based on fairness. However, the speech contained no evidence that the order was fair to authorities, tenants or ratepayers. The order and the Government's housing policy have nothing to do with fairness.
If I may remind the Minister of my intervention which brought his remarkable confession, there has been a longstanding traditional belief by Governments of all political hues that there is a genuine necessity for the public purse to look after the population's housing needs. Conservative and Labour Governments have accepted that. This Government have said that the responsibility to one section of the population will remain and increase, but that another section, which generally does not vote for the Conservative party, will be considerably and increasingly penalised. The figures bear that out, because there has been support from the housing support grant for public sector rents in Scotland and from mortgage income tax relief for owner-occupiers.
The Minister and I are in the happy position of being owner-occupiers. A large section of the Scottish population are not. Some people choose not to be. It is interesting to compare the position of public subsidy for mortgage holders and that for public sector tenants, because last year the figure of support for the public sector was £83 per tenant. The figure for the average owner-occupier mortgage holder was a staggering £437. That compares with the figures for 1979–80, when the Government took over, of £184 for the tenant and £290 for the owner-occupier mortgage holder. There had been a substantial shift in the amount of public support for two different types of home occupier. I suggest that the people who need most help are those who are not receiving it.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to mislead the House. The figures which he has quoted are based on the historic capital cost of the council house as the element of subsidy, whereas with a mortgage owner-occupiers are paying the current capital cost. When making a comparison, would he not be wise to take a revalued basis—the capital value of the council houses — in reaching his assessment? If he does that he will find that the council tenant receives a good £100 more subsidy than the owner-occupier.
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman can fiddle around with the statistics to his heart's content. Any accountant could show that remortgaging to the limit permitted by the Inland Revenue based on the capital cost of private housing has to be taken into account. One cannot take the historic cost as being the relevant value. The point that I make is not influenced by statistics put forward by

205
the hon. Member. Whether he is right or wrong, it does not alter the fundamental point that there has been consistent support by the Government for people who buy their houses on mortgage. At the end of the period of mortgage they gain the capital value of the house.
There has been consistent public support for the house purchase policy irrespective of interest rates. Therefore, the level of support varies depending upon the interest rates being charged by the building societies and banks. I am not arguing the niceties of the precise figures. I suggest that there was a traditional record of Government support for people who were buying their houses and for those who were renting their houses. One has changed and the other has not.
Mr. Henderson: I appreciate the important principle which the hon. Gentleman is trying to establish. However, he damages his argument by using the spurious figures produced by an outside source — figures which I have also seen. The figures about council houses relate to all council houses and all council house tenants on the average, yet he does not relate the figures for the private sector to all private houses and all owner-occupiers on the average.
If the hon. Gentleman did that he would realise that the balance has not really changed. He is comparing past figures which were arrived at on a fair basis of comparison, with current figures, which were arrived at on a different basis of comparison. He should be careful about that.
Finally, but not least, many owner-occupiers now receiving mortgage relief were local authority tenants not so long ago.
Mr. Robertson: Very few of them were council tenants, because the figures which I quoted relate to a period before the substantial rise in council house sales.
The hon. Gentleman passed some disparaging comments on the statistics and their source. I must tell him that the source was an answer to a parliamentary question in April 1983. He should be wary of denigrating the source of material, even if he wishes to quibble about my point.
There has been long-standing traditional support for the provision of housing in Scotland, but the Government are breaking that. The housing support grant order is yet another illustration that the grant to many local authorities is being savagely cut. That is clearly a break in the consensus.
If that were my only condemnation of the Government, I should be happy to bandy statistics all night. In addition to cutting the level of housing support, they are increasing the level of rents considerably in excess of the rate of inflation. Through their housing policy they have cut the resources for new build. Because of their ham-fisted way of cutting home improvement grants they have almost halted the renovation of older property — a problem which will have to be dealt with in future. Finally, their policy on unified housing benefit has caused considerable and justifiable criticism across a wide range of opinion.
Those are the ways in which the Government are pursuing their housing policy. It clearly shows that they have no coherent view about the future of housing stock. Nor have they any genuine appreciation of the real crisis that affects Scottish housing today.
206
When the Government took office they introduced the gimmick of selling council houses to sitting tenants. When that proved a minor success, they increased the bribes needed to sell more houses. I accept that more houses have been sold. I do not underestimate the Government's success in some areas. A large number of people, including some of my constituents, have bought their council houses. For many of them it was their first opportunity of home ownership. Therefore, I agree that the Government have had some success in that area, and perhaps some of the election results last year proved that.
What worries me is what lies underneath that sucess. It is only a superficial success, usually benefiting those wishing to buy the better houses in the better areas. Underneath that superficial success lies a miserable picture of those left in decaying public housing which no one wants to buy. What about those left on the housing waiting lists or those living in overcrowded homes? They are not helped by a programme which sells the best houses at knock-down prices to people who have been living in their homes for a long time.
The real record of the Government's housing policy comes before every right hon. and hon. Member at every surgery and advice centre. There cannot be any hon. Member who, week in and week out, is not faced with the catalogue of misery of those living in overcrowded and bad housing. Indeed, there is a total lack of housing in many parts of the country. One may think that a record of success in selling council houses is something of which the Government can be proud, but if that policy results in a declining housing stock and people living in miserable circumstances, it is surely only a superficial success.
I must tell the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) that there was a time when even the Conservative party could boast of its success in dealing with Scotland's post-war housing crisis. Before I was born, there was a serious problem in Scotland with slums. At that time the Conservative party was doing reasonably well in Scottish elections. It was proud to boast about the dramatic alteration in the housing standards in Scotland. I wish that the Conservative party of today — that miserable monetarist party — would look back to that time and note how the housing standards of the 1930s and 1940s were dramatically changed.
We must look carefully at the housing waiting lists. There is a desperate need for sheltered housing. It was a bit of a cheek for the hon. Member for Fife, North-East to say how wonderful the Government are and how brilliantly they are performing—despite the decline of new build housing to 1920 levels—and then to tell us about the need for sheltered housing in his constituency. Every constituency needs more sheltered housing. We know that, and the Government know that, but they will not provide the necessary resources. That is one charge which the Minister must answer tonight.
There is also a need for special housing for the handicapped, large numbers of whom could live in the community rather than in institutions if we provided the necessary custom-built accommodation. The Government should be ashamed of their record in those areas. They should not try to pretend that they have something of which to be proud.
On Friday night I addressed the annual dinner of the Slate Trade Benevolent Association — an august organisation. About 500 members of the building trade and construction industry in the west of Scotland attended.

207
I dare say that a large number of them voted Conservative at the last election. There were no red flags flying at the Albany hotel last Friday. They may have voted Conservative at the last election, but I have yet to hear an audience more bitterly critical of the Government on the issue of improvement grants, the damage that the Government's policy has caused to the construction industry, the chaos and confusion caused to local authorities and the disastrous effect that their policy will probably have on the future stock of housing which was being so consistently and effectively improved. There is a deep and growing bitterness over the gross injustice of the Government's decision, not only in the construction industry and among others directly affected, but among a wider section of the community.
Hamilton, the area which I represent, is a cross-section of the west of Scotland, not dominated by public housing, but with a large section of private housing, new and old, and the experience there is probably characteristic of Scotland as a whole. In the last four years Hamilton district council's housing authority has suffered a cut of over 54 per cent. in its housing support grant — the fourth highest cut of all the local authorities in Scotland. That has happened despite the fact that in the last two years rents have increased by over 27 per cent., one of the largest increases in rents of all local authorities in Scotland. Where is the justice in that situation?
The Government have no right to be proud of their housing record and I hope that tonight, by highlighting the problems of the Scottish housing industry, we will persuade the Government slowly to come to their senses. Their housing record is characterised by bungling, incompetence, shortsighted housekeeping and, worse, a singular indifference to the misery which their policy will cause. They blunder on, forcing up rents, slashing the resources available for building, demolishing the improvement grants scheme, yet they seem utterly oblivious to the long-term consequences of their actions. Conservative Members personally will probably not share in those consequences, but millions of Scots who will do so will not forgive the malicious shortsightedness of this Government.
8.22 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: This debate — it seems to have been going on, on and off, since this session began six months ago—has reached the point when it should move on from a rather sterile altercation about the level of rents and whether council house sales are good or bad to our acknowledging certain changes that are taking place. On both sides of the House we should look at some areas which are not being addressed by the Government's present housing policy.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) said that, from the present trend of housing support grant, in two years or so it would disappear completely. I do not hear any denial of that from the Government Front Bench, and I think that that is the direction in which we are moving. What is the thinking of the Government beyond that? May we be told the direction in which they are going on this issue?
In the short term, we understand the motives behind the Government's policy. They are seeking to achieve increased rents for council tenants overall; to force up rents has been part of the deliberate aim of their policy, and the calculation this year is that this cut will lead to an
208
average increase in rents of 9·4 per cent. The trouble with this policy — followed in a narrow sense, as it is at present— is that it tends to hit the middle and lower income groups hardest. We have had a fiasco of housing benefit assistance— it has yet to be unravelled —and arguably the Government can say that those on the lowest incomes qualify for housing benefit and that they are to some extent protected from rent increases, although not fully.
Those who have the good fortune to be buying their homes on mortgage get extremely generous tax relief, and that is obviously a contribution to the incomes of that section of the community. If the Conservatives pursue a policy of abolishing direct assistance to people who wish to make a start on buying their first homes or who wish to be housed in the public sector, and give support only to those who are owner occupiers, they will leave an extremely vulnerable and lopsided form of assistance, one which is likely ultimately to be phased out. I suggest that supporting private owner occupiers when they are withdrawing support from public sector tenants and those with low incomes wishing to make a start would make the position indefensible.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am having some difficulty in following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Council tenants who cannot afford to pay are given support through the housing benefit scheme. More to the point, I do not understand his suggestion that because we are reducing the housing support grant, rents will necessarily go up. To give two examples, last year north-east Fife and Perth and Kinross no longer received housing support grant, but rents did not go up. Therefore, the hon. Members's logic is defective.
Mr. Bruce: The deliberate motivation of Government action in this sphere is to iron out the policy of keeping rents low in certain areas, and I agree that there are variations among local authorities. It is true, nevertheless, that if one withdraws support that was provided earlier, that has an effect on the overall budget, and rents will obviously be affected. I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's intervention because the Government have made no secret of the fact that they wish to see council house rents on average go up; that has been a considered aim of Government policy in recent years.
Accepting that, let us look at the consequences, given the overall thrust of Government policy on housing. As I said, those who do not qualify for benefit—in other words, those who are on sufficiently high incomes to be out of the benefit levels but who are not on high enough levels to be in the market to buy their own homes—are the most vulnerable, and they represent a large slice of the ordinary working population. In housing terms, they are becoming the most disadvantaged in our society. That is an area to which the Government should be addressing themselves.
Hon. Members receive in our surgeries every week—and have telephoning and writing to us every day—people who are trying to get a house of their own, either by renting or buying, and who are finding that they are faced with extreme difficulties. A lady who falls into exactly that category attended my surgery last Saturday, and I have sent a letter to the Minister. Her case is an example of the gap that exists. She and her husband have a tied cottage, in which they have lived for 13 years.

209
Because they are in tied accommodation, the council accepts no serious responsibility for housing them. They are unable to buy because their income is too low even to get on the bottom rung of the private market, and all the housing associations on whose lists they wish to be placed are fully committed and cannot accept them. What will the Government do to meet that sort of gap, a gap which is becoming increasingly apparent?
The Government will not inspire confidence in me and many others if they concentrate the entire thrust of their policy on the sale of council houses. That does not help those who do not have a council house in the first place and it does not help those who cannot buy in the private market and who cannot get on a housing association list. The Government must show that they have an interest in that type of problem. They must demonstrate that they have a commitment to meeting the housing need in Scotland generally, and not just in following a political gimmick—one from which, as I said at the outset, we should move on.
The selling of council houses is well established, there is no doubt that it has been politically successful and that it has met a need. But to suggest that it represents a comprehensive housing policy is inadequate, and it is time that the Government came forward with a more constructive policy to meet the problems that hon. Members are encountering in our surgeries.
An important element in the housing support grant is repairs. Not only do we have a number of types of houses, such as those built in the 1950s and 1960s, with problems, but by definition we are selling the better council houses and those that have been better maintained, with the result that the stock remaining needs more repairs. The Government have perhaps not taken full account of the fact that the average cost of repairs is likely to increase in the light of the changing nature of the housing stock.
In my area there is a clear anomaly. In one case, I cannot complain—I do not think that my district council of Gordon would complain — about the allocation of funds under the order. There has been a reduction and there still are problems—and I should like to see more going to meet the needs that I have identified—but a cut from £1,750,000 to £1,621,000, by comparison with what is happening in the city of Aberdeen, is minor. Aberdeen's grant has been cut from £3·75 million to £1·75 million. It is receiving a grant which is only slightly more than that which will be given to Gordon district council, despite the fact that Gordon district council has 5,900 houses and Aberdeen has 38,900. I think that I know the reason behind the cut.
I have spoken to the leader of the Liberal group of councillors, who the Minister might acknowledge is not one who generally seeks confrontation with Government. He tries to promote a responsible attitude within the council. He has done so when the Liberals have had influence on the Labour group, which, unfortunately, is not the present position.
The leader of the Liberal group considers that Aberdeen is being clobbered by the Scottish Office and that the house-building programme in Aberdeen is rapidly becoming non-existent. None the less, Aberdeen is a growth area. In the view of the leader of the Liberal group, the Government are pursuing a course of confrontation with local authorities. The fact that Aberdeen is Labour
210
controlled may provide some relish for him in taking that view. However, we must consider the needs of those living in the area, including the provision of housing.
House building has come to a virtual standstill in the public sector. The repair programme has reached a critical level. As I have said, these are comments from someone who is not prone to making irrational statements. He has been working with his council over a long period and he feels the real problems of an area that is experiencing growth and considerable pressure. A wide variety of housing demands are not met by global allocations which the Minister knows are inadequate to meet the demands on the council.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will not merely repeat what he said at the beginning of the debate in attempting to justify the fairness of the allocation, which has not been accepted by Opposition Members. I hope that he will address himself to what the Government will do to meet the needs of those who are not being covered by the Government's present housing policy and by the order. I hope that he will do so in the interests of moving on from the present stage into a more positive approach.
8.33 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made a number of interesting remarks. I think that he reflected a view which is held sincerely in the local authorities with which he has been associated. The speeches of the Minister and his hon. Friends have lacked a reflection of that healthy kind of relationship between the Government and local authorities that I believe is in the interests of ratepayers as well as council tenants.
There have been a number of references to the delegation from COSLA that we received today, which I understand made itself available to all of the political parties. It is appropriate that we put on record the claims that COSLA is making and which the Minister has been unable to persuade me are not justified. It has said that total housing support grant has been reduced from £213·4 million in 1979–80 to the £52·5 million that is proposed for 1984–85, a fall of 75 per cent. in six years. It claims that if the order is accepted, 30 out of the 56 eligible authorities——
Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman says that COSLA sought out all the political parties. That is not so because it did not seek out the SNP members, and I gather that it did not consult Liberal Members either. How can we take COSLA seriously if it chooses not to consult on what it wants Parliament to do? I think that COSLA has made a serious mistake and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that that is so.
Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman is right, that is an error that I would not condone. I am sure that COSLA will pay close attention to what he has said. Nevertheless, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be gracious enough to consider the important figures which COSLA is advancing, which reflect the views of local authorities of all political persuasions, including those that are shared by Liberal and SNP members.
COSLA draws attention in the paper that is presented today to its claim that 30 of the 56 eligible authorities, or those which would have been elegible, will not be receiving housing support grant as a result of the order.

211
That represents 58 per cent. of the Scottish housing stock, which would previously have been eligible. Even if the figures are remotely correct—my judgment is that they cannot be all that far out—there will be a considerable decline in the Government's contribution to the public sector over the period covered by COSLA's paper. If the figures are incorrect, I challenge the Minister to tell the local authorities that are represented by COSLA that they are wrong, and to tell the district and island authorities that are responsible for housing that the housing support grant order represents a larger figure. I think that the Minister will have great difficulty in convincing the House that that is the position.
It is not the first time in this Parliament that the House is facing blind prejudice in place of the realism that the people of Scotland, and the people of Britain generally, are entitled to expect. Rents have increased considerably since the Government took office. I shall go through the COSLA figures as quickly as I can, which are well above the rate of inflation. In 1980–81 the increase was 19·5 per cent. In 1981–82 it was 30·54 per cent. It was 17·2 per cent. in 1982–83 and 9·8 per cent. in 1983–84. The projected increase for 1984–85 is 17·4 per cent.
In the situation that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) described, in which the Government have recognised the position of owner occupiers over the years, we are seeing nothing less than a vendetta against council tenants. Why is that? It is not unrelated to the fact that two authorities have been able to freeze their rents and at the same time have the highest level of sales of council houses. The Government's housing support grant theme is to force all local authorities into persuading their tenants that it is far more sensible to buy their council houses than to pay inflated rents, which are being imposed upon them by fear. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is representative of that policy.
Mr. John Maxton: The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) makes Adam Smith seem Left-wing.
Mr. Clarke: Considerable problems are being faced by council tenants in district after district. In addition, there are the problems of the unemployed, who have to face the consequences of the Government's policies, not least unified housing benefit.
We have been lectured this afternoon on manpower levels. It seems that local authorities in Scotland are being asked to be ashamed of their figures. Who did the Minister expect to deal with unified housing benefit when the responsibility was passed to the local authorities? The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) criticised Glasgow for losing £12 million in grant as a result of its rent policy.
Mr. Maxton: The Government changed the rules.
Mr. Clarke: Exactly. As my hon. Friend says, the Government changed the rules. The decision to relate rents to the availability of housing capital was made by the Government not by Glasgow district council, North-East Fife district council or any other council.
Mr. Maxton: I confirm what my hon. Friend is saying. Even if Glasgow had increased rents by the amount that the Minister was seeking and had achieved the full amount of the allocation, it still would not have been able next year to build one new council house—sheltered or any other type. It would be able only to carry out repairs.
Mr. Clarke: I accept my hon. Friend's contribution. When the Government are criticising local authorities for allegedly high manpower levels, the local authorities are taking their responsibilities more seriously. How dare the Government come to the two district councils that I represent — Strathkelvin and Monklands — where unemployment is running at 25 per cent. and tell them that they ought to be putting more people on the dole? How dare the Government go to those authorities and introduce this measure when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton has pointed out, they have been cutting housing support grant? I regret that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) is not in the Chamber, but I put it on record that Strathkelvin district council, which he and I represent, was livid about the Government's decision on grants for housing improvement.
My constituents in the owner-occupier sector in south Lenzie, Miltonof, Campsie, Millerston, and Coatbridge were just as livid when their hopes were dashed with the enormous publicity by the Government before the election. Nothing in the housing support grant is helpful to council tenants or ratepayers. Council house tenants are ratepayers also. Above all, nothing in the housing support grant helps Scotland to improve the unemployment level. We have heard lectures from the hon. Member for Fife, North-East, who is paying less attention to me than I did to him, and from other Conservative Members about the conditions of council houses. They ought to be more humble and return to their Conservative friends, especially those in Edinburgh, because some members of the Scottish Select Committee including the hon. Member for Fife, North-East had the opportunity to see schemes such as those at Pilton and Bingham which were a disgrace. Those schemes occurred in a district where rents are considerably higher than in Strathkelvin, Glasgow and most other places in Scotland. There is no evidence that high rents mean necessarily better quality housing—if Edinburgh is any place to go by.
We have had yet another assault on the living standard of the Scottish people and Scottish local government. The fact that today we had an all-party delegation at the House was a sign that that is the people's view.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who is leaving the Chamber, and I found agreement on the Common Market the other evening. I suspect that if he stayed longer in the Chamber we would find ourselves in agreement on the problems of Castlemilk.
Yet again, we are being asked to approve a housing support grant order which will mean that local authorities will face even greater problems in providing housing than has been the case. I believe that the Minister insulted local authorities when he implied that some of them do not spend much time on their budgets. I am bound to say that, from my experience of districts from Dumfries and Galloway to the highlands and islands, whatever their political complexion, local authorities take their budgets, policies and decisions to set rates seriously. It would help the Minister, the Government and the people of Scotland considerably if the Minister took on board the views expressed by the local authorities. I have no confidence that that will be the case. For that reason, I shall have great pleasure in voting in the Lobbies against the Government's measure.
8.45 pm
Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) showed all the indignation of someone caught with his hands in the till. For years, the Labour party in Scotland has bribed the electorate with the electorate's money and argued, "We are the party that will give you lower council rents, despite what it will cost other people." The Labour party has consistently gone to the ballot box on that theme. The hon. Member and other Labour party members are indignant that the Government are starting to deal with that problem. I understand their indignation, but it is an indignation that the Scottish people see for what it is. I say to the hon. Member for Monklands, West, who has described council house sales as a type of political gimmick, that the Labour party is even further out of touch with council tenants in Scotland than I had imagined.
Mr. Norman Buchan: I have two points of concern: the statement about my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), and the statement about bribing people with their own money. Will the hon. Gentleman explain? His statement seemed to be nonsense.
Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to explain that point to him. Contrary to the myths that are believed in the Labour party, the people who are paying for this expenditure are no longer the mythical rich, but those who, as they keep reminding us, must struggle to make ends meet. Subsidies in rents, for which they argued, must be paid for in taxation. Perhaps 100,000 or 200,000 of the Labour party's supporters in Scotland have come to the view that it might be more efficient to leave the money in their pockets than to employ a large bureaucracy to take that money from them before it is returned to them.
Mr. Buchan: Is that the answer?
Mr. Forsyth: I congratulate the Minister on his courage on housing policy and on his statement. While in a charitable frame of mind, I pay tribute to my local authority — if only to provide a few surprises in the series of speeches in which, with monotonous regularity, the Labour party trots out the same old platitudes. Stirling district council is worthy of praise because it has been transformed, I am told, under the guidance of the Minister into an authority that is now committed to council house sales and is having meetings with private builders to discuss equity sharing schemes, building for sale and sheltered housing provided with the support of the private sector. A Marxist council is now pursuing——
Mr. Maxton: What do you mean, Marxist council?
Mr. Forsyth: —policies to increase home ownership within its domain.
Mr. Maxton: It is Labour party policy, by the way.
Mr. Forsyth: It may be Labour party policy, but it seems that every time one questions the Labour party on this matter it is reluctant to make any commitment about where its policy lies.
The Minister should realise in his discussions with the local authorities that there shall be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth and that Stirling district council believes that it is about to tackle the housing needs of its people by using the resources within the private sector. It
214
is doing that not because it is Labour party policy but because it has run out of money. The Government have turned off the tap and prevented the authority from trotting out the usual platitudes about building more, doing more and meeting unlimited demands
I believe that it was the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) who said that I made Adam Smith look Left-wing.
Mr. Maxton: No, it was me. I claim credit for that.
Mr. Forsyth: In that case, I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was Adam Smith who first pointed out that as the price of a commodity approaches zero, the demand approaches infinity. The reason why all of us face constituents at our surgeries who rightly claim that they cannot find housing is because the price of the good has been allowed to approach zero too quickly. We are subsidising people who may have council houses due to an accident of birth at the expense of those who, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) pointed out have extreme difficulty in finding housing.
It is almost offensive to hear the hon. Member for Hamilton complain that it is our fault that those people cannot find housing and that housing conditions in Scotland are so poor when the housing crisis about which we hear so much is the creation of Socialism. It was the Socialists who destroyed the private rented sector which could provide respite for those in tied accommodation. Socialist engineering did that. The hon. Gentleman said that it was our duty to provide housing for those people before the war. It is that notion of dedication to providing housing for the people that has produced the appalling estates in Scotland. The slums that the Socialists set out to destroy were created by Socialist councils with money provided by the taxpayers of Scotland.
Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is younger than some of us, but does he appreciate from his study of history the appalling housing conditions that prevailed in Scotland from the 19th century onwards, often due to the rushed building which took place in that century when the population increased fairly quickly? Does he agree that in the face of those conditions it was necessary for Government and local authorities to step in and provide a decent standard? That does not mean that we cannot criticise both central and local government for failures in housing policy which have led to conditions such as those at Castlemilk, Whitfield or Easterhouse, which unfortunately now afflict so many cities.
Mr. Forsyth: I agree entirely that anyone in his right mind would condemn the conditions then prevailing by comparison with modern standards. Taking the matter a stage further, however, I might argue that 300 years ago people in my constituency lived in little more than mud huts and that the progress made up to the middle of the 19th century was not the result of public enterprise, but that is not the argument. The hon. Gentleman should look at his own constituency or across to that of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) to see the appalling example, albeit created with the highest motives, of Socialism in practice. Ghettoes have been created in which people live in fear.
We have just been reading the Select Committee report on dampness——
Mr. Michael J. Martin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Forsyth: No, I shall not give way. I have been very generous so far.
Hon. Members can look at the Select Committee report on dampness, if and when it is published, to see the conditions in which people are living in their true scale. Socialism is to blame for the appalling housing conditions in Scotland. If we are anything at all we should learn from the mistakes of the past.
Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Forsyth: No, I shall not give way.
Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman's history is very bad.
Mr. Forsyth: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
Mr. Buchan: Moreover, the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Mr. Maxton: He is wrong on everything.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is clearly not giving way.
Mr. Buchan: You think that he is not giving way, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: He is clearly not giving way.
Mr. Buchan: His history is very bad indeed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Forsyth.
Mr. Forsyth: Thank you for your support, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) referred to a Select Committee report on dampness which has not yet been published and put before the House. I am sure that it is not in order to comment on the contents of such a report.
Mr. Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I may deal with one point of order at a time.
Mr. Henderson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) was quoting from evidence given to the Select Committee, which has been published. He was not quoting from the Select Committee report, which has not been published.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman was quoting evidence that has been published, he was in order. If he was commenting on the contents of a report that has not yet been published and presented to the House, he was out of order. Perhaps he will clarify that.
Mr. Maxton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Forsyth: I was, of course, quoting from the evidence. Anyone who has studied that evidence will well understand why Labour Members are not keen for me to quote from it.
The notion central to the order is that we should shift the emphasis away from subsidising houses and towards subsidising people. That must be right. The parallels between tax relief on mortgage interest and rent subsidies
216
are completely misguided because mortgage interest tax relief means that people do not pay so much tax because they are making provision for themselves. That is quite different from subsidising decaying blocks of bricks and mortar for which we have paid far too much and which we have been far too dilatory in maintaining.
The Opposition keep talking about people living in miserable housing in Scotland who do not benefit from council house sales. In fact, not only is there a bonus in the receipts from those sales but there is ample evidence, even in the concrete filing cabinets in Edinburgh and elsewhere to which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) referred, that even in Martello Towers, Easterhouse and elsewhere people are prepared to buy property that the local authority cannot rent to them in any circumstances. Not even people housed under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act were prepared to live in them, but people are prepared to buy and improve them. Conservative Members who are concerned to see an overall improvement in the housing stock are not so wedded to any dogma as to say that this must be achieved in any one particular way. I appreciate that the Opposition's ideology precludes their coming easily to that conclusion. I pay tribute to authorities such as Stirling district, for whom the penny has actually dropped.
The extraordinary thing that emerged from the speeches of Opposition Members is that they seem not to have caught up with those who represent their party in local authorities throughout Scotland. In discussing the level of rents, their arguments are singularly bogus. The very authorities who bleat most about lack of support in order to keep rents down are those who contribute most to keeping rents high by running inefficient and irresponsible direct labour organisations which in turn pass on the fat to the struggling council tenant whom the proponents of the DLOs are apparently so quick to defend. Opposition Members, in their support for the in-house provision of maintenance in local authorities, are trying to walk a tightrope from which, in fact, they have long since fallen. If they were serious about looking after the interests of their tenants, they would be looking to invite tenders and to find the most efficient means of providing maintenance of their estates and managements of their estates, as so many authorities south of the border have done.
It is nothing less than a scandal that Glasgow should be charging an extra £2 per week out of the rent to cover the maintenance costs of its notorious direct labour organisations.
Mr. Maxton: I take the point the hon. Gentleman makes about repairs in Glasgow, but has he looked at the figures on administration? He will find that the local authority district council with the highest per capita cost for administration is not Glasgow, but Bearsden.
Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, on examining the figures for the increases in staffing levels among the non-manual local government officers, I should not be at all surprised to find that is so.
I have no brief to argue that any local authority in Scotland is as efficient as it should be. Indeed, if I were to criticise any aspect of the order, I would say that it is too generous. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister likes me to do that, because it shows him to be the very moderate gentleman that he is.
I conclude by referring to the splendid occasion mentioned by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr.

217
Robertson), who I think has left the Chamber — the roofers' and slaters' annual dinner held in the Albany hotel, obviously reflecting the hard times that have befallen them because of the Government's improvement grants policy. I should be very surprised if the gentlemen who make up that august company could look one in the eye and argue that they were being hard done by because the Government introduced, as a temporary measure, a 90 per cent. scheme that has been an absolute beanfeast for them, a beanfeast that they are still enjoying and will enjoy no doubt for a year or two to come. If Opposition Members believe that, because notice has been given that that bonanza is over, somehow or other these gentlemen are going to change their minds and vote for the Labour party — [Interruption.]—if that were true, I would fear for the roofs of the people who have benefited from their services. I am sure that they are very much more aware of the reality of that position.
The fact is that the Government, through their generosity on the improvements grants scheme, have done more at a stroke, to coin a phrase, for housing in Scotland than years and years of Labour Government.
9.2 pm
Mr. John Maxton: I seem always to have the misfortune of following the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). He always takes my breath away by the sheer reactionary tone of his speech, so much so that I am surprised he was not mentioned in last night's "Panorama", although I suppose he would consider it to be rather Left wing to be counted among the company that was mentioned on that programme.
The hon. Gentleman always gets his facts wrong. He says, for instance, that we have got rid of the private sector, yet, thank God, we got rid of a large amount of the private rented sector, because it was exactly the sort of slum property which we wanted to get rid of to ensure that ordinary working people had proper houses in which to live.
The hon. Gentleman said that we were bribing people with their own money. The implication is that we were using rates and taxation to keep down council housing rents. At present, he will admit, the level of support which the Government give to housing is a quarter of what it was in 1979. As the hon. Gentleman said, if he had his way it would be considerably lower than that. Despite that great reduction by 75 per cent. of the money given by the Government to local authorities for housing, despite all the other cuts that they have made, despite all the cuts in education and the cuts in leisure and recreation, as the House has heard in earlier debates, the average individual in this country, with the exception of a few wealthy people, pays more taxation today under this Government than he paid in 1979. It is difficult for Conservative Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Stirling, to explain that anomaly. The Government have cut public expenditure while at the same time increasing taxation.
Mr. Wilson: The Government have cut the economy.
Mr. Maxton: I do not always agree with the hon. Gentleman or the SNP, but on this occasion he is right. The Government have cut investment and increased unemployment and part-time working. Large sums of public money are now, in a sense, being spent on useless
218
items, instead of on useful things such as ensuring that there is employment and that more public housing is built, thus providing more employment in the construction industry. That must be borne in mind.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) is not in the Chamber. Some months ago he expressed great interest in housing and in the grants being given to private owner occupiers for repairs if their properties were below a certain rateable value. I recall that the hon. Gentleman was going to start a great campaign to ensure that the rateable values for the scheme were raised. A personal friend of mine in the Labour party attacked me because I did not take up the hon. Gentleman's point. But now the hon. Gentleman does not even bother to attend housing debates. He is no longer interested in housing or in the fact that Tory councillors are attacking the Government because of their housing policy in that area. We do not hear a cheep out of him. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) said, we have not heard a word from the hon. Gentleman on the subject of housing.
The people of Bearsden, Milngavie and Eastwood continually use the facilities paid for by Glasgow district council's ratepayers. In particular, they use the leisure facilities and are parasites upon those ratepayers. Lord Wheatley's original report on local government was right. The suburbs of Glasgow should have been part and parcel of Glasgow district council and should not have been kept out, as they were under a Tory Government. If they had been part and parcel, there would still have been a Labour majority now, and we would have had more money to spend on the facilities. [Interruption.] We would still have Strathclyde, but Glasgow district council would have been there too.
At the end of the day the important factor is not the fear of the hon. Member for Stirling or the figures involved in the order, but the effect of such orders on our constituents and on those council tenants who live in the constituencies of Conservative Members. A person's home is the most important thing that he has, whether it is rented or owned. People want to be able to live in their homes in comfort and warmth, and in the knowledge that they can carry out any necessary repairs themselves or, if it is a council property, that the council will carry them out for them. However, that is no longer the case in cities such as Glasgow. Housing support has been cut drastically. As I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), even if Glasgow kept its rents at the level that the Government wanted, and even if it received the full capital allocation, my information from Glasgow district housing department is that it would not be able to build one new house next year.
Much housing needs to be replaced in the public sector and there is also a great need for specialist housing, particularly for the elderly, because the elderly population in Glasgow is increasing. Not one sheltered house is being built by the local authority. In my constituency — I cannot speak for the rest of the city—not one sheltered house will be built by housing associations such as the British Legion or the Hanover housing association because they have said that they do not have funds to build. Again, that is because of local authority cutbacks. Therefore, many elderly pepole are living in houses which are too large and for which they are paying too high a rent. If they were in sheltered homes they would be paying lower rents.

219
Many people in my constituency are living in houses which are very damp. The hon. Member for Stirling mentioned the evidence of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. My ears misheard him, or perhaps he will be put right by the Official Report tomorrow. I thought he said "report", but perhaps he meant "evidence". I shall give him the benefit of the doubt.
I went with the Committee when it visited Castlemilk. We saw housing in an appalling state because of dampness. The problems could be solved by spending large sums of money. The Secretary of State will tell us that he does not have the money, but he has plenty to spend on nuclear weapons. He has bags of money to spend on building houses costing £100,000 or £110,000 each in the Falkland Islands; the contract obviously should never have gone to the person who got it at a price above the other bids.
It is a matter of priorities. The Government could solve the problems of damp houses in Scotland if they had the will. They do not have that will. They are not interested in council house tenants in Scotland, because they believe that those tenants do not vote for them. In that they are right, despite what the hon. Member for Stirling said about council house tenants no longer voting for the Labour party. That is garbage. We won the last election in cities like Glasgow. Council house tenants voted overwhelmingly for the Labour party and they will do so again in the district elections in May.
Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Member knows, the Labour party in Scotland lost a quarter of a million votes in the election. Where does he think it lost them?
Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Tory party lost more.
Mr. Maxton: As my hon. Friend rightly points out, the Tory party lost a great many more.
Mr. Ancram: No.
Mr. Maxton: I shall tell the hon. Member where we lost our votes. It was not in the area——
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger)rose——
Mr. Maxton: The Secretary of State is always unwilling to give way to me in these debates, so I shall not give way to him.
We did not lose votes in Scotland among council house tenants in places such as Glasgow and Edinburgh. We lost them in the highlands, where the Tory party lost its support. We retained our seats; the Tory party did not.
The Government's housing policy is deliberately and vindictively against council house tenants. The Government believe that people should not rent property but that, if at all possible, it should be owned. The Government's attitude is rather like that of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Pan-is) who spent a week masquerading as a social security benefit claimant and said that it was difficult to live on social security but that that was right because it would force social security claimants to look for a job. That is much the same as the Tory philosophy on housing—make it as rotten, nasty and expensive as possible so that people will get out of it.
The Labour party aims to provide people with decent, properly wind-proofed, heated and affordable houses in a
220
decent environment. In the past five years the Government have tried to destroy those conditions. The Labour party will be returned at the next election and restore them.
9.15 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has just shown clearly how the Labour party has singularly failed to live up to what he believes is its aim—to provide for the people of Scotland housing which is all that he says it should be. He also knows that there are too many council houses in Scotland which do not meet those standards. The people who live in them live in misery. The reason for that is that, after the second world war, successive Governments were judged by the number of houses that were built during their tenure of office. Nobody considered bad design, bad building or houses being built in the wrong place.
The result has been misery for many families. No one who is involved with housing in Scotland can be proud of that. Families live in conditions which can only be described as horrific and ghastly. Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been wasted. That is the result of investing in buildings rather than in people. That is the fundamental difference between the two major parties. The Conservatives believe in investing in people. We do not have a doctrinaire view about the type of property in which people should live or about where they should live.
As members of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee know from evidence that it was given in public and from visits, no humane society should ask people to live in such conditions. I accept that it will cost a massive amount of money to rectify the errors. It would be madness for any Government to continue the policies that have produced the problem. That is why I welcome the shift in the Government's policies. I welcome the fact that, in these difficult times, it has been recognised that we must move resources from buildings to people.
Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walker: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have very little time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be brief.
Mr. Wilson: I shall be brief. The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are investing in people and not in buildings. Under the housing support grant, investment in buildings has been reduced but at the same time the Government intend to cut housing benefit, which is an investment in people.
Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument. The Government are adopting a fundamentally different approach to housing.
Labour-controlled authorities in Scotland have deliberately made ratepayers make massive contributions towards rents paid by people who are well able to pay an economic rent. Perth and Kinross district council recognises that and has set its rents at an economic level. That is why it sees no need to raise rents now. The interesting fact is that there is no shortage of people who want a council property in Perth and Kinross. The reason is clear. People who cannot afford to pay an economic rent are subsidised by the Exchequer. I do not argue with that, because a caring society must look after people who are unable to meet the demands of an economic rent.

221
Aid is provided by substantial funding from the Department of Health and Social Security and other sources. More than 50 per cent. of council tenants have their rents and rates paid partly or in full by such funding. I do not argue with that. However, such provision makes nonsense of claims by Opposition Members that increasing rents means that people in that section of the community will suffer. The problem is solved by the Exchequer making substantial sums of money available to the housing funds of local authorities.
More important, if that is linked to a policy of selling council houses to those who can afford to pay the economic rent, but who judge that they are better off under Conservative policies, authorities will be better able to channel funds towards those in greatest need. If benefits are spread widely to cover everyone, those in greatest need get the thinnest proportion. That does not make sense.
Mr. Martin indicated dissent.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), speaking from the Liberal Benches, was right to say that a small section of the community will miss out. Those people are above the level where assistance is available from the Department of Health and Social Security, but below the level at which they can receive benefits from mortgage option schemes and other provisions. I hope that Ministers will take that into account. Any Government who care to help those in greatest need must consider the needs of the individual in that sector.
We are debating housing support grant to see what can be done to help all the people. I hope that the Government will look carefully at the Select Committee report when it is published. There is no doubt that what the report covers is the most important area of housing need in Scotland. We must tackle the problems of those who have been afflicted by bad local authority housing. We have a duty and responsibility, first, to examine that carefully — [Interruption.] I do not want to pre-empt the Committee's findings, and I am sure that Opposition Members would not wish me to do so, but I hope that the Government will take note of the report, when it is presented, and will return to the House with positive proposals for housing in Scotland.
I can continue only for a short time, so I shall be unable to respond to the mutterings of Opposition Members. Home improvement grants were a good thing while they lasted, but no one expected such high spending to go on for ever.
I have never been one to suggest that the public purse is open-ended and should be a great big chest ready for dipping into. We must look carefully at the entire housing stock, as in areas outside Scotland, and use what funds are available in these difficult times to help those in need. That is why I welcome expenditure on grants, where there is a statutory requirement on local authorities. I hope that it will continue.
Despite all the rhetoric from Opposition Members, only the Liberals have put forward constructive proposals to help those in Scotland who need the most help.
9.24 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: Like the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), I was a
222
member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in the previous Parliament. Like him, I saw the evidence, to which the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) referred, on some of the truly gruesome housing conditions in Edinburgh, parts of Glasgow and, no doubt, throughout Scotland. It is being suggested through what the Government are doing that the people who live in those appalling conditions should pay the whole cost, and a little more besides, for getting themselves out of those appalling conditions. That is not reasonable.
I give the hon. Member for Tayside, North a warning. He is in great danger of being outmanoeuvred on the Right by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). I was watching the expression of the hon. Member for Stirling when his hon. Friend was speaking. I never thought that I would see the day when I would describe the hon. Member for Tayside, North as a closet liberal, but now that we have been joined by the hon. Member for Stirling, that day might have arrived.
I shall make one preliminary point that hon. Members might expect me to make. There is a specifically Scottish aspect to what we are debating. There is a more specifically Scottish aspect to it in that, if there were an elected Scottish assembly, for which the people of Scotland have repeatedly voted, it is most unlikely that anything like this order would be foisted on tenants, housing authorities or anybody else in Scotland. That assembly would not be juggling scarce housing funds in this cynical manner. I hope that people in Scotland are aware of what this minority administration headed by the Secretary of State is foisting on them. He has a pretty tenuous mandate to do such a thing. He is exercising that power, but he should not be surprised if people begin to challenge it more as the months and years go by.
In the Minister's introductory remarks, in a characteristically elegant turn of phrase, he said that my constituency of East Lothian would drop out of grant. That might be his way of balancing books or of explaining what is going on in the housing support grant, but I believe that that dropping out of grant is extremely bad news for thousands of tenants in my constituency and will cause significant hardship.
We understand that rents in East Lothian district council houses will go up by about 16 per cent., by between £1·60 and £1·70 per week. Since 1979–80, the average annual rents paid by council tenants in East Lothian have gone up from £255·15 to £616·36. That is a direct consequence of the fact that the housing support grant for East Lothian district council has fallen from about £5 million to nothing this year. That is out of the control of the local authority. It is a direct consequence of decisions taken by Ministers in the Scottish Office. I have no doubt that tenants in my constituency will be aware of the difficulty that is being created for them. It is a false economy in the Government's own terms. It means that more tenants will be eligible to claim housing benefit. I hope that they do so. They are entitled to claim if they are under hardship.
There is also the rather convuluted and complicated question of the linkage between the rate fund contribution to housing revenue accounts and the housing capital allocations. I am greatly indebted to Mr. Kennedy, the director of finance of East Lothian district council, for giving me some briefing material on the way in which the problem affects my constituents. I must challenge the double standards involved in the decisions taken by the

223
Secretary of State in regard to the amount of rate fund contributions to housing revenue accounts, whereby capital expenditure is reduced by the Secretary of State if the rate fund contribution figure is exceeded.
In a sense, that is an academic argument for East Lothian district council, because it has no capital allocation for 1984–85. However, it has been put to me that if the new Valuation and Rating Bill became law—I earnestly hope that it will not, and I am doing all that I can in Standing Committee every Tuesday and Thursday to ensure that that date is delayed as long as possible—the Secretary of State would have power to determine the rate fund contribution to housing, and no doubt the figure that he is using now would be continued.
The argument is that it is clearly unfair to have a double standard. The Secretary of State's powers should be limited so that the figure used in the housing support grant calculation is used to determine the rate fund contribution. The Secretary of State should not have power to decide personally, because that will give him—and, I suppose has given him—total control of the rents set in each local authority area. It takes the local decisions on rents for local authority housing once and for all out of the hands of elected local authority councillors and puts them into the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
In the case of East Lothian, the rate fund contribution is limited to £605,000 for 1984–85—I want to try to find out where that figure of £605,000 for the year came from; perhaps the Minister can get some advice on the matter during the remaining minutes of the debate—while the degree of rate support taken into account in the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order is approximately £14·64 per head of population, which in East Lothian comes to £1·185 million. That leaves a shortfall of some £585,000.
On the basis of East Lothian's estimated expenditure for 1984–85, although the expenditure on repairs and maintenance is between £45 and £50 per house less than the deemed amount in the housing support grant calculation, to achieve the Secretary of State's rate fund contribution—his target—the average rent would be approximately £618 per annum, as against the national figure of £606·73 used by the Secretary of State in this order. If, however, the rate fund contribution was in the region of £1·184 million—as in this order—the average rent would be about £580 per annum. So the tenants, not the Government, would reap the advantage of the repairs policy of East Lothian district council.
I cannot understand where the figure of £605,000 comes from, unless it is simply because of East Lothian's former record. Certainly it is not based on facts, because the housing problem varies annually. As the Minister will realise, I have been quoting extensively from a brief produced by the director of finance of East Lothian district council, who also cannot understand where the figure comes from. It is surely reasonable, in a debate of this nature, to try to find out where such an arbitrary figure has come from. We are entitled to a public explanation, because it affects many households and families, not only in my constituency but in many other comparable areas of Scotland.
Many of my hon. Friends have referred to the stark contrast between what is happening to tenants in my constituency and throughout Scotland, and what the Government are doing elsewhere. We hear of the squandering of untold millions of pounds on housing and
224
other items in the south Atlantic, the extension of mortgage tax relief over £30,000, and so on, in contrast with the cuts that people who can least afford them are having to face. I deplore what the Government are doing. My hon. Friends and I are entitled to answers to our detailed questions. In due course I shall, of course, join my hon. Friends in voting against this pitifully inadequate order.
9.35 pm
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Were the fantasy assembly imagined by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) ever to be set up, my first motion would be the hon. Member for East Lothian should be the Speaker of that Assembly. That appointment would not add any dignity to the Assembly, but it would prevent the hon. Member from reading out gibberish which even he himself does not understand. The resulting silence would be welcome to those who surround the hon. Gentleman, as well as those who do not.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) made a most important observation. He said that the most important thing for every family is its home. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, he added, "whether it is rented or owned". I do not think that that is so. I do not believe that there is a family in Scotland who would not rather own than rent their home.
For a short period following the first world war, there were not enough rented houses available for those who required to move and could not afford to buy. That was why the concept of local authority housing was developed. It has been grossly distorted and unnecessarily expanded until, for instance, there are housing estates in Glasgow which are 10 times the size of many Scottish towns.
Mr. Maxton: Ten times?
Mr. Fairbairn: Yes. How many people live in Easterhouse? Fifty thousand. How many people live in Crieff? Five thousand.
Those who live in those vast housing schemes would infinately rather live in their own houses. If the Secretary of State has done one thing that is right, it is to say that we shall make an end of that serfdom. Those who live in local authority houses do so only because they have no alternative. They would rather live in their own houses, and that is why in Perth and Kinross we do not build council houses. We build sheltered houses for those in need——
Mr. David Lambie: They build castles—and how many tied cottages are there?
Mr. Fairbairn: Those are cheap jibes. However, if everybody bought a house which was available for housing—bought it for £100, as I did, and made it into a home — the problem of Scottish housing would be solved.
I congratulate the Secretary of State. We have been wise to move the people of Scotland against what they do not want. They do not want to live as the serfs of the local authority — [Interruption.] They do not want to be subject to the local authority's rate increases, extravagance, planning, repairs and everything else. They want security, and tenancy is not security. Let us move from the concept of tenancy to the concept of ownership. The Secretary of State's proposals on this matter are without doubt a move in the right direction.
9.39 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: It is all very well for the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) to talk about serfdom. No doubt he represents an area where there are many tied cottages, whose tenants know a great deal about serfdom. I wonder whether the private owners of estates, whose farmworkers have tied cottages, will be selling off those houses to those who live in them.
Many Conservative Members referred to Scottish local authorities, particularly in cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh, not wanting to know about the private sector. That is nonsense. Every time they talk about the cost of council house maintenance, they are talking not only about direct labour receiving finance from local government; they must surely know that many private companies—I accept that many of them do a good job in the city—do very well out of local government. If local government is to be condemned for spending money on local authority housing, Conservative Members must accept that many private companies benefit.
When Conservative Members talk about Glasgow's vast housing estates they must be aware that not all council housing estates, including the big ones, are undesirable. In my constituency there are large housing estates, not as big as Easterhouse and Drumchapel, but nevertheless bigger than those that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross mentioned, or Barmullod and Balornock, which are areas of reasonably high demand. He spoke about sprawling housing estates.
I lived in the Glasgow slums as a young boy. My mother was a private-sector tenant. The only time the landlord visited the property was when anyone was in arrears with the rent. It embarrassed the tenant who was in arrears. The pressure upon local authorities then was tremendous. Many senior officials in Glasgow district council can testify to the fact that when they built Easterhouse, Drumchapel and Castlemilk the then Tory Government would not allow them to build shopping centres, nurseries or the type of facilities that with hindsight we say should have been built.
The late Charles Murdoch, who was a highly respected chief executive of Glasgow district council, put it on record that when he was a junior planning officer he had to lie to the Secretary of State for Scotland to obtain nursery facilities in estates such as Drumchapel. He would say that a 10-classroom school was needed, but two of those classrooms were in fact for a nursery. That is the type of pressure that was then on local government. It is about time that the Tories faced up to the fact that they had a hand in Drumchapel, Easterhouse and the other estates that exist.
I can take hon. Members to many parts of the Drumchapel and Easterhouse estates where there is a great demand for the houses. They are happy communities in which people have brought up their families since moving there in the 1950s, and young couples who have grown up there wish to remain.
Many council houses in Glasgow that are of excellent quality are for sale. People who live in damp conditions in houses which have sometimes been designed by crooked private contractors cannot obtain transfers to decent houses because the homes to which they wish to move have been sold. If the argument is that every council estate is a bad estate, why do people seeking a transfer ask
226
for one not into the private sector but into other local authority housing? That must be a credit to local authority housing.
Glasgow has a great many problems which need the help and assistance of Government. If Government denies that help, they are denying the people whom they pretend to represent.
9.45 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan: I intend to be brief because I know that the House wishes to conclude its proceedings. I am glad of the opportunity to speak about housing. I have been in the House for a long time, but have generally left the subject of housing to the housing experts.
It is obvious that Conservative Members do not know the nature of the nation in which they live. How can they suggest that the proper solution for tenants is to buy a castle more cheaply and rebuild it to help prove the virtues of private ownership? How can they extol the virtues of privatisation? It might have been better had the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) declared an interest, because privatisation covers a wide area. The ideology of privatisation has been useful to many people, and Conservative Members should have said so when advocating it.
I accept that there are massive elements of bad housing in the public sector. Of course certain schemes should never have been planned and should never have been built, but I remember David Gibson, who killed himself in the process of carrying out some of the schemes in Glasgow, believing that that was the solution to most of the problems.
I was a member of the first team which analysed Glasgow's housing in the late 1940s and early 1950s. In 1951, 400,000 people in Glasgow lived either in single end or room and kitchen houses. I do not know whether Conservative Members have ever seen a single end——
Mr. Fairbairn rose——
Mr. Buchan: Sit down. I shall deal with the hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment.
Four hundred thousand families lived under those conditions, and some of the so-called bad schemes came about because rapid action was needed. The Government should remember that the available acreage was restricted because of the Scottish landowners. Most of the dampness was in buildings built by private contractors — and I could name a few of them. Unless Conservative Members understand the reasons for the bad schemes, they should keep quiet.
Mr. Fairbairn: In the centre of Glasgow the tenements were knocked down by the local authorities in favour of carrying out the housing schemes. The tenements that remain—what the hon. Gentleman referred to as single ends—have been modernised by local authorities and private contractors and they make wonderful houses. How does the hon. Gentleman explain that appalling cataclysm?
Mr. Buchan: I can explain that by the injection of public money to restore lousy housing. But the Government are now cutting that money in the housing support grant by 300 per cent.
It has been suggested that the sale of council houses will provide additional funds. The councils are being "cribb'd, cabin'd and confin'd" by the Government's programme.

227
Because of the cut in capital for housing, the waiting list queues extend in our surgeries each week. Having reduced the waiting time for families—especially young couples—to a few months, we now see the waiting time becoming two, three or four years.
Those who have been living in good houses are able to buy their homes, largely at the expense of the rest of the tenants, while those who have been living in bad houses will never get out of them. I know dozens of good tenants who would love to move house—they would like to own their own homes, and I have nothing against private ownership and flexibility in housing—but they have no hope of doing so. I have everything against a system of housing under which those who have lived in better housing will stay in good housing, while those in poor conditions are stuck there for ever. The Tories do not know the conditions of the people whom they claim to represent and, until they understand the position, they should speak with a little more humility.
9.51 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: The original intention when housing support grant was introduced by the then Labour Government was to unify the system of housing subsidy. It is now being abused by the Tories to reduce the overall housing subsidy. Between 1979–80, the first financial year when housing support grant was introduced and the coming financial year, it has been reduced from £213·4 million to £52·461 million.
Today, the majority of housing authorities in Scotland get no housing support grant at all. One of them, Falkirk district council, is the housing authority covering my constituency. In Falkirk district as a whole there are over 32,000 council houses and over 3,000 Scottish Special Housing Association houses, making up over 66 per cent. of the total housing stock of the district. In other words, two out of three people living in Falkirk district live in public sector housing.
What has happened to their level of support since the Tories took office? In 1979–80, the housing support grant for Falkirk district was £7·96 million. By the current year it had dropped to zero and for the coming financial year it will be zero again. That is reflected in increased rents, because if the local authority is not getting income into its housing revenue account by way of housing support grant, it may have no alternative but to increase rents.
In 1979·80, the average rent of Falkirk district council houses was £205 per annum. By the coming year, 1984–85, that will have increased to £556, an increase of over 171 per cent. That has all happened since the Tories came to power. Despite what the Government say about winning the price battle, they have witnessed, and been partly responsible for, an increase in the retail price index of 60 per cent. since May 1979. The increase in council house rents throughout Scotland in general, and in Falkirk district in particular, has been far in excess of the percentage increase in the retail price index. In other words, the Tories have singled out council house tenants as the target for a vicious attack on living standards, an attack out of all proportion to any increase in inflation as measured by any objective statistics.
Fortunately, the Labour-controlled district council in Falkirk is trying its best to avoid massive rent increases. Indeed, although the Secretary of State would like to see another huge increase in rents, I understand that the council has told the Secretary of State where to get off and
228
has said that it intends to increase the rents of its tenants by only 50p per week. I ask the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn): who is cheating, or trying to cheat, the people of Falkirk district? Who is trying to treat them like serfs? Are the councillors of Falkirk trying to do that? The answer is no. It is the Tory Secretary of State for Scotland who is trying to treat them like serfs by pushing up their rents to an extent that is out of all proportion to their living standards or to the increase in the rate of inflation. Yet this is the same Government who can spend over £7 million on 54 prefabs on the Falkland Islands—in other words, about £130,000 per house for people in the South Atlantic and no housing support grant at all for council house tenants in Falkirk district.
The debate is one of a long series over recent years. Colleagues from south of the border are now beginning to see what we in Scotland have been witnessing ever since the Tories took office in 1979 — an increased centralisation of power and decreasing power for elected representatives at local authority level. The increased centralisation of power by way of intervention, whether by the decrease of rate support grant, rate capping or instructing housing authorities to limit their rate fund contributions into the housing revenue account, is combined with a decrease in central support for local government.
Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are pointing to the constitutional significance of that trend. Even the Prime Minister's press secretary has been forced to write confidential memos urging the neutralisation of Tory Members and Tory councillors who in their heart of hearts are gravely concerned about the consequences of this type of order. It is a pity that Scottish Tory Members do not have the guts of some of their colleagues south of the border such as the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym). It seems that Bernard Ingham does not need to bother to neutralise the average Scottish Tory Member. It appears that he has been tranquilised or anaesthetised already.
The Secretary of State and his lackeys and minions on the Government Front Bench have no mandate from the people of Scotland to impose an order of this sort. The people of Scotland did not vote for them. The majority of the people of Scotland, who live in council houses, rejected this Tory Government. Despite what the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross says—he lives in a castle — they are quite happy to continue living in council houses provided they are paying reasonable rents and are getting reasonable maintenance, repairs and modernisation programmes. The majority of these people rejected the Tory party at the 1983 general election and they will continue to reject the Tory Government. We shall see justice for the people of Scotland on housing and other matters only when we get a Scottish Parliament or Scottish Assembly.
9.59 pm
Mr. Ancram: It is not surprising that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) strayed so far from the subject of housing support grant. As he attended the debate for such a short time, he probably did not understand what the debate was about. Before he starts accusing Conservative Members of not understanding problems

229
relating to council houses and not having a mandate in Scotland, he might care to reflect, as I suggested to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), that at the last election the Labour party in Scotland lost 250,000 votes—more than the Scottish Conservatives. If the hon. Gentleman cared to check the statistics to see from where those votes came, he would find that they came from council estates in Scotland because the people living on those estates believed that the Labour party no longer represented their interests.
This has been a wide-ranging debate. The problems of Glasgow were raised by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cathcart has left the Chamber. He made a strange assertion. He criticised the amount of housing revenue account allocation made available to Glasgow. I am sure that he is as aware as I am that the main problem in Glasgow is not building new houses but improving the quality of the houses that exist, because there is a surplus of housing in the city. The hon. Members for Cathcart and Springburn showed a surprising ignorance in concentrating so much on the need for new housing, when that is not Glasgow's main need.
Mr. Martin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way. I should like to set on the record——
Mr. Martin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Only one hon. Member should be on his feet at a time.
Mr. Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member raising a point of order, or is he seeking to make a statement?
Mr. Martin: The Under-Secretary made an allegation that I made certain remarks, and he is not giving me an opportunity to reply. He is misleading the House.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members do not mislead the House.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman made his speech, and I am entitled to respond to it.
This year Glasgow is receiving £132·72 million in terms of consent. Under the last Labour Government in 1978–79 it was receiving £66·9 million. I find it difficult to understand how any hon. Member representing Glasgow can say that the Government have not recognised Glasgow's needs.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) referred to a number of problems, and I may not be able to deal with them all. He asked how I could argue that rents are too low when half the Scottish tenants are receiving housing benefit. The hon. Gentleman could ask himself why the taxpayers continue to subsidise the rents of people who can well afford to meet a greater proportion of their housing costs. That is the reverse of the position that the hon. Gentleman posed. My hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) were right to say that it makes greater sense to subsidise a person than to continue subsidising the bricks and mortar of the building that that person inhabits. That is the correct policy of the Government.
230
A number of accusations were made by the hon. Member for Maryhill and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) about the effects of the announcement last November on the repairs and improvement grant scheme. I wonder whether those hon. Gentlemen live in the real world. The amounts that have been made available to cover those grants show that during the past two years about £200 million has been spent on improvement and repairs under the scheme. Next year, about £160 million will be spent on non-housing revenue account, and a record figure of about £140 million is likely to be used for forward commitments on that scheme. It is impossible for those hon. Gentlemen to say that there will be no work and that builders and contractors have been ruined by the announcement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) made an important and thoughtful speech about housing finance and housing subsidy. I hope that he will forgive me if I deal with just one or two of the questions that he raised. He very appropriately asked how the additional management and maintenance costs of districts with special difficulties would be recognised in the formula for providing housing support grant. The formula takes account of special factors by attributing additional allowances to urban authorities in respect of high-rise and super-high-rise houses and to rural authorities in respect of additional problems in managing small housing stocks. The allowances in the formula were all arrived at with the full agreement of the COSLA and I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that, so far as possible, the problems to which he referred are taken into account.
The hon. Member for Maryhill and the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who spoke for the Liberal party but then disappeared and has not returned to the Chamber, both raised the question——
Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister's comments may not be all that illuminating, but some of us would like to follow them. There is a great deal of noise coming from beyond the Bar of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I can hear quite well at this end, but if what the hon. Gentleman says is correct, will hon. Members beyond the Bar please remain silent?
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Members for Maryhill and for Gordon referred to the effect of the announcements in the order on rents in Scotland. The hon. Member for Maryhill must have had difficulty in deciding which brief to follow. He said that COSLA had assumed average rent increases of £2·60 as a result of the order. The Shelter brief, however, assumes an increase of £1·26 on the same basis. That is a considerable difference between two august authorities which claim great knowledge of housing. As I have said, I believe that the differences have appeared because to varying extents neither organisation has taken full account of changes in expenditure and especially reductions in interest rates.
The changes that we have made will involve an average rent increase of no more than £1 per week, although there will, of course, be variations. Aberdeen is a good example. On our assumptions, rents there would have to be raised by some £2 per week, but I should tell the hon. Member for Gordon that this reflects a consistent policy on the part of that authority to keep rents unreasonably

231
low. An increase of £2 per week would bring rents in Aberdeen to £9·98 per week, which is only 11p above the present Scottish average. The people of Aberdeen cannot claim that that would be a tremendous hardship.
The hon. Member for Hamilton referred to slums being created by the Government. Again, I wonder where the hon. Gentleman has been. Our housing record shows that between 1980 and 1983 we reduced the number of sub-tolerable standard houses from 113,000 to 82,000. I do not wish to sound complacent about that, but it certainly gives the lie to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the situation is getting worse. If that momentum continues—and we intend to support it—the problem that remains is not unmanageable.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) who rightly said that the Government had introduced the relationship between rate fund contributions, rents and capital. I do not deny that we introduced the system of penalising capital expenditure by authorities which budget for excessive rate fund contributions. The alternative to penalising individual authorities would have been to reduce the capital expenditure of all authorities, whether or not they budgeted for excessive rate fund contributions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that it is undesirable to have to cut capital expenditure to pay for excessive subsidies from the rates. I expect that, on clause 6 of the Rating and Valuation Bill, for that reason we shall have his support.
A number of other matters were raised. We have had a long debate, and I have covered as many of the matters as I can. Once again, Opposition Members have tried to disguise the weakness of their arguments in a welter of emotionalism and exaggeration and they must, if they wish to be considered a serious Opposition, begin to recognise the facts of economic life.
Mr. Canavan: The Government are the Opposition in Scotland.
Mr. Ancram: Housing expenditure is a large and important part of public expenditure as a whole, and within it the balance must be struck between the genuine needs of public sector housing and the people who live in it on the one hand, and on the other the public from whom in one way or another the resources must come. Housing support grant must be applied on this same basis, not as a general subsidy, but where it is justifiably required. To do otherwise would be a negation of the responsibility of Government to ensure that public money is properly applied. The Opposition by their statements tonight would have us believe that it should be a general and unjustified subsidy. They may cynically believe that this is good politics. I can say to them that it is irresponsible, and it is an irresponsibility that we on this side will not share.
The order provides a fair balance between need and the proper application of public funds, and I ask my hon. Friends to support it.
Questions put:—
The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 196.

Division No. 149]

[10.10 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Aspinwall, Jack

Alexander, Richard

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Ancram, Michael

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Arnold, Tom

Batiste, Spencer

232

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Holt, Richard

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hooson, Tom

Bottomley, Peter

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

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Browne, John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Buck, Sir Antony

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Bulmer, Esmond

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Butcher, John

Hunter, Andrew

Carttiss, Michael

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Chapman, Sydney

Irving, Charles

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

Jackson, Robert

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Colvin, Michael

Key, Robert

Cope, John

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Cranborne, Viscount

King, Rt Hon Tom

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Dicks, T.

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Dorrell, Stephen

Knowles, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Knox, David

Durant, Tony

Lamont, Norman

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Lang, Ian

Eggar, Tim

Latham, Michael

Emery, Sir Peter

Lawler, Geoffrey

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fallon, Michael

Lester, Jim

Farr, John

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Favell, Anthony

Lightbown, David

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Fletcher, Alexander

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lord, Michael

Forman, Nigel

Luce, Richard

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lyell, Nicholas

Forth, Eric

McCrindle, Robert

Fox, Marcus

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Macfarlane, Neil

Freeman, Roger

MacGregor, John

Fry, Peter

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Gale, Roger

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Galley, Roy

Maclean, David John.

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

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

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

McQuarrie, Albert

Glyn, Dr Alan

Major, John

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Malone, Gerald

Goodlad, Alastair

Maples, John

Gow, Ian

Marland, Paul

Gower, Sir Raymond

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Greenway, Harry

Mates, Michael

Gregory, Conal

Mather, Carol

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

Maude, Francis

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Grist, Ian

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Ground, Patrick

Merchant, Piers

Grylls, Michael

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Gummer, John Selwyn

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Miscampbell, Norman

Hanley, Jeremy

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Hannam, John

Moate, Roger

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Monro, Sir Hector

Harris, David

Montgomery, Fergus

Harvey, Robert

Moore, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Hawksley, Warren

Moynihan, Hon C.

Hayes, J.

Mudd, David

Hayhoe, Barney

Neale, Gerrard

Hayward, Robert

Needham, Richard

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Nelson, Anthony

Henderson, Barry

Newton, Tony

Hickmet, Richard

Nicholls, Patrick

Hicks, Robert

Normanton, Tom

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Norris, Steven

Hind, Kenneth

Onslow, Cranley

Hirst, Michael

Oppenheim, Philip

233

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Ottaway, Richard

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Parris, Matthew

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Pattie, Geoffrey

Sumberg, David

Pawsey, James

Tapsell, Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Taylor, Rt Hon John David

Pink, R. Bonner

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Pollock, Alexander

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Powell, William (Corby)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Powley, John

Terlezki, Stefan

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Prior, Rt Hon James

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Raffan, Keith

Thornton, Malcolm

Rathbone, Tim

Thurnham, Peter

Renton, Tim

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Rhodes James, Robert

Tracey, Richard

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Trippier, David

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Trotter, Neville

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Roe, Mrs Marion

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Viggers, Peter

Rost, Peter

Waddington, David

Rowe, Andrew

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Walden, George

Ryder, Richard

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Waller, Gary

Sayeed, Jonathan

Walters, Dennis

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Watson, John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Watts, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Silvester, Fred

Wheeler, John

Skeet, T. H. H.

Wiggin, Jerry

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Winterton, Nicholas

Speller, Tony

Wolfson, Mark

Spence, John

Wood, Timothy

Spencer, D.

Woodcock, Michael

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Yeo, Tim

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Squire, Robin

Younger, Rt Hon George

Stanbrook, Ivor

Steen, Anthony

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stern, Michael

Mr. Tim Sainsbury and

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Mr. Michael Neubert.

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Campbell, Ian

Alton, David

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Anderson, Donald

Canavan, Dennis

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Ashdown, Paddy

Cartwright, John

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Ashton, Joe

Clarke, Thomas

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Clay, Robert

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cohen, Harry

Barnett, Guy

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Barron, Kevin

Conlan, Bernard

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Bell, Stuart

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

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

Corbett, Robin

Bermingham, Gerald

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bidwell, Sydney

Cowans, Harry

Blair, Anthony

Craigen, J. M.

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Crowther, Stan

Boyes, Roland

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cunningham, Dr John

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Davies. Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

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

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

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Deakins, Eric

Bruce, Malcolm

Dewar, Donald

Buchan, Norman

Dixon, Donald

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Dobson, Frank

234

Dormand, Jack

Marek, Dr John

Douglas, Dick

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dubs, Alfred

Martin, Michael

Duffy, A. E. P.

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Maxton, John

Eadie, Alex

Maynard, Miss Joan

Eastham, Ken

Meacher, Michael

Ellis, Raymond

Meadowcroft, Michael

Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)

Michie, William

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Mikardo, Ian

Fatchett, Derek

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Fisher, Mark

Nellist, David

Flannery, Martin

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

O'Brien, William

Forrester, John

O'Neill, Martin

Foster, Derek

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Foulkes, George

Park, George

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Parry, Robert

Freud, Clement

Pavitt, Laurie

George, Bruce

Pendry, Tom

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Penhaligon, David

Godman, Dr Norman

Pike, Peter

Golding, John

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Gould, Bryan

Prescott, John

Gourlay, Harry

Redmond, M.

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Richardson, Ms Jo

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Haynes, Frank

Robertson, George

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Heffer, Eric S.

Rogers, Allan

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Ryman, John

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Sedgemore, Brian

Howells, Geraint

Sheerman, Barry

Hoyle, Douglas

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

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

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Skinner, Dennis

Janner, Hon Greville

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

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

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

John, Brynmor

Snape, Peter

Johnston, Russell

Soley, Clive

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Spearing, Nigel

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Steel, Rt Hon David

Kennedy, Charles

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Stott, Roger

Kirkwood, Archibald

Strang, Gavin

Lambie, David

Straw, Jack

Lamond, James

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Leadbitter, Ted

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Leighton. Ronald

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Tinn, James

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Torney, Tom

Litherland, Robert

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Wareing, Robert

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Weetch, Ken

Loyden, Edward

Welsh, Michael

McCartney, Hugh

White, James

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Williams, Rt Hon A.

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Wilson, Gordon

McKelvey, William

Winnick, David

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Maclennan, Robert

Young, David (Bolton SE)

McNamara, Kevin

McTaggart, Robert

Tellers for the Noes:

McWilliam, John

Mr. James Hamilton and

Madden, Max

Mr. John Home Robertson.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 79 (Standing Committees on Statutory
236
Instruments, &c.), the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order 1983 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. — [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

County Durham
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
10.23 pm
Mr. Jack Dormand: My hon. Friends the Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) will probably try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker and I understand that the Minister has no objection. We will not overrun our time.
No part of the country has suffered more at the hands of the Government than Durham. When the Labour Government went out of office in 1979 male unemployment and total unemployment were 7·9 and 6·7 per cent. respectively. At the end of 1983 the relevant figures were 19·2 and 16·2 per cent. As in other parts of the country, youth unemployment is horrifying. At the end of January 1984 there were 2,753 registrants — that figure excludes people on the youth training scheme—and 17 registered vacancies. If that statistic does not shake the Government out of their complacency, nothing will.
There is a link in County Durham between unemployment and migration from the county. Within one year of the 1981 census there was a drop of 3,000 in the population and a further drop of 13,000 is expected by 1991. As a Durham man, I deplore the fact that so many of our people are being driven out of the area. That is especially depressing for me as most of the migration is from my constituency.
I need not remind the Minister that County Durham relies heavily on the coal industry for employment. Bearing in mind the social and economic circumstances in the county, I should have thought that the Government would be only too pleased to give the industry every possible support. However, they can hardly wait to close uneconomic pits. That is a cause of great uncertainty and anxiety in our mining communities. There is the strongest possible social and economic case for retaining pits while the present difficult circumstances exist.
I said that there was an economic case for keeping the pits open. Some researchers, including those of the National Union of Mineworkers, have produced figures which I quoted the last time I spoke on the coal industry and which suggest that the cost of redundancy and social security payments is greater than that involved in keeping the pits open. In present circumstances, the onus is on the Government to refute that submission. We are not talking merely about the effect on miners and their families; we are discussing the effects on tradesmen and the entire fabric of mining communities.
We also want the newer industries. The most successful agencies in the county for attracting them are Peterlee and Aycliffe development corporations, which are associated with those two new towns. They bring in well over 50 per cent. of the county's new jobs of all types. When I asked a question about unemployment last week, the Secretary of State for Employment paid tribute to Peterlee development corporation's efforts in attracting employment. However, what does the Secretary of State for the Environment propose to do about those corporations? It sounds impossible, but he proposes to abolish them next year. Any rational Government would be encouraging their expertise, expanding them and providing them with
238
additional resources, but not this Government. They are proposing to cut off the lifeline for a significant part of County Durham. The Minister concerned has promised to think again on the matter. I hope that that is not an empty gesture. I beg the Minister to add to the pressure on the Department of the Environment to keep the new towns in existence for at least five years. That is what we need if we are to reduce unemployment in County Durham.
The Labour party has expressed its utter opposition to rate-capping. I do not wish to repeat the case against it. To apply that policy to County Durham is sheer lunacy. The instructions which our local authorities have received will mean that they will not be able to maintain present levels of services, let alone make much-needed improvements. Housing and education—two extremely important services—will be especially badly hit. Those services should receive positive discrimination as compensation for the deprivation which our county has suffered under the Government.
It would be some consultation if we could assume that the Government's recently proposed regional policy would benefit our county, but all the evidence, not least the proposal that aid will be selective rather than automatic, as at present, suggests otherwise. If the Minister does not accept my view, perhaps he will listen to the chairman of the northern Confederation of British Industry, who only last week said that in future we will be unable to stop the rot in places where we did before with regional development grants. He went on to say that north-east firms could be prevented from modernising because of cuts in the regional grants, and in addition that the proposals could force more branch firms with headquarters outside the region to cut back drastically on expanding their northern operations.
What could be more damning than those comments by the head of the business community in the northern region? The regional policies will produce worse results than those foreseen by him, but more important is the fact that County Durham is more vulnerable than anywhere else to such half-baked proposals. I urge the Government to have discussions with the county to assess the effects which such policies will have on an area such as ours, otherwise the changes could be very serious.
In spite of all their difficulties, the people of Durham refuse to be disheartened by the lack of interest shown by the Government. They are responsible and fair, work hard and believe in self-help — no begging bowls for the people of Durham. I hope that the Government will heed the pleas made in the debate, so that there will be some hope for the future.
10.32 pm
Mr. Derek Foster: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) on initiating the debate. I am glad to be able to take part.
We dwell upon the problem of unemployment because it underpins most of the other social problems in a county such as Durham. There has been a net loss of 23,000 jobs since 1979 in the county, but one statistic is even more revealing. There was a net loss of 6,000 jobs in the service sector between 1979 and 1982. If we are to believe the Government, it is to the service sector that we must look for the jobs of the future, yet in county Durham there was a net loss of 6,000 jobs in those three years. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

239
You are familiar with the district of Wear valley, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some 25 per cent. of all the males are out of work in that district, and 14 per cent. of all manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 1979. That is the highest loss in the whole of the county. In some estates in Bishop Auckland, which is in the Wear valley district council, between one half and three quarters of all the males are without work. That is a tragedy of monumental proportions.
In Wear valley, 75 per cent. of the council tenants receive housing benefit. If that is not an illustrative figure of grave deprivation and great need, I wonder what is. In some families in those estates, the mother, father and all the teenage children are looking for work. We know very well that within the county of Durham the prospect of those who go through the youth training scheme is that as soon as they are finished they are back on the unemployment register. Those young people have no hope. They have nothing to look forward to. Is it any wonder that they drift into crime and even suicide? Such is their plight.
Yet look at what the Government are doing for the county of Durham. Even in Wear valley, and with 25 per cent. of males out of work, one sees that they have refused any special development area status. For the second year running, there has been no development on any of the major industrial estates in Wear valley district council.
In my constituency, and four miles from Bishop Auckland, is Shildon. We had a big debate about Shildon. I shall not go over that ground again. Some 2,600 jobs are disappearing in a town of only 14,000 —1,700 have already disappeared, and the rest are to go before the end of this year. In spite of all those problems, the Government have set their face against continuing the Aycliffe corporation, which is on the doorstep and which has been the most successful job hunting agency in the region.
My hon. Friend mentioned rate capping. In spite of all our human and social problems, we have this dreadful measure inflicted upon us, stopping the local authority responding to those problems in a humane fashion.
10.35 pm
Mr. Tony Blair: My hon. Friends have rightly drawn attention to the dreadful situation that exists in County Durham. The tragedy is particularly great, because County Durham has tremendous potential and resources, if only we had the sense to use them. Vacant industrial sites are on offer. Almost 5,000 gross hectares could be used or let to businesses, if they could be developed. Sedgefield district council, for example, took over land vacated by Courtaulds when it left the region and is attempting to let it. There is a research and development centre for high technology industries, set up by Durham university in conjunction with the English Industrial Estates Corporation, in an attempt to provide the technological expertise that we need. We have a work force that is only too willing and able to work. Indeed, no one has suggested that the problems of county Durham arise from any desire on the part of its people not to work. I say "no one", although I believe that a Minister suggested as much, but it is quite untrue. So the tragedy is all the greater because of the resources that are available in the region.
Since 1979, 23,000 jobs were lost, and about 6,000 jobs were lost in 1982. In parts of my constituency, male unemployment is about 40 per cent. What can we do in the
240
face of that structural decline? Surely, the only sensible thing to do is to say, "Let's harness the region's resources in a sensible structural plan." That is not a new concept. Perhaps I can quote Lord Hailsham, who once took an interest in these matters.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: He still does.
Mr. Blair: I am glad to know that he still does, and it is a pity that some Conservative Members do not. He said that one of the problems was that
"there was no one authority with money to spend, local or national, which could view the problems of the region as a whole. Moreover, there was no adequate focal point at which effort could be co-ordinated regionally on the spot".
Lord Hailsham saw his task then as promoting not only the well-being of the north-east, but regional planning throughout the country. In case that is thought an outdated approach, let me read also what the Regional Studies Association wrote recently. It said that it had
"clearly identified the increasing number of structural deficiencies which threaten to undermine the region's long-term economic viability. Policy recommendations acknowledged that policies must be long-term, co-ordinated, positive and sensitive, backed up by an effective administrative framework".
How very sensible that suggestion is, and how very different from what we hear from the Government.
The only policy paper that we have had recently on this question is the Government's White Paper on regional policy. It offers no hope whatever to people in our region, but worse than that, it is a cowardly paper, because it implies that there is no need for regional policy, although it does not have the guts to say so.
How is the problem to be circumvented? The answer that was given by Conservative Members, both at the 1979 and the 1983 elections, was that individual private initiative would somehow regenerate our region. That has signally failed to happen. The only alternative—and it is an alternative based on common sense and not on dogma — is to use, in a sensible and planned way, the resources that we all know are there. Why do we still have to ask for a northern development agency? What possible objection could there be to a funded body, regionally based, that was able to take a long-term and coherent view of the region's problems and to plan ahead?
A young man came to see me at my surgery in Ferryhill the other day. His problem was all too typical of County Durham at present. He is not over-ambitious. He does not want a Rolls-Royce, or a yearly holiday in the Bahamas. He wants to be able to support his family, and to have the dignity and self-respect that would come from being in work and supporting them. The role of a sensible, caring and sensitive Government would be to allow him that opportunity. The failure of the present Government is that they have deprived him of it.
The paper produced by Durham county council describes the tragedy that besets our region. It is up to the Government to do something about it.
10.46 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): I am glad to have the opportunity to reply on behalf of the Government. I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) on his good fortune in the ballot. The Government know him as a skilful and persuasive interrogator on behalf of his constituents. I have listened with great interest to the points that he and his hon. Friends have made, and I shall attempt to answer as many of them as possible in the time we have left.

241
I was in the north-east only last week for a meeting of the Newcastle-Gateshead inner city partnership committee. I was able to learn on the spot something about local social and economic conditions and also to appreciate the concerned and constructive attitude of so many who are involved. The whole of the north-east, including Durham, has been going through a difficult time in recent years. However, when the hon. Member for Easington said that the region had suffered at the hands of the present Government, he was—even allowing for the hyperbole which must be expected in party political exchanges at this time of night — deliberately ignoring the fundamental fact, which he later admitted, that it is an area which has relied historically on heavy industry such as coal mining, iron and steel, the railways and associated engineering. The decline of those industries, together with the effect of the recession, has had serious social and economic consequences.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the closure of loss-making pits. He argued that it would be more economical to keep them open, if the savings in benefits and redundancy payments were taken into account. That is an argument that we have heard before, but I will see whether some data can be made available to the hon. Gentleman. It is the duty of those who make decisions to weigh up all the factors involved. I cannot promise, however, that he will be happy with the data or the conclusions.
Although mining and quarrying is still dominant, industry in Durham has become much more diversified, in response to the challenge of changing circumstances and the shift in emphasis. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a trend away from heavy engineering to high technology enterprises. In Consett, for example, over 1,700 new jobs have been created since the town's steelworks closed and the figure is expected to rise to over 3,000 over the next two years. A number of impressive high technology projects are involved, including computer firms such as Integrated Micro Products and Brit Pharm, an expanding high technology pharmaceuticals operation.
The clothing industry has also been through a traumatic period and inevitably there have been significant reductions in employment, but the industry now appears to be in a healthy position with profits in a number of Durham-based clothing firms rising encouragingly.
The hon. Gentleman asked about new town corporations. Although that is not the responsibility of the Department of Employment, I am ready to put on record the information that I received about this from the Department of the Environment. I do not know whether it will add to his store of knowledge.
Under the new towns legislation, the corporations are wound up when the new towns have become established as viable communities and no longer need the special support of the corporations. When a corporation is wound up, the relevant new towns will no longer obtain direct aid from the Department of the Environment under the new towns Vote. They also cease to benefit from the corporations' promotional role. However, the wind-up dates are targeted and have not yet been confirmed.
The review of the targeted dates for the north-east, new towns will not be completed until 31 March. Meanwhile, the Department of the Environment has been considering what other bodies might take over the corporations' promotional role.
242
The fundamental problem that was mentioned in all three speeches is the human tragedy of unemployment. One must admit that conditions remain difficult and that competition is fierce. I am aware that the unemployment rate in Durham and the rest of the country continues to be high. To have 3 million of our people out of work, of whom 38,000 are in the county of Durham, imposes a cruel strain on society and the individuals involved. Unemployment is not just a human tragedy; it is a terrible waste of one of Britain's most precious assets — the skills and abilities of her workers. We all want to see new jobs created as quickly as possible, but the present position has not come about overnight, and, inevitably, it is taking time to solve the problems.
Most people now recognise that a lasting reduction in unemployment depends upon our firms being internationally competitive in cost, prices, quality, design and marketing. Hon. Gentlemen and their constituents will know that the only lasting cure for unemployment is full order books.
The Government's contribution to all this is to create a climate in which customers can be won back and new markets developed. The signs are that we are beginning to succeed. The combination of 3 per cent. growth with low inflation of about 5 per cent. is the best since the early 1960s. Unemployment is levelling and our cost competitiveness in manufacturing has improved by about 20 per cent. since 1981.
The latest CBI survey is encouraging.
Mr. Roland Boyes: You say that every month.
Mr. Clark: It is not usual to intervene on such occasions, but, on the contrary, CBI surveys tend to be rather pessimistic and carping. This is the first time that a CBI survey has sounded an encouraging note.
The survey shows strengthening business optimism and further increases in output over the past four months. Significantly, a substantial increase in investment is predicted for this year. That bears out the Government's view that the recovery is well under way.
The Government have played their part by such measures as the reduction in the national insurance surcharge, which is worth about £2 billion in a year and the "support for innovation" schemes set up by the Department of Trade and Industry.
One vital area in which my Department has a major role to play is that of training. We need a better educated, better trained and more adaptable workforce. We lost jobs to competitors in the past partly because they paid more attention to training than we did. We must have a coordinated strategy for dealing with the training needs of both young people and adults.
Our adult training strategy, announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment this afternoon, makes it clear that we are maintaining our overall level of support for adult training. In future we shall be putting much more emphasis on training for specific job opportunities, especially in new technologies. Our training opportunities scheme will continue to play an important role in securing skill supply and in providing training for the unemployed, but, in future, it will concentrate more on the provision of skills in those areas that are in real demand. Adult training will be much more closely linked to individual employers' needs. We shall

243
also be seeking to deliver training in much more flexible and cost-effective ways so that, within the same total level of resources, we can help more people more effectively.
Our Open Tech programme, already under way, has had its budget expanded and will form an integral part of the adult training strategy. The programme has a major role to play in making access to training easier for individuals and companies alike. In the very near future, the Manpower Services Commission hopes to sign a contract with the northern regional management centre for the delivery of a distance learning programme for supervisors, in conjunction with the Northumbrian consortium of colleges and the national examinations board for supervisor status.
Young people are particularly at risk in times of high unemployment. They lack the skills and experience to offer an employer and, therefore, are without the means to compete in a difficult labour market. Last summer, the Government announced a major extension to our technical and vocational education initiative, which aims to stimulate the further development of technical and vocational education for 14 to 18-year-olds, by providing resources for local education authorities to run pilot schemes.
Further proposals were submitted to 68 local authorities and the Manpower Services Commission has recommended to the Government that, subject to negotiation, it should support 46 proposals. Of the eight local education
244
authorities in the north-east that submitted bids, seven—including the county of Durham—have been recommended for acceptance. I am sure that hon. Members will welcome that. That sort of success rate not only testifies to the quality of the proposals put forward by those authorities but reflects the Government's concern that the north-east should be well represented in significant national initiatives of that kind.
The hon. Gentleman made some rather grudging references to the Government's regional policy. I remind him that between May 1979 and October 1983, more than £39 million was made available to firms in the county of Durham under sections 7 and 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. The White Paper published on 13 December reaffirms the Government's firm commitment to an effective regional policy and invites comments on, among other things, rates of grant and assisted area map coverage. I am sure that interested groups within the county—I hope that hon. Members will encourage this — will take the opportunity to air their views. One change proposed in the White Paper that I am sure will be welcomed in the county is the extension of the regional development grant scheme to the service sector——
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Electoral Law (Select Committee Report)
  Electoral Law (Select Committee Report)
  Heroin
  Heroin
  Mr. David Freeman
  Mr. David Freeman
  Sri Lankan Tamils
  Sri Lankan Tamils
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Entrapment Techniques
  Entrapment Techniques
  Police (Civilian Jobs)
  Police (Civilian Jobs)
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
  Prison Transfers
  Prison Transfers
  Television Licence
  Television Licence
  Prisoners (Costs)
  Prisoners (Costs)
  Breath Tests
  Breath Tests
PRIME MINISTER
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
  Security Commission
  Security Commission
  Intelligence Service (Trade Union Membership)
  Intelligence Service (Trade Union Membership)
  Engagements
  Engagements
  EC Commission (President)
  EC Commission (President)
  Kingswood
  Kingswood
  Disarmament
  Disarmament
  Overseas Visits
  Overseas Visits
  Opencast Coal Mining
  Opencast Coal Mining
  Financial Management Initiative Visit
  Financial Management Initiative Visit
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
SCOTLAND
  Museums and Galleries (Grants)
  Museums and Galleries (Grants)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Prisoners (Costs)
  Prisoners (Costs)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Private Medicine
  Private Medicine
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Funeral Expenses
  Funeral Expenses
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Pharmacists
  Pharmacists
  Benefit Recipients (Purchasing Power)
  Benefit Recipients (Purchasing Power)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Personal Portable Pensions
  Personal Portable Pensions
  NHS Expenditure
  NHS Expenditure
  NHS Reorganisation (Griffiths Report)
  NHS Reorganisation (Griffiths Report)
  Greenham Common Protestors (Benefits)
  Greenham Common Protestors (Benefits)
  Medical Gases and Equipment
  Medical Gases and Equipment
  NHS Resources
  NHS Resources
  Oxford Regional Health Authority
  Oxford Regional Health Authority
  Mobility and Attendance Allowances (Oglesby Report)
  Mobility and Attendance Allowances (Oglesby Report)
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Nurses (Management Studies)
  Nurses (Management Studies)
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit)
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit)
  Retirement
  Retirement
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Mental Health Act 1983
  Mental Health Act 1983
  Heating Bills (Assistance)
  Heating Bills (Assistance)
  North Thames Regional Health Council
  North Thames Regional Health Council
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Manpower Statistics
  Manpower Statistics
  Heart Patients
  Heart Patients
  Trent Health Region
  Trent Health Region
  Departmental Offices (Inner City Areas)
  Departmental Offices (Inner City Areas)
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food (Exports-Imports)
  Food (Exports-Imports)
  Land Drainage and Coast Protection
  Land Drainage and Coast Protection
  Crop Spraying
  Crop Spraying
  Pigeons
  Pigeons
  Export Rebates and Intervention Buying
  Export Rebates and Intervention Buying
  Forests (Acid Rain)
  Forests (Acid Rain)
  Whirling Disease
  Whirling Disease
  Inland and Coastal Fisheries
  Inland and Coastal Fisheries
  Salmon
  Salmon
  Redmouth Disease
  Redmouth Disease
  French Meat Imports (Restriction)
  French Meat Imports (Restriction)
  Weed Killer (North Sea)
  Weed Killer (North Sea)
  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Local Authorities (Finance)
ENVIRONMENT
  Rates
  Rates
  Milton Keynes and Northampton
  Milton Keynes and Northampton
  Bedfordshire
  Bedfordshire
  Agricultural Land (Bedfordshire)
  Agricultural Land (Bedfordshire)
  Nitrates
  Nitrates
  "Land for Housing"
  "Land for Housing"
  Mortuaries
  Mortuaries
  Footpaths
  Footpaths
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Audit Commission
  Audit Commission
  Private Schools
  Private Schools
  Dartmoor
  Dartmoor
  "Streamlining the Cities"
  "Streamlining the Cities"
  Metropolitan County Councils (Abolition)
  Metropolitan County Councils (Abolition)
EMPLOYMENT
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  South Shields
  South Shields
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Vredeling Directive
  Vredeling Directive
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Voluntary Organisations (Training Programmes)
  Voluntary Organisations (Training Programmes)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Irrigation Work
  Irrigation Work
  Steering Location Inquiries
  Steering Location Inquiries
  Wales (Financial Assistance)
  Wales (Financial Assistance)
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  North of England
  North of England
  Kidneys
  Kidneys
ENERGY
  Energy, Research and Technology
  Energy, Research and Technology
  Oil Prices
  Oil Prices
  Target Saving
  Target Saving
  Nuclear Leakage
  Nuclear Leakage
  Onshore Oil and Gas Licences
  Onshore Oil and Gas Licences
  Coal Exports
  Coal Exports
  Energy Efficiency
  Energy Efficiency
  Domestic Energy Supplies
  Domestic Energy Supplies
TRANSPORT
  Emergency (Preston)
  Emergency (Preston)
  MV Radiant Med
  MV Radiant Med
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Invalidity Pension
  Invalidity Pension
  Furnished Holiday Lettings
  Furnished Holiday Lettings
  Britannia Building Society
  Britannia Building Society
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Export Credit Subsidies
  Export Credit Subsidies
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Private Schools (Tax Exemption)
  Private Schools (Tax Exemption)
  Alcohol (Taxation Policy)
  Alcohol (Taxation Policy)
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Trade Deficit
  Trade Deficit
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Income and Taxation
  Income and Taxation
  Privatisation (Share Prices)
  Privatisation (Share Prices)
  Industrial Building Allowances
  Industrial Building Allowances
  Tax Relief (Overseas Absence)
  Tax Relief (Overseas Absence)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  United Nations (Expenditure)
  United Nations (Expenditure)
  European Community (Economic and Social Committee)
  European Community (Economic and Social Committee)
  Children (Travel Costs)
  Children (Travel Costs)
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Armagh Prison
  Armagh Prison
  Departmental Administration Costs
  Departmental Administration Costs
  Fuel Conversion
  Fuel Conversion
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Civil Servants (Retirement)
  Civil Servants (Retirement)
  Prisoners (Costs)
  Prisoners (Costs)
  Remedial Teaching
  Remedial Teaching
  School Books
  School Books
  United States of America (Ministerial Visits)
  United States of America (Ministerial Visits)
  Civil Servants (Travel Costs)
  Civil Servants (Travel Costs)
  Unfit Housing
  Unfit Housing
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Expenditure Statistics
  Expenditure Statistics
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Benefit Claimants
  Benefit Claimants
  Company Directors (Debt Proceedings)
  Company Directors (Debt Proceedings)
  Chrysoidine Dye
  Chrysoidine Dye
  Medical and Surgical Sundries (Contracts)
  Medical and Surgical Sundries (Contracts)
  Doctors' Deputising Services
  Doctors' Deputising Services
  Hospital Patients (Pension Books)
  Hospital Patients (Pension Books)
  NHS (Waiting Lists)
  NHS (Waiting Lists)
  Health and Local Authorities (Joint Funding)
  Health and Local Authorities (Joint Funding)
  Private Nursing Homes (NHS Equipment)
  Private Nursing Homes (NHS Equipment)
  Elderly Persons (Drugs)
  Elderly Persons (Drugs)
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Medical Academic and Research Staff
  Medical Academic and Research Staff
  Women Consultants
  Women Consultants
  Fuel Allowances
  Fuel Allowances
  National Insurance Tribunals
  National Insurance Tribunals
  Wrexham Local Office
  Wrexham Local Office
DEFENCE
  Defence Budget
  Defence Budget
  Commonwealth Games
  Commonwealth Games
  Boarding School Allowance
  Boarding School Allowance
  Children (Travel Costs)
  Children (Travel Costs)
  Falkland Islands (Ministerial Visit)
  Falkland Islands (Ministerial Visit)
  Armed Forces (Statistics)
  Armed Forces (Statistics)
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Air Force (Trainer Aircraft)
  Royal Air Force (Trainer Aircraft)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Examinations
  Examinations
  Education Expenditure (Statistics)
  Education Expenditure (Statistics)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Teachers (In-service Courses)
  Teachers (In-service Courses)
  Schools Inspectors
  Schools Inspectors
  School Closures
  School Closures
  Specialist Teachers
  Specialist Teachers
  "The Arts in Schools"
  "The Arts in Schools"
  Private Schools
  Private Schools
  Teacher Training Course
  Teacher Training Course
  Degree Courses (Cost)
  Degree Courses (Cost)
  School Children (Travel Costs)
  School Children (Travel Costs)
  School Population
  School Population
  Pupil Profiles
  Pupil Profiles
  Political Introduction
  Political Introduction
WALES
  Joint Finance Expenditure Disregard
  Joint Finance Expenditure Disregard
  Local Authorities (Capital Commitments)
  Local Authorities (Capital Commitments)
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  House Renovation Grants
  House Renovation Grants
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  House Building
  House Building
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Welsh Development Agency (Factories)
  Welsh Development Agency (Factories)
  Local Authorities (Meetings)
  Local Authorities (Meetings)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.
Lord Loch—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

Youth Training Scheme: Statistics
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the relative position between young males and young females in the youth training scheme in terms of numbers and in the type of training being undertaken.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, of the 284,000 young people who had entered the youth training scheme by the end of November, 166,000 (or 58 per cent.) were male and 118,000 (or 42 per cent.) were female. More detailed information about the type of training being undertaken is not at present available.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply and welcome the fact that there is some monitoring of the numbers of male and female entrants to the YTS. However, in view of the Manpower Services Commission's research projects, the results of which were published in R and D series No. 11 by the MSC, would the noble Earl agree that it is necessary for positive steps to be taken to try to eradicate the traditional types of training that are offered to females as opposed to males? Secondly, would he also agree that a very useful first step in this direction might be for the publicity put out by the Manpower Services Commission on the YTS to take a more positive approach to the recruitment of girls for technical subjects? Some of the imbalance might then be removed.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, on the issue of publicity and recruitment, all general publicity and marketing material has been designed to make the scheme equally attractive to males and females. But through specific marketing material we are also trying to encourage young people to use the YTS as an introduction to types of work which they might have thought were closed to them because of the traditional attitudes to the role of men and women in jobs. To that degree I agree with what the noble Baroness has said. I must also point out that part of the imbalance is due to the fact—and the general evidence is to this effect—that young women have a slightly higher rate of taking up real employment than young men.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, when the noble Earl says that there is no information available about the types of training, does he mean that he has not asked for it? I simply cannot believe that it is not available because it is part of the Government's policy.
The Earl of Gowrie: No, my Lords, it does not mean that. It means that this supplementary and monitoring material is at present in the process of being gathered.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what we are to understand from the expression, "young females" in the Question, because lots of them consider themselves young at 55, 60 and even 65?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord is not eligible for many of these admirable Government schemes; but I am sure that we can find something for him.

Public Record Office: Borrowing
2.40 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris: 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 by what statutory provision they are entitled to borrow temporarily or otherwise documents in the custody of the Public Record Office.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, Section 4 (6) of the Public Records Act 1958 permits the temporary return of public records in the Public Record Office to the department or office from which they were transferred.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Where a Government department withdraws documents from the custody of the Public Record Office, may I ask him how one can possibly escape the conclusion that the department concerned might have something that it wishes to hide?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I cannot think how my noble friend can draw such a conclusion. It means that the department wants to use the documents.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say how long these documents will be withheld from the Public Record Office? Is there not a danger that, by departments recovering documents from the Public Record Office and witholding them, they may be able to circumvent the 30-year rule? In the meantime, would it be possible for the Foreign Office to make arrangements for the documents now in its custody to be available to researchers and others who want to examine them?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question related to the statutory provisions under which these

549
documents could be returned. The terms of the statute read as follows:
"Public records in the Public Record Office or other place of deposit appointed by the Lord Chancellor under this Act shall be temporarily returned at the request of the person by whom or department or office from which they were transferred".
There is nothing in the Question which related to the considerations which the noble and learned Lord has raised.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: With great respect, my Lords, may I just follow that? Do my questions nevertheless arise from, and relate to, the content of the original Question and the noble and learned Lord's reply?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a question of opinion. But if the noble and learned Lord puts down a Question, no doubt the appropriate Minister of the Crown will answer it. I am myself unwilling again to traverse the ground which was so well traversed by my noble friend Lady Young a week or two ago.
Lord Byers: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consider asking the appropriate department to have the documents photostated and copied, so that they can be made available to those who want to look at them?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that the appropriate department will note what the noble Lord has said. However, on 21st December, in a Written Answer, I was able to tell my noble kinsman the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that 17,500 documents had been returned to the departments under the provisions of the subsection in the year ending on, I think, 30th September last. So a good deal of photostating would be required.
Lord Byers: My Lords, with all respect to the noble and learned Lord, it is not a question of the number of documents totalling 17,500; it is the number that ought to be returned, and I cannot believe that that is in the thousands.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, all the documents have to be returned. The section provides for temporary return to the departments from which the documents had originally been obtained. As I read the word "temporary" it does not mean the same as the word "permanently".
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that the whole House will have been glad to note in a recent Written Answer to myself his disapproval of the mutilation of, or deletions from, these documents? Will the noble and learned Lord follow up that disapproval with equal disapproval of their retention?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am always glad to have the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, rare as it is; but I think that my Written Answer referred not to documents returned to the originating department under Section 4(6), but to the delivery to the Public Record Office from the originating department in the first place. However, I am
550
delighted to bask in the sunshine of the noble Lord's approval.
Lord Walston: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord expand a little on his definition of "temporary"? He told us that it is not permanent. Will he give us a slightly narrower definition, and say how long in his opinion temporary should be?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am always the servant of Parliament, and on that interesting subject the Act is totally silent.

UK Airports: Surface Movement Radar
2.46 p.m.
Lord Braye: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the recent air disaster by collision on the ground at Madrid Airport, whether surface movement indicators (ground radar) could be installed at all our major airports excepting Heathrow (which is already so equipped); and, if so, when.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority is installing surface movement radar in the new control tower now under construction at Gatwick Airport. The equipment is expected to be in service in the autumn of this year. There are no plans at present to install surface movement radar at other airports.
Lord Braye: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his very kind Answer. Is he aware that considerable sums of money have been spent on airports all over England, and that passenger safety must come first? Therefore, in view of the appalling accidents which have occurred abroad, could not somebody in the Government ask that all our major airports be equipped with this equipment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, nobody regrets more than I do the accidents to which my noble friend has referred, but there are a number of different criteria which must be satisfied before we can justify the installation of the equipment. So far we, or more accurately the CAA, has been able to see its way clear to install the equipment only at the airport that I have mentioned.

Tourism: Statistics
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples: 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 total number of tourists to Britain in 1983, and how does this compare with the preceding three years.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, complete figures for the year 1983 are not yet available, but in the first 10 months of the year there were an estimated 11,113,000 overseas visitors to the United Kingdom. That is a 7 per cent. increase compared with the same period in 1982, and an increase of 10 per cent. compared with the same period in 1981. It is almost the same as the figure for the first 10 months of 1980.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Can he give me any details of the percentage increase in, for example, American visitors? Can he also please say what plans there are for Heritage Year? May I also ask my noble friend whether he has visited the new premises in Victoria, and is he aware how extremely good, efficient and welcoming they are?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not yet had an opportunity to visit the new premises which my noble friend tells me of. Perhaps she and I might make a joint trip there; I look forward to that. With regard to my noble friend's first point, about the increase in visits by people from North America, I am pleased to be able to tell her that in 1983 there was a 34 per cent. rise over 1982 in visits from North American citizens. My noble friend asked about the theme and the plans for 1984, which has been designated Heritage '84 by the British tourist industry. So far this theme has received enthusiastic support from the industry, and a wide range of events has been planned.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can say whether he attributes the increase in the number of overseas visitors from North America entirely to the fall in the value of the pound against the dollar?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, not entirely; but that is no doubt one of the factors. Other factors might be the tremendous value that visitors from North America and, indeed, from all round the world, believe that they receive in this country, in this great city of ours and, for all we know, perhaps in the Palace of Westminster as well.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that if overseas visitors were exempted from paying value added tax on the services that they receive in this country, the figure of 11 million-odd would probably be greatly increased?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are well aware of the various cases put to us by the tourist industry for more relief on hotel accommodation and facilities for visitors. We shall ensure that this is considered on appropriate occasions, all the more so thanks to the support of my noble friend.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in giving the increase in tourists coming to this country, can my noble friend say whether there are figures to show the stream of British tourists in the other direction, and whether on balance there is an advantage in the foreign currency earned?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, there are statistics of British visitors going overseas. In the same period—the first 10 months of 1983–18,805,000 visits were made abroad by United Kingdom citizens. They spent £3,688 million. This was a deficit on tourism in the first 10 months of £433 million. I would stress that this is considerably less than the deficit on tourism in the first 10 months of 1982.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many out of the figure of 11 million are language students? Can he give some indication of how many stay on to continue their studies and do not go back?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, if I can obtain these complicated statistics for my noble friend, I shall do so. However, I would have to say to him and to your Lordships that it may require considerable research. Indeed, we may have some difficulty in defining who is and who is not a language student, because that also goes for me.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord has been kind enough to give the figure showing the increase in visitors from the United States, which is significantly higher than the global figure that he gave. Can he say, for example, whether there has been an increase or a decrease in visitors to this country from European Community countries'?
Lord Lyell: My Lords. I think that I could do so, but not without due search among the statistics. If I may, I shall find these figures and write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the great delays at Terminal 3 of Heathrow Airport for those arriving from North America holding passports other than British passports? Does he realise that tourists go away rather unhappy about this?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the first impression that visitors to these shores gain at airports and other ports of entry. I am afraid that I am not able to give my noble friend a suitable answer today, but I shall inquire and write to her very swiftly.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, when a Minister is asked a question to which he feels he cannot do an immediate justice, would he consider, if the answer is likely to be more than of interest to his sole interlocutor, inviting a Question for Written Answer rather than promising to write a letter?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for this extremely good idea. I should like to consider it. I shall certainly see that the noble and learned Lord receives copies of the two written answers that I have promised to give today.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the continuing, although reduced, deficit on tourist account, will the noble Lord indicate what measures have been taken to stimulate what one might call indigenous tourism?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the tourist industry itself is taking extremely vigorous measures, as I have pointed out to my noble friend Lady Sharpies. The main thrust for this year is Heritage '84. Most of the ideas for improving our earnings from tourism come from the vigorous tourist industry itself.

Business
2.56 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Gowrie will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on vocational education and training.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time of 7.30. The Committee stage of the Roads (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for a short period.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Ewart-Biggs and the Lord Pitt of Hampstead set down for 8th February shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 34 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates set out in Appendix D to the Companion to Standing Orders shall apply to each debate.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dentists Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a straightforward consolidation Bill that seeks to consolidate the law relating to the General Dental Council and to the training, registration and disciplining of dentists and dental auxiliaries in the United Kingdom. The law on this subject was last consolidated in the Dentists Act 1957, but since 1957 it has been extensively amended as a result of the Dentists (Amendment) Act 1973 and the Dentists Act 1983. It has also been affected by a number of Instruments made under the European Communities Act 1972. In order to produce a satisfactory consolidation it is necessary to make the recommendation that is set out in the Law Commission Report on the Bill laid before this House on 17th January. If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, on behalf of the members of the dental profession, I should like formally to welcome this consolidation Bill. There was a long interval between the 1957 Act and the one in 1983. It is the practice every year to publish the Dentists Act as the first pages in the Dental Register,
554
which means that this legislation is readily available to members of the profession and is regularly referred to by them. In the present Dental Register, of course, both Acts will have to be published. This will make life rather complicated for many dentists. We are therefore—I believe that I speak on behalf of all the profession—very grateful that a consolidation Act is coming so swiftly, and it will be of enormous help to members of the profession in enabling them to study this law.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. In the light of our previous exchange at Question Time, I hope that this may be a little better than a temporary filling.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for extracting that information from the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Animal Health and Welfare Bill [H.L.]
2.59 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Seizure and disposal of things likely to spread disease]:
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) If finance is provided by the industry for an eradication programme then full consultation shall be carried out with the funding body before an addition is made to the list of materials the Minister is empowered to seize.")
The noble Lord said: Before dealing with the amendment I must declare my interest as a farmer. I keep stock of various kinds—for example, poultry and cattle. Indeed, it is becoming rather boring continually admitting one's interest. I put down this amendment because there are now at least two areas where the industry provides the finance for controlling particular diseases—Aujeszky's disease in pigs and Newcastle disease in poultry. If the Government continue this, what I would call, "privatisation", it may move to foot and mouth disease and a number of other diseases.
There is a case for more consultation with the funding body when power is given to remove carcases and so on if disease is present. This is simply to protect people who may not agree completely that a whole series of animals have to be removed and who may take the view that some carcases are perfectly safe because they may be kept in a different place, and that poultry kept in different parts of the farm need not be disturbed and so on. This is simply an amendment to

555
prevent that from happening and to have consultation with the funding body before the Minister puts down any new materials that might be seized. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The amendment tabled by the noble Lord would introduce the requirement which the noble Lord has explained. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has made it quite clear that what he is after is full consultation taking place with a funding organisation before any item is added to the list of materials which the Minister is empowered to seize under subordinate legislation. I entirely take the point which the noble Lord made as regards the current examples of funding taking place from the industry in the case of Aujeszky's disease and Newcastle disease.
Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord will be content with the assurance which I am very ready to give him, because I do not think that the amendment would be appropriate in the Bill and I hope that the noble Lord would agree with me that it would not be necessary. There is only one other consultation provision in the Animal Health Act 1981 so far as seizure in disease situations is concerned, and that is the one which refers to wildlife and the concerns of the Nature Conservancy Council; it has nothing to do with financing.
The assurance that I would like to give is that it is axiomatic that, in the situation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, there must be a close and continuing consultation between the funding body and the Government. I can therefore certainly give an assurance that in the circumstances described there would be full consultation particularly in relation to the financial implications.
Lord John-Mackie: If there is one person I am glad to accept assurances from it is the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and because of that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I wish to raise a matter on Clause I which is linked with Clause 2 and it is a matter of which I have given the Minister notice. I recently received a letter from the Cotswolds Wildlife Preservation Society expressing fears that Clause 1, with the powers of entry prescribed in Clause 2, was an additional threat to badgers, giving additional powers to go in search of and to seize live badgers. I have not construed these clauses as doing that. I have taken advice on the matter from other sources and my own fears, if there were any, have been removed. However, if the Minister would be so kind as to make the position quite clear it would probably remove any misunderstanding. I only raise the matter on behalf of a society of this kind because their letter was closely argued, although I think it was mistaken in the conclusions that it reached.
As I see it, Clause 1 is an extension of the range of diseases for which a search can be made for products, materials or carcases which may be an additional risk to animals. Clause 2 provides powers of entry for that
556
purpose. I do not think that I need explain the case that has been put to me by the association because to dispose of their fears—which I am sure the Minister will be able to do—will be quite enough.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, did indeed give me notice that he would raise this point and I am very grateful to the noble Lord. If the noble Lord had not given me notice he might not have found that the explanation which I hope will now come from me made quite such good sense as I hope the noble Lord will think that it does.
My explanation is as follows. First, I can give an assurance to the noble Lord and, indeed, to those who expressed concern to him, that the powers in Clauses 1 and 2 do not affect badgers. The main disease concern in relation to badgers is of course tuberculosis and powers already exist for dealing with that disease. Moreover, the appropriate provisions for dealing with disease in wildlife are contained in Sections 21 and 22 of the Animal Health Act 1981.
However, the noble Lord asks me specifically about Clause 1. If one looks at the clause it specifically states that the clause:
"does not authorise provision for the seizure of any animal".
Hence, all animals, including badgers, are outside the scope of this provision. Section 28 of the Act enables orders to be made for the seizure of live animals, that is true, but the definition of "animals" in Section 87 does not include badgers. Therefore, the powers in Section 28 of the 1981 Act could only be exercised in relation to badgers if an order in the form of a statutory instrument under Section 87 were to be made. I would like to take the opportunity to say that there is no intention of doing that.
So far as Clause 2 is concerned, which provides for additional powers of entry to ascertain whether disease exists—which we have not quite reached—there an order would have to be made under Section 88 of the 1981 Act before the powers could be used in relation to tuberculosis. Indeed, under Clause 2 of the Bill the powers to enter land may only be exercised if animals are, or have been, kept on the land and it could not be argued that badgers which simply happen to be on the land are kept there. I hope that the assurances about those two clauses satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Extension of scope of 1967 Act]:
3.9 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 22, after ("with") insert ("the Farm Animal Welfare Council and").
The noble Lord said: This is a small point, but it is important. The Farm Animal Welfare Council was reconstituted in 1980 and it was given pretty wide terms of reference. It is a body of substance whose work and advice must be greatly valued by the

557
Government, as it is by many bodies outside. If we look at Clause 4 we find that in subsection (2B) provision is made for the Minister to consult because at line 22 it says:
"The Ministers may, after consultation with such persons or bodies as seem to them representative of the interests concerned"—
and so on.
Nowhere in the Bill is the existence of the Farm Animal Welfare Council mentioned. It seems to me that, if the Government have a council of this standing—and this is important from the point of view of advice given—it is not unsuitable for some reference to be made to its existence when provision is made for consultations. If the advice given by the Farm Animal Welfare Council was given to the Government in private, that, of course, would constitute part of the machinery for advice to the Government in formulating their own policies. But when the reports of a body of this kind are published—as they are—it seems to me that the consultations which are to take place should include a reference to them.
I know that it can be argued that the Farm Animal Welfare Council is helping the Government to make up their mind, and that when the Government listen to the council and make up their mind, that is the point when consultation should take place with the interests concerned. That is to say, the consultation is in two stages: first, the advice that is given to the Government; and, secondly, the Government, having considered that advice and having some idea of what they want to do, then going to the various interests concerned and listening to what they have to say. I think that that is plausible enough. However, as the consultative process cannot be entirely separated in stages like this, it is desirable for this council to be mentioned.
In conclusion, bodies which are appointed by governments in an advisory capacity—for example, committees and commissions—carry out a great deal of work in the public interest, much of it very unpleasant indeed. Who wants to go round slaughter houses to the extent that the Farm Animal Welfare Council has in the course of its investigation into conditions of slaughter, and whose report on that matter is expected before very long? But in connection with the contents of this Bill and the clause dealing with poultry, the council had to go round the establishments where poultry is brought in for slaughter, slaughtered and sent out again, and had to inspect very squalid conditions under which poultry was kept before it was despatched, and so forth. All that work is done for nothing, apart from a limited allowance for expenses. It is work done in the public interest. The least one can do to reward members of the council for what they undertake is to recognise what they are doing, even if one does not accept the recommendations which the council makes.
Speaking from personal experience, I cannot help but be deeply resentful that I have been so ill-rewarded by successive governments for all the time I have spent carrying out investigations as a member of various committees and commissions. I shall not make a deeper accusation in this connection, which would be similar to the one I would make if we were talking about a Royal Commission. That, I think, is a real con job; there is no doubt at all about that.
A council of this kind is a continuing and advisory body. Therefore, I hope that the fervour with which I advocate the mentioning of the Farm Animal Welfare Council will be taken to represent my own feelings on the situation. Therefore, I move the amendment with the hope that the Minister will not start a fairly long session on a fairly lengthy sequence of amendments in my name by turning down this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: I should like to support my noble friend. The fervour with which he advanced his argument does not require anything further from me. From looking at the Bill, I do not think that the amendment would do any harm at all. In fact, it might do much good.
Lord Belstead: Clause 4 enables the Government to approve by statutory instrument special methods of slaughter for day-old chicks, but after consultation with representative interests. First, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that, given its terms of reference, clearly the Farm Animal Welfare Council should be consulted, must be consulted and would have to be consulted. Indeed, I should have thought that Ministers would be in default of their statutory obligation to consult representative interests if the council were to be omitted.
I would add that, as I think was recognised in the debate on Second Reading by many noble Lords, many of the provisions in this Bill stem directly from the recommendations made by the council. Indeed, there is a very substantial amendment, which I think comes at the end of the noble Lord's list of amendments, which stems absolutely from the Welfare of Poultry Awaiting Slaughter Report, which was brought forward by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. It would be unthinkable to omit the council from any such consultation procedures, and I can assure the Committee that we would not do so.
However, I must add that, if we specifically mention the Farm Animal Welfare Council, I think it would be very difficult logically not to include mention of other welfare organisations which have an interest. Of course, I recognise that the Farm Animal Welfare Council does important work as the Government's adviser on farm animal welfare. I recognise the view of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the council might appropriately be mentioned in this statute. But for the reason which I have just given, from a drafting point of view I do not think that this amendment will quite do.
The noble Lord is not only very experienced in these matters, but I think he is also an experienced and ingenious parliamentarian. If he could bring back an amendment suitable from a drafting point of view, I know that the Government would try to look at it sympathetically. But I repeat, if one makes specific mention of the council in this respect, despite the fact that the council has a special place in the life of farm animal welfare, it would be very difficult not to include specifically the other very important bodies which will have to be consulted under Clause 4.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I suppose that anybody on these Benches has difficulty over Clause 4!

559
However, that is a very disappointing reply; nor is it a convincing one. What are these other bodies which would have to be mentioned? The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Poultry Federation, and others of that kind?
Lord Somers: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, there is the Council of Justice to Animals and the Humane Slaughter Association, of which I am the president.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Of course, one can go to the directory and read them all out, but they are not relevant to the point that I am about to make. This is a Government-appointed council; it is not a welfare body in the sense that other bodies may claim to be welfare bodies; it is not a prevention of cruelty body or a safeguarding the interests of particular species body. Nor is the Farm Animal Welfare Council representative of a trade interest. There are plenty of trade interests around that will have to be consulted—will they not? They will have plenty of time to consider where their interests lie in anything that the Government may do. I am not talking of them. They are "the interests" and are referred to:
"as seem to them representative of the interests concerned".
They can be any interests concerned—all of them. But I am dealing with the Government's own appointed advisory council. Cannot the Government give the council some standing, some mention or some acknowledgment? This is what I am complaining about. Let us look at the list of members of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. They are a distinguished body of people, many of them highly professional, all of them having a busy life, and yet they meet together to pore over the scandals and the squalid conditions to which the committee referred in its report and with which this Bill is attempting, in some measure, to deal.
The noble Lord cannot get away with a suggestion that so much of the report of the Farm Animal Welfare Council is reflected in this Bill that the Bill itself is their monument, their vote of thanks, their testimonial. Only two recommendations out of 37 are included in this Bill. All the others are left for further research, or for regulations, or for codes of practice—all the amorphous array of attempts to surround problems of this kind with suitable guidelines and disciplines. This is not good enough. I am surprised that the Minister has started off with such a disappointing and weak defence.
I do not know what he is suggesting that I should do. There is nothing I can think of which is going to satisfy the purpose of this amendment unless the Farm Animal Welfare Council is mentioned. I do not think that an amendment which says, "The Government shall consult with such bodies as they may think fit, including you know who", will do. Either the name is mentioned or the whole point of it is lost. That is my attitude towards this. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord can consider this matter again, otherwise we are going to make slow progress this afternoon. I sincerely hope that we can get on with points of greater substance.
I am not the self-appointed representative of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. I have not been asked
560
to do this by anybody. I just think it is rightful to do it, and I think it should he done. I hope that the noble Lord can think again.
Lord John-Mackie: The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, must agree that my noble friend has a real point here. I cannot understand why he thinks there is any drafting difficulty. All we have to do is to insert the name of the body and then just, "and such other persons and bodies". That is simple. It is a Government-appointed body. If the rest protest that they are not mentioned, they can be told, "You are not Government-appointed bodies, and we had to state our body which we asked to advise us." I cannot see that there is any difficulty with the drafting at all.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I should underline the difficulty without going all over the ground I have gone over before. As I have said twice, although the Farm Animal Welfare Council has a special place in the business of farm animal welfare, being the Government's adviser on these matters, the council is not a statutory body. For that reason, I think that the Government would find difficulty in picking out special mention in this way in this particular place in this statute for the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and not mentioning bodies representing the poultry industry, the farmers' unions, other welfare bodies, the veterinary profession and religious organisations, just to list some organisations. Indeed, one specific one in which the noble Lord has an interest as president was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Somers.
That is the difficulty from a drafting point of view. In no way am I belittling on behalf of the Government the work which the Farm Animal Welfare Council does, but I say that it would be inappropriate specifically to mention it while not mentioning any of the other bodies, when what we are talking about and are concerned with here is that there should be wide consultation. I am sure that that is what we all want. This would be questioned if we drafted in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is inviting me to draft. Therefore, although I gave the noble Lord an invitation to be as ingenious as possible and to try to come back with an alternative, I am afraid that I am not going to come back with an alternative.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The noble Lord is making it worse. He now says it is not a statutory body, so he begins to run it down. The fact that it is not a statutory body is immaterial. It is the advisory body on the welfare of farm animals appointed by the Government, and the only one of its kind in relation to this Bill. Surely that gives it a status which is not enjoyed by any voluntary body or other pressure group that may be consulted, and properly consulted, when matters are under consideration. This is the primary advisory body of the Government so constituted, and strengthened by this Government to make it a stronger force in the chain of consultation and formulation of policy than the old committee. Therefore, surely it has a place in a Bill of this kind.
The Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments appointed by the Home Secretary is not a statutory committee. But is the Minister trying to tell us—he has been at the Home Office—that, when we update the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, we shall get a whole new

561
Bill without any reference to the Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments? Again it is a committee of similar status to the Farm Animal Welfare Council which has the right to publish its own reports and has the claim to be consulted by the Minister on matters within its terms of reference. Indeed, in any updating legislation in that context, it will be essential to refer to the advisory committee because it will have a part in the administration of the Act. Therefore, it will have to be referred to.
The Minister is just playing about with this. The Government have enough real difficulties about the reforms that this Bill is attempting to make without making unnecessary trouble for themselves over the recognition of their own self-appointed, strengthened, reorientated Farm Animal Welfare Council. This is what is wrong with this Government. They take big and silly decisions in other contexts, but apparently they cannot come to a conclusion on something which is quite harmless but has a degree of gratitude in it for a committee they appointed to do a job of work.
I would not serve on the Farm Animal Welfare Council after listening to the Minister's suggestion that they have no more right to be consulted, and no more right to he mentioned in the Act, than "chickens' lib". I cannot take it. I hope that we are not going to reach deadlock on a matter of this kind, because it will come up again shortly in another amendment. Are we going over it all again?
Lord Belstead: I think we shall go over it all again because I think I shall give the same reply to the noble Lord as I have given now.
On Question, amendment negatived.
3.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Clause 4 removes from the 1967 Act in Section 1(1) the words,
"for purposes of preparation for sale for human consumption";
so that the present Bill applies to the slaughter of birds whether or not for the purposes of sale for human consumption. Then, for the sake of clarity, there are certain exemptions which are mentioned. But the principal Act is still the 1967 Act which refers to "commercial purposes". Schedule 1, paragraph 7(3) on page 17 appears to confirm that the Bill applies only to birds slaughtered for commercial purposes, because it defines the meaning of those words,
"in the course or furtherance of a business or for reward".
Then it defines what a commercial enterprise is.
What I do not understand is the relevance in the circumstances to the exemptions in Clause 4(2)(a), (b) and (c). The exemptions are that the section shall not apply to the slaughter of any bird,
"in pursuance of powers conferred by, or by any instrument made or having effect as if made under, the Animal Health Act 1981".
We understand what that is. It is where slaughter takes place in an emergency, such as with foot and mouth disease or other highly contagious or infectious diseases, where slaughter has to take place straightaway. I should not have thought that such slaughter came under this category at all.
562
The next exemption is:
"in the course of an experiment".
Under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 animals are not slaughtered for a commercial purpose; they are destroyed following experiments authorised by licence under the Act of 1876.
Thirdly, an exemption is given to,
"a person registered in the register of veterinary surgeons",
who may be destroying an animal in the course of the exercise of his profession. There is nothing mischievous either about the exemptions or about what I am saying. All I wonder is why these exemptions were put in Clause 4 when they seem to be quite irrelevant to the purposes of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could throw some light on that.
As that finishes that point, I do not know whether to go on. I have several points to raise on clause stand part. It may help if I deal with them one at a time. All I want to ask on this is, what is the relevance of lines 10 to 21 on page 3? They are all exemptions, yet none of them appears to be concerned with the purposes of Clause 4?
Lord Belstead: These exemptions are being put on the face of the statute for the first time, but they relate, as the noble Lord has explained to the Committee, to provisions which already exist under, or by virtue of, the provisions of the Animal Health Act 1981; that is to say, slaughter for the purposes of disease control which takes place under the supervision of a Ministry of Agriculture veterinary officer. That is the first of the exemptions which the noble Lord read. This type of slaughter generally takes place on farms where the birds are protected by Part I of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, which prohibits the cause of unnecessary pain or distress to livestock on agricultural land. For that reason it seemed right to us to put in the first of these exemptions.
The second one the noble Lord dealt with, and he knows the whole scene so much better than myself that I would simply say in brief that in the course of experiments—subject to the restrictions under the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act, and provided the restrictions are complied with—there should, as we see it, be the exemption written into paragraph (b). The third exemption is where a qualified veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner in the exercise of his profession or an assistant working under his direction, would consider the destruction of a bird or birds necessary—including the destruction of pet birds or a flock in circumstances where the owner could no longer exercise proper care over them. That would be a situation for which we believe there should be an exemption written in. That is the reason for paragraph (c).
The Earl of Selkirk: What does the word "Ministers" mean exactly? Does it include Secretaries of State? What Ministers in particular, one or two Ministers, or which Ministers does it refer to?
Lord Belstead: My first reaction to the noble Earl was that it was the plural of "Minister", but that gives me the opportunity to look at page 16 of the Bill. If my

563
noble friend would care to look at line 3 on page 16 there is the definition of "Ministers" as having,
"the same meaning as in that Act."
I am looking for the Act. I believe it is the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967. If I am wrong about that I shall put myself right before we go much further. I think we are about to have a Statement, but before we break for the Statement may I repeat that, for once, I think I am quite right.
The Earl of Selkirk: I take it that that means the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Lord Belstead: I was rather afraid that the noble Earl might ask that question. I must be absolutely honest; I do not know whether the 1967 Act relates to Scotland. That question I should like to answer for my noble friend after we have broken for the Statement. Will my noble friend forgive me?
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): The Question is, that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: No, I thought we were about to have a Statement?
Lord Skelmersdale: If the Committee would forgive me, it is normal practice not to break into discussions of this nature until an appropriate moment when the subject has been cleared up, which, quite self-evidently, has not yet occurred. Thus, we will not be breaking for the Statement until after we resolve whether or not the clause stand part.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am very much obliged. I am sorry to delay the Statement but I still have quite a lot on Clause 4 yet. I accept the Minister's explanation of why the exemptions were included in the Bill. They are there, as I understand, as the longest of long stops against any dubiety arising in certain extreme, remote or almost impossible circumstances, so that it is just a waste of print and it does not really matter. In those circumstances there is no point in spending further time on it.
I wish to come to a more material point which is in lines 25 and 26. Although I alluded in speaking on Second Reading to what is commonly referred to as "ritual slaughter", I have no intention of pursuing that general issue in further stages of this Bill. As the noble Lord himself pointed out in reply on Second Reading, the Farm Animal Welfare Council are reaching the end of their study of methods of slaughter and slaughterhouse conditions, and we are likely to receive two reports from the Farm Animal Welfare Council within the next few months—one on slaughter generally and the other, a little later, on so-called ritual slaughter. While those reports are pending, I shall not waste the time of the Committee in pursuing any matter related to that subject, but the Bill deals specifically in subsection (2B) halfway down page 3 with a method of slaughter of poultry chicks.
The Farm Animal Welfare Council referred in their report to this matter. They said in paragraph 4 of their report:
"We have not included in our inquiry the sale of day-old chicks. We intend to examine this aspect of the slaughter of poultry at a later date."
564
Whether that will be included in the further report they still have to make, I do not know, but subsection (2B) gives the Ministers, after consultation with all and sundry, the power to approve a method of slaughter
"as a method suitable for the slaughter of poultry chicks".
I do not know who the method is suitable for, but it is a suitable method of slaughter. It is to ensure that they are slaughtered without the infliction of unnecessary suffering by any methods so approved. It seems to me that the deepest consideration should be given to this matter. What I hear about the methods employed at the present time is pretty horrifying.
I referred in my speech on Second Reading to the fact that day-old chicks are disposed of as if they were mashed potatoes. That is known as the "crushing system". How they are crushed, with what and what mess they are in at the end of it, I would not know. However, where they go then is known. They go, when they are so crushed, to mink and fox farms. They are then food for animals kept in captivity for their fur; and I shall have something to say later on about the destination of the crushed chicks.
As to the other methods, I believe that gassing has been used; but possibly gassing makes the ensuing carcases unsuitable for disposal in the way I have described. I think therefore it is going to be of considerable importance as to what methods the Ministers come forward with. I hope and believe that the opportunity to discuss what they recommend will be given to us because they will be by regulation.
I will now go on to the question of small slaughterers. I believe this is the subject of an amendment by my noble friend Lord John-Mackie. The interest I have in this is what was referred to in the report of the Farm Animal Welfare Council and to which, again, I referred on Second Reading: that is the squalid conditions that they found which are referred to in paragraph 56 of their report. They say:
"At businesses we visited where slaughter was carried out by the Moslem method for the food of Moslems the birds were kept on the premises and slaughtered in the most squalid conditions. Nothing can apparently be done about it by the authorities and the birds are sold to the customer live and slaughtered for him immediately afterwards."
The Minister said on Second Reading, without reference to the method of slaughter, that the conditions under which the birds are kept prior to slaughter, albeit by the Moslem method, will be subject to the regulations and conditions laid down under this Bill. That I hope can be firmly understood: that quite apart from the methods of slaughter the conditions under which they are kept prior to slaughter will come within the conditions and regulations of this Bill. That is all I need to trouble the Minister with at the moment, and I hope to get his reply on those two points.
Lord Belstead: First of all, in his absence, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for not having been able to say earlier that the word "Ministers" in this Bill does indeed relate to the Secretary of State for Scotland and also the Secretary of State for Wales.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on the question of day-old chicks, as the noble Lord implied, the Farm Animal Welfare Council are studying this matter and have not yet reached final conclusions. We

565
shall, of course, take account of anything which the council may say before approving slaughter methods for chicks. That is why we have been unable to include chicks in the Bill now in that way, but have had to make provision for orders later on after the Farm Animal Welfare Council have given their advice.
The noble Lord finally referred to the question of birds kept for ritual slaughter. He was good enough to refer to what I said on Second Reading, and indeed I would repeat that the amendment in Clause 4 will enable us to make regulations on birds sold live and then slaughtered. To this extent the Bill will therefore apply to ritual slaughter.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: I hope the Committee will now agree that this is an appropriate moment to go on to the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Vocational Education and Training
3.47 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, with the leave of the House. I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government are today publishing a White Paper Training for Jobs. This is presented jointly by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science, for Scotland and Wales and myself. Copies are available in the Printed Paper Office".
:A well-trained workforce is essential to a strong economy and to win back jobs; to achieve this, vocational education and training must be properly directed to the demands of the market place."
"Two years ago we published our first White Paper on Training. At that time we set out three objectives: first, to improve vocational education and the transition from school to work; second, to modernise apprenticeship and other skill training; and, third, to open up wider training opportunities for adults."
"Since then we have made considerable progress. Already more than 300,000 young people have entered the youth training scheme. Our new initiative in co-ordinated technical and vocational education for young people between 14 to 18 was launched last September. Fourteen local education authorities co-operated in pilot schemes and a further 46 have now been invited to join the scheme, starting in September."
"In the reform of apprenticeship arrangements important improvements have been made in engineering, electrical contracting, printing and the construction industries. The open tech programme is now well under way, with as many as 50,000 people expected to take advantage of this new facility next year."
566
"These specific new initiatives represent a major achievement by the Manpower Services Commission under the energetic leadership of its chairman, David Young, and his fellow commissioners. But they would be the first to acknowledge the part played by employers, trade unions, local authorities, voluntary organisations, colleges, schools and the careers service and the support and interest of many honourable Members of this House, to which I readily pay tribute."
"The White Paper also sets out the criteria against which we shall make our future plans, and announces certain specific proposals. Central and local government have an important part to play, in vocational education and training. But real success depends crucially on the part played by employers and trainees themselves. The decisions as to who is trained, when and in what skills, are best taken by employers (and indeed the individuals concerned) who know better where the real needs are. So investment in training must be cost-effective, flexible, adaptable to changing technology and free of old-fashioned restrictions."
"I now turn to adult training, The Manpower Services Commission recently submitted to me proposals for a new adult training strategy. We fully support the commission's call for a national campaign to raise awareness, amongst employers and all concerned, of the vital importance of training. We support, too, the need to provide wider opportunities for the training of adults to meet new skill requirements. We therefore endorse the commission's proposals to restructure their existing programmes to double the total number of adults trained under MSC courses to over 250,000 a year. This will include a significant increase to some 125,000 in the number of unemployed receiving training."
"The Government have agreed to consider further two proposals by the commission. The first of these is that there should be some training included for people on community programmes. The second of these is that some adult trainees could be helped by a guaranteed loan scheme to enable them to obtain training not otherwise available to them. The Government recognise that this could well be of interest to a number of people, and I confirm that we shall be ready to consider it further with the MSC and others concerned"
"The White Paper also announces important new arrangements within vocational education. It is vital to get the closest possible collaboration at local level between employers, local education authorities and colleges, and other providers of vocational education and training, in identifying and meeting the real needs for future employment in their areas. The Manpower Services Commission, which includes representatives from industry as well as local authorities and professional educational interests, and which has an established local network, is well placed to assist in this role."
"The Government have therefore decided to ask the commission to extend its range of operations so that it can discharge the functions of a national training authority. We propose to increase the

567
commission's resources devoted to work-related non-advanced further education in England and Wales from some £90 million now to some £155 million in 1985–86 and £200 million in 1986–87. It will then represent about one-quarter of the total public sector provision for this area. The resultant reduction in the need for local authority expenditure will be taken into account in settling the relevant rate support grants for those future years. The commission is being asked to begin consultations immediately with educational interests, employers and other interested parties so that plans can be settled in good time for the beginning of the 1985–86 academic year."
"In 1983–84 we expect to spend £960 million on training. In 1984–85 we plan to increase this to £1,100 million. This is in addition to the £2½ billion spent by employers, and the substantial sums within the further education sector. It is vital to ensure that these funds are all used to the best possible effect. This White Paper sets out the Government's continuing programme to ensure that as a nation we are properly trained to meet the challenges of the years ahead."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for repeating the Statement that has been made in another place. May I ask him, bearing in mind the very substantial changes proposed in this White Paper, whether it would not have been better for the Government first to issue a Green Paper to allow the fullest consultations to take place with all the people concerned? May I also ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the fullest consultations have taken place? I ask that because the Statement refers to such bodies as the TUC, and my information at the moment is that production of this document has come as rather a surprise to some of the people involved in it.
May I ask the Minister, further, what is meant by the statement that loans are to be made available to adults under this scheme? I predict, because of the present economic circumstances, that unless those loans are made on very favourable terms there will be very little take-up of that scheme. May I also ask whether the noble Earl can enlarge further on the question of the additional finance for this scheme? Is it to be found by the Government, or is the scheme to be funded totally, or in part, by a clawback from the rate support grant to local authorities, with some of the adverse effects which that will have on those authorities if it is carried out?
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to thank the noble Earl for repeating that important Statement. It is a Statement on training, but it has important effects on education as well. We are certainly not against central Government initiatives in the national interest, but we have some quite serious reservations about the constant whittling away of local education authority funds for Government-favoured projects in schools; and we also share to some extent the concern of the noble Lord,
568
Lord Dean, about the question of the consultation process.
There are two or three specific questions that I should like to ask the noble Earl. The announcement of the impending creation of the national training authority is obviously of the greatest importance. Can the noble Earl tell us a little more about the intended composition of this body? Will it simply be restricted to the existing MSC, or will other interests be brought in from outside? The question of consultation has also been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. May I ask the noble Earl whether, now that the White Paper has been published, and before full implementation, all interested bodies and parties will be brought into the discussion?
The Statement refers to a significant increase to some 125,000 in the number of unemployed adults receiving training. Can the noble Earl tell us what income maintenance arrangements are contemplated for them? Will they simply continue to receive unemployment benefit, or how will that be done? In conclusion, can the noble Earl let us know who will qualify for the guaranteed loan scheme? Will that be simply for the employed, or for the unemployed? This is an extremely important Statement and I hope that later, through the normal channels, we shall be able to arrange for a full-scale debate upon it.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. In respect of the question about consultations put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, from the Opposition Front Bench, which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, this is of course a White Paper and, in itself, will be debated and the subject of consultation. But further than that, the MSC will undertake immediate consultations with local authority associations, with employers' representatives, with representatives of further education colleges, with unions (especially those with members teaching in colleges) and with examining and validating bodies. These consultations will be about all aspects of the initiative, with particular reference to the subject areas and levels to be supported and the appropriate machinery for implementing the initiative. The commission will probably have to have arrangements in place to allow negotiations with local education authorities and colleges, so that they can plan their programmes and budgets in good time for next year. We have to get on with this, and this is, perhaps, why we have issued this in the form of a White Paper rather than a Green Paper.
On the point of guaranteed loans for forms of training, this would apply only to adult training. It has not yet been decided upon by the Government. It is a suggestion which has been put to them by the Manpower Services Commission, and we shall be examining it closely.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, asked me about finance. Broadly speaking, this should be neutral in its overall effects, as planned local government expenditure will be reduced by £110 million and Manpower Services Commission expenditure increased accordingly. However, I should like to make two points. First, local authorities and the other interest groups concerned are represented on the Manpower Services Commission. Secondly, this is

569
only a development of a process which has been taking place for some time, because the Manpower Services Commission is by far the largest single customer for local authority training courses. It will be of help to local authorities, and certainly to the young people and adults involved, that a nationally-based organisation which is more closely in touch with employers as well as with movements in the labour market than local authorities can be individually will have this role. I would expect support on that score.
I have tried to deal with the point about consultation made to me by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. Again I would repeat to him that the Manpower Services Commission contains representation from many other interests than the ones I mentioned. On the issue of the allowances paid to adult trainees, my understanding is that these should be competitive with or slightly better than existing rates of benefit. But I should like, if I may, to check that point.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, could he comment on the national training authority and say whether it will consist simply of existing members of the Manpower Services Commission or whether there will be some amplification of it to cover the various interests?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, there is a passage in the Statement which states that through this initiative the Manpower Services Commission is to become a national training authority.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I wonder whether I could press the noble Earl a little further on that point. The White Paper refers to the fact that the Department of Education and Science will be involved in appointments to the Manpower Services Commission, presumably in view of the growing role of the Manpower Services Commission in the provision of education and training. Does this mean that the Manpower Services Commission will remain as at present constituted, with nine members? If it is to assume the very important function of a national training body, with which I am not quarrelling because it is necessary to have a national strategy for training, to whom will it be accountable?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the role of the Department of Education and Science is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be fully involved in considering and approving the Manpower Services Commission's corporate plan and in proposals relating to non-advanced further education and this kind of training. He will also be responsible for consultations on appointments to the commission to represent professional, education and local authority interests in England and Wales. In terms of the accountability of the Manpower Services Commission to Parliament, that will remain, as at present, the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I agree with the principle underlying the White Paper, but we shall have to study it in a little more detail. Could the noble Earl supply us with details of the 15 authorities which have been conducting a pilot study? Could he also
570
name in due course the 43 authorities which have been continuing the pilot study since September?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, my understanding is that the pilot studies have been relevant to the proposals which the Government are now putting forward.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, bearing in mind that this is Women's Engineering, Industry and Science Year—I see that some Ministers did not even know this, so I am happy to give them this piece of information—will it be the policy of Her Majesty's Government, through any body which is created, or through any existing body, to encourage more girls to enter the spheres of engineering, industry and science?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as I suggested to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, at an earlier stage of this afternoon's proceedings, the Manpower Services Commission is thoroughly interested in widening the range of work and training provision that is available for young women and in trying to get young women interested in non-traditional skills. A national initiative and network for training of this kind will promote this objective.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, if I may take up the noble Earl's remark that there is no additionality in the funding referred to in this Statement—that it is a straight switch of £110 million from the local education authority account to the Manpower Services Commission's account—is it not a pity that these important initiatives have not received a little more pump priming from the Government?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it is always wishful thinking that pump priming in one area can be achieved without the well getting a little drier in another area; otherwise, one would be adding to public spending, taxes and interest rates and reducing the number of employment opportunities that would be available thereby. This is a sensible use of existing overall resources. As I said earlier, it is not a very great change in principle because in this area the Manpower Services Commission is overwhelmingly the largest customer where local authorities are concerned.

Animal Health and Welfare Bill [H.L.]
4.7 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 5 [Licences]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 6, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I shall confine myself for the moment to Amendment No. 3. There is nothing new about a debate on whether the word shall be "may" or "shall", but I submit to the Committee that in this particular regard the word "shall" is more suitable than the word "may". Those of us who have been in Government know about all the devices of Ministers,

571
and of the Civil Service behind them, to provide the utmost safeguard against a commitment that they do not want to make, or against tying them down to something that they do not want to do, or even against compelling them to think about something that they do not want to think about. It is an astonishing network of protection for the human spirit of Ministers of the Crown.
There is not the slightest doubt that not only on this but on the previous amendment, which I made such a fuss about, the advisers of the Minister said, "Look, Minister, if you do this some people will say that if you mention them you will have to mention these". This tiresome discouragement of ministerial adventure is the most frustrating part of public administration. The Minister, to start off with, says, "What is wrong with this?" The reply comes back, "Ah, Minister, but you have got to think of the repercussions. If you give way on this, look at this amendment later on; you will have to give way on that. If you mention Sloggins in one clause you will have to mention Boggins in another. Your life will be made hell. You will be asked why you have mentioned one while you have omitted to mention the other". The whole thing is absolute rubbish from beginning to end; but you cannot escape from it.
When I was in the House of Commons, I used to be in possession (by means I will not disclose) of the brief by the Board of Inland Revenue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Finance Bill. It was wonderful—it really was wonderful! At the end of a long and tortuous argument, the brief, which frightened the Minister out of his wits in case he gave way when he should not do so, concluded with the simple formula, "Presumably the amendment will be resisted". They were content that the Minister should take that instruction in, whatever he thought of what went before.
When we come to the granting of licences and the conditions of granting licences to slaughter poultry and allied birds, it is not a question of "may"; it is a question of "shall". In the red meat industry all slaughtermongers have to be licensed. They have to be given proper training. Even then, although every precaution is taken, accidents can occur and dreadful things can happen. One is dealing with live animals and situations in which apparatus may fail or lights may go out, or where other untoward factors may not prevent some very distressing incidents arising.
Clause 5(1B) states:
"Accordingly, the regulations may include such provision as appears to the Ministers to be expedient for maintaining a licensing system"—
et cetera, et cetera. It then goes on to enlarge, although not as extensively as I believe it should do, on the conditions which may be made precedent to the granting of a licence. Can there be any question or doubt as to what should be done and what must be done? This is another example of how matters begin in a small way. Industries grow and capital equipment is installed, and then enormous commercial interests are built up right across the country. Public appetite for a particular form of food is advertised and promoted all over the place. When that stage is reached, and when scandals and discontents surrounding what is
572
happening are pressed upon the Government, you find that you have no safeguards against amateurish work being undertaken in the poultry slaughterhouses of this country. Red meat has one safeguard; they are animals. Poultry does not; they are birds.
I said on Second Reading that due to some curious twist of human temperament or psychology, animals arouse much greater sympathy than birds—probably because animals are nearer to the human species than are birds. I do not believe that one can minimise suffering among birds on the ground that they are small or that they are stupid. After all, stupidity has nothing to do with cruelty. We are not all blessed with the equipment we ought to have, but that does not mean that we can be ill-treated, because we are stupid; otherwise, many human beings would undergo some most distressing experiences. So let us be generous about the chicks. As I said before, there is no more ill-treated species in the country than the domestic fowl. It really is dreadful what we do to it, and poultry is more a stable food now than it has been ever before.
After all that, can the noble Lord the Minister bring himself to say that it shall be "shall", or do we have to endure another of those experiences which are so frustrating in your Lordships' House? It is rare to get a Minister on the Government Front Bench who can say, "Having listened to the debate, I agree". Apparently he does not have the authority to do that. He has a brief stuck in front of him to which he must adhere with no bending, no concession and no responsibility. The brief has come from the department and there it is.
We all know what miserable lives junior Ministers lead. They get all the brickbats. They get all the criticisms. The senior Minister remains in his office while the Minister of State or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary takes all the dirt on the Floor of the House and he hides behind the instruction. "You are not to give way. You've got your brief—stick to it. If there is any giving way to be done, I will give way in the House of Commons later, when I shall get the credit for it". We know all about that, so how is it that we can be deceived by the clever and kindly front which the Minister puts up?
Are we to have licences for people to slaughter poultry or are we not? If we are, then there "shall" be licences. If we are to have licences, then people must be properly trained and properly equipped. That is the whole purpose of the licences, that there shall be conditions. The word is "shall" and not "may".
We may get a long, tortuous explanation as to why "may" is preferable to "shall". But there should be no doubt about it. In fact, there should be a specific commitment in the Bill for the institution of a licensing system. I know that, unfortunately, relations between local authorities and the Government are at a low ebb at the present time. This system is a new responsibility to be put on local authorities, and I have not the slightest doubt that many local authorities will say, "If you are going to push all these extra duties on to us, then what about the money? What about the staff? Are we going to be chivvied on our expenditure by one Minister and then have new duties imposed on us by another? Let us know where we stand. If we are to assume new responsibilities, we want to be properly equipped for them".
That is not the only regard in which local authorities have their difficulties. There are already some duties imposed upon local authorities which they have not taken up, and nobody has insisted that they shall. But if cruelty is to be regarded as a public matter, then it cannot be left to local authorities to decide whether they will put up with that responsibility or not. Cruelty to children is not a matter left to local authorities in the direction and policy they have to follow. It has not been possible in the past for local authorities to dodge their statutory responsibilities under the Children Act 1975 and other Acts of Parliament which require them to have particular officers and to discharge certain duties.
Here, we cannot make it optional on local authorities, and we cannot make it optional on the Government either; they must do this thing. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord the Minister will accept this amendment. It is the substitution of the imperative for the discretionary. In my view, there can be no discretion about this matter, and I hope he will agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Belstead: With respect to the noble Lord, one would not have guessed from most of his speech on this amendment that the clause is extending the powers in the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967 in order for regulations to be made to require the licensing of people engaged in the commercial slaughter of poultry. Indeed, this clause causes those who are selling birds live to the intending consumer and then slaughtering them to be subject to the provisions of the clause.
I thought that the noble Lord would have found it in him—for he is always generous, even though it sometimes takes a little time to get to the generosity—to have recognised that this is a good clause and one that is making an advance so far as welfare is concerned. If the noble Lord could have brought himself to recognise that, then perhaps he could have taken another step and recognised also that it is not either senior or junior Ministers who are insisting on putting up an absolutely unshaken front which is the matter at issue here; it is all a question of consultation.
The noble Lord, with his great experience of these matters, will know that Section 3 of the 1967 Slaughter of Poultry Act provides that there shall be consultation with representative interests in extending this clause. If the regulations were obliged to include all the provisions listed in Clause 5, instead of enabling the Government to have discretion in the light of consultations to decide what should be done, it really would mean that the consultations would have no effect at all, or very little.
If the noble Lord is going to say to me that this is an obscure argument and that I am merely trying to get round the truth, may I take the matter head on and say to him that we would not have put Clause 5 in the Bill at all if we had not intended to use the provisions in the clause. So I do seriously beg the noble Lord to be a little more generous to the Government in bringing this Bill forward. It is a Bill which, as its name denotes, is supposed to improve, and we believe will, the
574
welfare of animals, which we all know the noble Lord has at heart. We shall be able to go on to debate some important amendments which the noble Lord has down to try to improve the Bill. In these debates I do ask the noble Lord to recognise that this is a Bill which is trying to take a step forward, not a step back.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I wonder what the Government have been doing all this time since this matter was first brought within the terms of reference of the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1980. The first thing that the Farm Animal Welfare Council did when it was reconstituted was to go to the Minister and ask for an extension of its terms of reference to bring slaughter into it, and he granted that. They said, "The first thing we want to deal with is slaughter, the care of birds before slaughter, the methods of slaughter, and slaughter generally". That is what they have been doing. The Farm Animal Welfare Council took this on board in July 1980 and reported in January 1982, and it is their report of January 1982 that we are referring to constantly in relation to this Bill. It is now January 1984.
While the Farm Animal Welfare Council were doing their self-imposed task the Agriculture Committee of the House of Commons began work on animal welfare in poultry, pig and veal calf production. So the House of Commons committee was at work while the Farm Animal Welfare Council were at work. On 2nd July 1981 the House of Commons Agriculture Committee produced its report, which cost £55,000 to print, quite apart from all the expenditure on clerks and officials and witnesses. Look at it—evidence from everybody, consultations galore; it could not have done more. It is all here.
What happened after that? What happened after that was that the department sent out a circular to all the people they have to consult, all the people the noble Lord the Minister says would have to be mentioned in the Bill if the Farm Animal Welfare Council were referred to in the Bill. The names of all the people they sent this circular to at the beginning of 1983 covers a page of foolscap, both sides. The extraordinary thing about this circular is that it refers to what the agriculture Ministers will do and what the agriculture Ministers think, and so on. It says that certain matters will be deferred, certain matters will be included in the Bill. All this is put out for further consultation, and it is the end of 1983 when we get this Bill.
Now the Minister says this matter is for consultation. What further consultation, one might ask, is going to be material to the Government's intention? What about the consultations they might well have had with the staff of the Cheltenham headquarters—none whatever? They have made up their mind. They can make up their mind when they want to. As I said, they can take silly decisions on big questions and they cannot take wise decisions on small questions. Here we are arguing about whether it is to be "shall" or "may". The Minister says it need not be "shall" because what "may" means is that those concerned will. The Minister says, "Do you think we would have said 'may' if we did not intend to do it? Should we have put it in the Bill if we had had no

575
intention of carrying it out?" This is just playing with words, but they are important words. An Act of Parliament is read and people rely on it.
I think, quite honestly, this is pretty shocking. I do not know why we should be spending time on it. Talk about costs. Think of the hundreds of thousands of pounds spent already on consulting everybody who could be brought in for c onsultation. The Government say that they have made up their mind to do something, but "It must be 'may' in case we have a change of mind, or something stops us". I do not know; I give it up. I can only say that one can criticise a Labour Government for many things but one cannot criticise them for nonsense like this. If we were going to do something, we said we were going to do it, and we did it. On various matters all Governments have difficulty in deciding what to do and when to do it. But there cannot be any doubt at all that we must have a licensing system.
I do not want to bore the Committee by going into the different aspects of the process of slaughter by mechanical means which require training. The people involved have to understand the effect of electricity; they have to understand about the electric shock system of stunning; they have to understand about the automatic throat cutter; they have to understand whether birds are really paralysed or whether they have just had a shock and will suffer pain before they have got down to the end of the shackle line. Do we really appreciate what kind of process we are talking about? It is slaughter by machinery, slaughter by moving belts and wheels and the imposition of electric current. It is a terrible business, and people must be properly trained. They not only must be properly trained but must understand something of the animals they are dealing with.
There is a silly story told of a boy who wanted to be a slaughterman and was asked, "Why do you want to be a slaughterman?" He said, "Because I am fond of animals". We must surely get some understanding of people who engage in this task. It is not a particularly edifying vocation; I do not know whether it comes under the vocational training scheme we have just heard about.
If the Minister is going to be adamant about this, I think it is about time I felt I must divide the Committee and try to get a decision that way. I do not believe that the Committee can vote down the word "shall" when the Minister says, "It is going to mean 'shall' and the provision would not be in the Bill at all if it was not going to be 'shall'". But the Government do not want the word "shall" in the Bill; they want the word "may". Is that what the Committee is being asked to vote for? I cannot believe it. Anyway, I have had my say.
Lord Belstead: I ought just to say in reply that, as the noble Lord knows very much better than I do, licensing is highly technical and detailed. Consultation is necessary, but the consultation is not about whether—that is in the Bill—but about how we should introduce licensing. If we put in the word "shall", those who are consulted will say, "You do not mean to consult us. You have made up your minds already". If I may say so to the noble Lord, I do not think that that
576
would be a very good point on which to divide the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques): The Question is that Amendment No. 3 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"? To the contrary, "Not-Content"? I think that the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the "Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 50. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 16, after ("satisfied") insert ("particularly in respect of training and proficiency").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is merely to indicate the importance of training and proficiency as conditions for the granting of a licence. The Minister will say, "Of course they are. You do not need to say so in the Bill". One can anticipate the arguments that he will use, as they are so stereotyped. But I think that there is value occasionally in using an Act of Parliament to indicate the essentials of what it is proposed to do. That really is all that there is in this amendment. I shall not ask the Committee to spend a lot of time on it, nor shall I weary myself by spending a lot of time on it.
There are some things for which it is hardly worth coming to your Lordships' House. Noble Lords who have just arrived will realise that in due course. I see one or two new noble Lords around. I do not want to discourage them, but this is a very frustrating place. No wonder noble Lords come here either because they are fed up with the House of Commons or because they have ambitions to be something in the House of Lords. Quite frankly, there is not much else to bring one here. It is certainly not for what one can achieve.
I remember introducing in three Sessions in succession a Bill to outlaw the sale of live pet animals in open markets. Your Lordships were wise and good enough to pass that Bill three times. But it was not until a general election was pending and the Government realised that they had little to chalk up in the manifesto about what they had done on animal welfare that they grabbed at my little Bill, made special room for it in the other place on the last day of the Parliament and got it through. Upon my word, this little Bill of mine was passed almost at the last minute in the House of Commons, almost like being born in the vestry, and in their manifesto the Government claimed it as their own. I am not one who wants to take credit for what little bit of good one can do in this place. Let the Government have it. I do not mind. They can take credit for anything that they do in this Bill which arises from any overture that I have made for change.
Need I go on? I do not think I need. It is the old story: you either take it or leave it. There are plenty of arguments why this should not be done. I wish that the Minister could get as worked up about turning down amendments as I do in proposing them. It might then be worth listening to him. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: As an erstwhile junior Minister, I am still smarting from the castigation that we had from my noble friend a few minutes ago. I hope that he will be pleased to know that I support this amendment. As I said about his first amendment, I do not see that the words do any harm. It would be pleasant if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, could satisfy my noble friend for once. We might then get on a bit more quickly. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord.
Lord Belstead: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, does not feel that he is making much progress this afternoon. I am even more sorry that he feels that more generally he does not make very much progress in your Lordships' House. I cannot believe that it is anything that I have done. I remember very well the three successive Sessions in which the noble Lord put forward his Bill to regulate the sale of live pet animals in markets. If my memory serves me right, on each occasion through long hours we dealt with that important concept—and it was an important concept. As the noble Lord rightly said, it ended up on the statute book.
So far as this Bill is concerned, although the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has supported his noble friend, for myself I find it difficult to support the amendment, though on Second Reading I ventured to make it absolutely crystal clear that we place great importance on provision for training being made in the regulations. However, if we were to accept the amendment, I think that a whole string of amendments of a similar nature, though dealing with other matters, would immediately be tabled in order to have specific conditions, and I believe that the time to consider specific conditions is when the regulations are made. But before they are made there will of course be the consultation process, which must be undertaken statutorily under Section 3 of the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1976. To include specific points in the Bill could prejudice the generality of the powers and make it more difficult for other matters to be included when we come to consult and to make the regulations.
So I would repeat the assurance, which I originally gave on Second Reading, that it is our firm intention to include in the regulations provision for training; let there be no doubt about that. I hope that in the light of that assurance the noble Lord will feel that it would not be right to include training as one specific item in the regulations, because if we were to do that we would in some way be belittling other points which should be in the regulations, and that I believe would be a pity.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I shall not take up the time of the Committee in replying to the noble Lord in the vein to which I am accustomed. I shall leave him alone for a minute or two because I want to be left alone myself for a minute or two and make way for my noble friend Lord John-Mackie. I think that it is about time he had a go. I am becoming a little weary, and there will be quite a lot else that will engage the attention of the noble Lord the Minister when I come to a subsequent amendment. So I shall put greater reliance on the understandings—I do not say undertakings—that we have gained from the debate on
578
this particular matter, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.43 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert—
(" (1D) The Minister shall have the power to waive the need for a licence on certain small amounts of on the farm slaughter.").
The noble Lord said: I rise with some trepidation to move this amendment because earlier, without hearing my arguments, my noble friend Lord Houghton remarked that he did not like the look of it. As we all know, a tremendous amount of poultry is slaughtered on farms. I think back to my mother's day when she reared a score of turkeys for Christmas. She killed them all herself. One went to the parson, one to the schoolmaster, another to the doctor, and perhaps a couple were kept for Christmas and the new year, and the rest were sold. The very thought of that kind of activity needing a licence is quite ridiculous. But now larger amounts of poultry are kept on farms, and there could be problems. If during the rush to get poultry ready for Christmas something went wrong with a licensed slaughterer who had been employed, there could be quite a lot of difficulty in getting another slaughterer in time.
My amendment refers to "small amounts", and I know that in a legal sense in some instances "small amounts" can cover a large scale. So in some ways the amendment may not be well worded. But I think that there is much to be said for the fact that when poultry are slaughtered at the point of production their welfare is looked after much more than if they are carted about in crates, kept in slaughterhouses—perhaps not too well—and then slaughtered there.
I think that it is reasonable to ask the Minister to look at the point to make sure that great difficulties would not be created on farms where the amounts are on the whole negligible, but important to the farmers concerned. The difficulties may be avoided if in such cases the necessity of a licence was waived. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I have some sympathy with the amendment because it is practical for small farmers. As everyone knows, small farmers have always wrung the necks of their poultry. But members of the public would be extremely mystified if what is proposed in the amendment were to be inserted into the Bill because the Bill's main object is to improve the means of slaughtering poultry, so that it is done by the most humane method. Therefore the public may think it very illogical that whereas large amounts—thousands—of poultry have to be slaughtered in the most humane way, or at any rate in what the Government and the so-called experts think is the most humane way, the slaughtering of small amounts of poultry is not covered in the Bill. That would be very illogical.
I very well understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. Poultry on all small farms is free range, and there it would be very difficult to slaughter the poultry in the same way as it is done on very large poultry farms. Perhaps I have got it wrong, but it seems to me that if the proposal were included

579
in the Bill it would be very illogical, though on the other hand it would be practical for small farmers. However, I am rather mystified.
Lord John-Mackie: Before the noble Viscount sits down, I should like to point out that I was not suggesting that there should be an alteration in the method of slaughter. One can get a small hand stunner and the same method of stunning the animal and then bleeding it would be carried out in the cases that I have mentioned. I am not asking to go back to the old method of putting the head below a stick between the legs and pulling up.
Lord Gisborough: I should like very briefly to support the amendment. There are many farmers who breed poultry for the Christmas trade and then have to slaughter it themselves. While there is every support for ensuring that the method of slaughter is controlled and that the right method is used, the Bill allows for extra people to go in to do the job at such times as Christmas.
Lord Somers: Would it be possible to limit the number by inserting the words,
"small amounts of individual animals"?
That might possibly imply a smaller number.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, raised this matter in his speech on Second Reading. In the amendment he is asking for a power to exempt the smaller producer who is slaughtering on the farm, and my noble friend Lord Gisborough, and I think by implication the noble Lord, Lord Somers, would support the noble Lord in the amendment. I believe that the power that is sought is already available. By that I mean that I think that in the clause there is wording which means that when the regulations are made it will be perfectly possible for the smaller farmer to be exempted. Of course it would be necessary to face the problem of how exactly to define the smaller producer; and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has made a suggestion in that regard that we should like to look at.
I am not absolutely certain that I can tell the noble Lord that his point is met. I shall look carefully at the Bill to make absolutely certain that it is met. If I am not correct in the belief that it is, I shall get in touch with the noble Lord and we can return to the matter at a later stage. I believe that this power should be in the Bill. It is right that there should be a power, and I believe that the power is already there. Having said that, I cannot say precisely what activities might be prescribed for any exemption or what qualifications we might wish to attach. We shall be undertaking full consultation before the regulations are made. We have to do so under the 1967 Act. We shall give very careful consideration to all representations made to us by small farmers, by the farming unions and by other interests concerned.
I come finally to the point made by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. My noble friend stated in essence that there is surely a difficulty here, that if we are concerned about the welfare of large numbers of birds. then we must not run the risk of being accused
580
in either House of Parliament of not being concerned with the welfare of smaller numbers of birds. Our priority, first and foremost, must be the welfare of the birds concerned.
I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said. The noble Lord would immediately say to me that he is concerned, and I would agree with him, about small numbers of birds. As he explained, there is reason to believe that where you have smaller numbers of birds it is easier to deal with the welfare of those birds than it is in the case of large numbers of them. These are all matters which need to be considered in the consultation process before the regulations are made.
At this stage I think that all I can say is that we agree that the power to be able to do this should be contained in the Bill. I believe that it is in the Bill, but I am not absolutely certain. If by any chance I find it is not, I shall immediately get in touch with the noble Lord and we can return to the point at a later stage. With the assurance that I have given, I hope that he might feel that for the moment the point is covered.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Before my noble friend Lord John-Mackie responds, may I underline one point. The amendment speaks of, "on the farm slaughter" and farmers have been referred to through-out the discussions so far. I hope that we can distinguish between "on the farm slaughter"—that is, the farmer slaughterer—and the small poultry slaughterer. There is a distinction. One can concede something to the farmer given an order for a dozen hens or cockerels for Christmas who says, "I will slaughter them and dress them". I am anxious, however, that we should not be led into thinking that cover can be given to someone who sets up as a small slaughterer. He is not a farmer. He is just pulling in birds and slaughtering on a small scale. Then he becomes a slaughterer on a big scale, or a bigger scale. So the thing grows. We want to be clear that we are talking about "on the farm slaughter". The noble Lord the Minister in considering the matter further will have to bear that distinction in mind.
Lord Belstead: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, says this because it is important to take that point on board. In saying that one of the things to be taken into account in making the regulations was the number of birds being dealt with, I was in no way seeking to cast any reflection upon the standards of the very large-scale slaughterers. I was addressing myself entirely to the point that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, made, to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has also drawn attention. It was that which, I was saying on behalf of the Government, would need to be considered along with a whole lot of other matters when the regulations are made. I believe that there is power in the clause to be able to do so. I feel rather shamefaced in having to put it like that and not being absolutely certain. But, shortly before the Bill came on to the Floor of the House, I and those advising me felt that we were not absolutely certain in giving a complete undertaking to the noble Lord. That is why I have spoken in this way.
Lord John-Mackie: I should like to thank those noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I

581
am not a lawyer or a draftsman. I recognise that the amendment is not well drafted and that it leaves out the point mentioned by my noble friend. It uses the expression "on the farm". I meant the farmer and I meant small-scale. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for the point that he made in order to try and get over the difficulty of the size. I do not wish in any way to make slaughtering any different. I would like to think that slaughterers are liable to be inspected to see that they have a proper stunner and carry out the job as it is done where regulated by licence. In saying that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Codes of Practice]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 28, after ("with") insert ("the Farm Animal Welfare Council and").
The noble Lord said: I leave the Farm Animal Welfare Council to their obscurity for the time being and do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
4.57 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 34, after ("it") insert ("and in particular on matters contained in Schedule (Codes of Practice) to this Act").
The noble Lord said: This is really a paving amendment to the new schedule. I presume that it would be convenient to deal with the schedule at the same time as the amendment that makes room for it. I do not want to stand in the way of other noble Lords who have amendments on the Order Paper, but I have to dwell for a few moments on the schedule and why I propose it should be there. Here again, I am trying to put some pep into the Bill. One of the problems of amending legislation is the tortuous nature of the wording and construction of the amending Bill.
A great deal in the Bill amends or inserts new forms of words and new provisions in the 1967 Act. There are references all the time to "this Act", the Act being the 1967 Act. It is not easy all the time to follow what exactly is being done. I do not want to attribute any unworthy motives to the Minister, the parliamentary draftsman or anyone else, but these Bills become so dull and so difficult to follow that unless you sit down and really do your homework you do not know what they are about. That is why it is so difficult for noble Lords who wish to gain some enlightenment from the debate on a Bill of this kind to know what it is about.
I refer again to the report of the Farm Animal Research Council. I am not intending again to deal with the timetable but the fact is that everything is taking too long. Some reforms take an inordinate length of time to achieve. While the consideration is going on and civil servants are pondering over things, referring them to their veterinary experts and going out to all the people who matter and quite a lot of people who do not, the world is changing. The public, or some sections of it, are getting more and more
582
impatient. The epithet which my young friends throw at me about this place is, "It's irrelevant. It doesn't do things. It doesn't get them done". If the process of parliamentary democracy is going to be so slothful as not to satisfy the demands for change, then we shall get a good deal of discontent and annoyance, and that can take very undesirable and objectionable forms.
The Farm Animal Welfare Council produced its report in 1982. There were altogether some 37 recommendations on poultry and similar birds, which shows that they found a good deal wrong from their own inspection—probably a closer inspection undertaken by a body of experts and responsible people than has been undertaken by any other body or any other person in this country. They make these journeys; they have to look at these things and then get to sleep at night and go to see another lot the next day. As I said earlier, they do that in the public interest, in order that we can eliminate species other than our own with at least some modicum of humanity. It is the duty of the legislature not only to pay respect but to bow very definitely to the view of those who have studied the matter at first hand and who can recommend to Parliament what they think should be done.
One can scarcely believe it, but this Bill contains, in terms, only two of the 37 recommendations made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. It is not quite as black a record as it might seem from the statistics, because the Farm Animal Welfare Council made a number of recommendations for further research, which shows how reasonable they were in not reaching conclusions on some matters until various ideas, alternatives or reforms had been tested. Paragraphs 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21 24, 28 and 31 contain nine recommendations for further research. They are obviously not in the Bill and I am not complaining about that. What I ask for in passing is some firm assurances as to what is happening to the research which the council recommended. I raised this matter on Second Reading and the noble Lord the Minister gave the assurance that not all that is in the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report needs to be included in this or in any other legislation because it will be possible by regulation for it to be included in the code of practice. I believe that some of the recommendations could be implemented by legislation or regulations already in existence and therefore there would be no need to include them in the Bill. Moreover, if they are included in regulations, they can be made under the parent authority which includes the 1971 regulations which could be extended, as I understand it, under the provisions of the 1967 Act.
However, Recommendation 37 was especially important and the Minister spent some time on it because my noble friend raised it. It is the recommendation for the continuance of the official veterinary surgeon as the enforcing authority's representative on the spot who should be made responsible for the supervision of the welfare of the birds and should be required to report to the local authority any breaches of welfare regulations and to spend sufficient time at the plant each day to carry out these duties. The British Veterinary Association naturally attaches great importance to this provision. My noble friend Lord John-Mackie will be able to speak for himself on the matter, but certainly I regard this as a very important

583
measure of expert cover and of oversight. What is lacking in many cases is oversight when things may go wrong or when practices may grow up which are undesirable. There are other recommendations which seem so obvious and yet standards were obviously so deficient during the inspections made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council as to lead them to make recommendations for their special attention.
I have left a lot out of the schedule, which for formal purposes I shall move. Indeed, I have included in the schedule mainly the recommendations under paragraph 64. If noble Lords care to cast their eyes over this schedule they will see that it deals with matters that obviously should be done. But I am not going to pretend that it is a very satisfactory way of dealing with the matter to pick out some recommendations and to put them in a schedule and say that they should be referred to especially. Yet what is one to do?
The sad aspect of the whole operation in which we are engaged this afternoon is that we have the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report to which lots of people who are interested in this matter are giving attention all the time. But what is happening? The Bill says that something "shall be done" and that other things "may be done", and that "consultations must take place" and so on. Those who have been waiting since 1982 to see the implementation of the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council look at this Bill and say, "Where is it? Are you telling us that this is the implementation of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report? Is this all that is happening after all this time?" Even now the Minister tells us that there will have to be further consultations all round the clock before we can go on. How much longer? How many people do we have to consult before we say, "Cruelty must stop"?
Are we going to subordinate the moral issue of cruelty to animals and birds to the caprice of the market or the indifference of individuals or the doctrine of me first and all the time? I thought we had a Government that had something to say about moral issues, Victorian and otherwise. Where are they in this particular context? I am trying to push things on. I cannot say that my proposed schedule is a recipe for speed; it does not start the engine going. All it says is "may" and "inter alia". It is merely mentioning various matters; it is something to show for the work that has been done by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. I believe I am right in saying that my schedule—this truncated selection from the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council—contains nothing to which the industry can object. What is there is in the best run slaughterhouses already, but not in all of them. There are no conditions which at the moment impose these standards. That is what the schedule is all about.
I am simply trying to put some spunk into the Minister and to get some determination behind it. If there is anything more feeble than my schedule, it will be the reply which the Minister will give to it. That is what it all amounts to. Dwelling on the political scenery of Britain at the present time, I sometimes wonder whether the two major parties have been under the influence of unions—the Labour Party under the influence of the Transport and General
584
Workers' Union and the Tory Party under the influence of the National Farmers' Union. I sometimes wonder whether we ought not to recall Mr. Tebbit to release the political shackles which I think bind the Tory Party when it looks at these commercial interests. That is all.
This is an attempt to get something that will put heart into those who want to see more humane action taken in the slaughter of birds and animals for human consumption. I wish that the consumer would stand up for this more than he and she does. They are the people who dictate what shall be done. If they would only turn their attention to how things get on the dining table, in the kitchen, in the shops or wherever, I think they would find that there is something in which they could take a hand.
Certainly women have more responsibility for some aspects of animal cruelty than any other section of the community. To breed mink and foxes for their furs for adornment purposes is mostly for women, yet the fur coat is a sort of social status. When I was a member of the Royal Commission on Corruption in Public Life it was astonishing how cheaply people sold their honour, and it was often for a fur coat for the wife. I thought what a contemptible state of affairs that was. I think it is a contemptible occupation to be engaged in, whether at Cocksparrow Farm or wherever. Yet this is all part of the general scenery of the way in which we treat our animals.
Food is essential but other things are not; but cruelty takes place all over the commercial market dealing with animals. I have digressed, but this is the climax of what I was putting to the Committee this afternoon. I beg to move that this schedule be added to the Bill.
Lord John-Mackie: I think that the word one should use about my noble friend's remarks in moving his amendment is "wide-ranging". This is a paving amendment to his schedule at the end of the Marshalled List. My noble friend hs put forward a very strong case for his code. He admits that it is not complete and that it could be improved. Before we reach any decision on it I await the Minister's reply as to whether or not he thinks it should be included in the Bill in due course.
Lord Somers: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether there are not two misprints here. One is in Amendment No. 8, which says:
"…during which vehicles containing live birds may remain unloaded on reaching their destination".
Does not the noble Lord mean "loaded on reaching their destination"?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Is that in the schedule?
Lord Somers: No, this is in Amendment No. 8.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: At the moment I have only moved Amendment No. 7.
Lord Somers: Yes, I know, but we are coming to Amendment No. 8. Am I in order to speak to the schedule?
Lord Belstead: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton,

585
was moving Amendment No. 7, but the noble Lord was also speaking to Amendment No. 14.
The Earl of Shannon: I fully appreciate that the whole matter of this Bill is a most emotive subject. We all have our store of horror stories based on varying degrees of factuality, and it always tends to lead us to believe that someone else is scurrilously opposed to our own particular hobby-horse. Therefore, it is with particular regret that I rise to oppose this amendment as a paving amendment for the inclusion of the new schedule to the Bill. I do not have anything at all against the schedule itself; I think that its conditions are admirable. I just oppose the fact that they come as an amendment in primary legislation because, as such, it becomes more or less inscribed in tablets of stone, for ever immutable, or only alterable with immense administrative effort.
I think that noble Lords would be generally agreed that, owing to the extreme sensitivity of this subject, the trade federations concerned have been very worried over their image and they have themselves been to great lengths to assist in establishing codes of practice, often based on extensive and most expensive research which they have carried out. In this case I suppose that we are referring mainly to the British Poultry Federation, but I think that the Minister would probably agree that all those organisations have been very responsible, and have been very responsive in providing on-going advice as to what is the up-to-date state of the art.
Once we include codes of practice in primary legislation, we are fixing ourselves at a point in time, with the attendant difficulties regarding change. It is for this reason, and its lack of flexibility in change, and not the provisions of the schedule to come under the later amendment, that I must oppose this amendment.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Belstead: The effect of Amendment No. 14, to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was speaking as well as moving Amendment No. 7, is to put into this Bill different items which would form part of the code of practice for which the Bill is providing in general terms—a code of practice for the practical application of the legislative provisions for the welfare of poultry, both before and up to the moment of slaughter. I think I can allay Lord Houghton's apprehensions when I say straight away that all the points the noble Lord has listed in his schedule in Amendment No. 14 are, so we intend, to be covered in a code of practice. All of those points in Amendment No. 14 are listed in the Government's response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report as being suitable for inclusion in the code.
I would go further and say that we shall shortly introduce the proposals for regulations to cover many of those points, and the ones which do not go into the regulations will anyway be going into the code. The noble Lord made the point in moving the amendment that in addition to the points in Amendment No. 14 there are other things which the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended. It is here that we come into a practical difficulty, because it would certainly disturb the Government if we felt that we had put into primary legislation certain points which were said to be
586
necessary for a code and then had left other points out. This would start us off on the wrong foot.
In addition to that there is the general point of principle which the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, put to the Committee, and I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Earl. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will accept my assurance that the points—important points in many cases—are going to be covered in the code of practice for which Clause 6 makes provision, and some of the points will be in regulations also.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his reply. We are almost getting on friendly terms, and I am grateful for that. I appreciate, too, the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. This gives me the opportunity of paying great tribute indeed to the work being done by enlightened leaders of some of the trade associations. A good deal of expense is being incurred by the British Poultry Federation, for one, in trying to seek answers to deficiencies of which they are as fully aware as anybody who goes to look at them, and probably more so.
They are conscious of their image and the unfavourable publicity given to particular cases which are reported, or may be the subject of prosecutions. One must not overlook the fact that the RSPCA are as vigilant as they can be on matters of this kind. I sometimes wonder why it is left to the RSPCA to engage in prosecutions when it is the duty of somebody else. When you find that a person who is prosecuted and convicted for neglect and then not long afterwards is prosecuted and convicted a second time, you wonder what sort of person he is to be doing this job at all. Yet it is the RSPCA, a voluntary organisation, which embarks on this task.
Prosecutions cost the RSPCA over £100,000 a year, and yet, in a sense, this is not their duty. They have no right of entry. Unlike the inspectors of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, they have no power to go into premises and take anything away. Indeed, I think the National Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is the only voluntary body which has a statutory right of entry. This is all a part of the general scenery in which this work is undertaken, and everybody is playing a part. Those who are doing it voluntarily and on subscriptions from the public, and so forth, want to be encouraged in the work they are doing.
The Minister has naturally pointed out that this is not a very tidy or efficient way of adding a schedule to a Bill. It was highly selective, and I am glad to have included in it matters which the Minister says are to be covered by the code of practice, and some of them by regulations when the time comes. Yet again, I must be content with very small mercies—very small indeed—and accept the Minister's assurances, and offer some hope to those who clamour outside, and who write to me, and say, "Why isn't something being done?" It is not an exciting role for anybody who takes up a cause in Parliament. You get letters from hundreds of people asking you why you are not doing more, and why animals everywhere at all times are not being protected by some legislation worldwide. It is moving to get letters and representations of this kind. and also

587
other activities provide one with serious anxieties from time to time.
I accept what the Minister has said, and I am grateful for the opportunity of making a few comments in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment No. 7, and with it Amendment No. 14.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) The Ministers shall however prepare and make within six calendar months of the passing of this Act regulations limiting the period of time during which vehicles containing live birds may remain unloaded on reaching their destination.").
The noble Lord said: This is another difficult one. In Amendment No. 8 I have dwelt on one aspect of this industry which is open to the observation of many people who are concerned. It deals with the length of time that vehicles containing live birds may, on reaching their destinations, be left with the birds in the crates into which, in lots of cases, they were put many hours before. At the present time occurrences of this kind can be dealt with only under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. I mention one case which the RSPCA dealt with. They prosecuted in a case where 600 out of 3,000 birds died for lack of ventilation when left outside the slaughter premises for six hours. This must have occurred under very unfavourable climatic conditions. This can happen; there is no proscription about it at the present time. To get a conviction one has to prove to the satisfaction of a court that some person was guilty of unnecessary cruelty.
I know there is another part of this story which I have not included in this amendment, and that is the length of time to be occupied by the journey itself. I am told of poultry which come in crates from Northern Ireland down to the South of England, having been in these crates for many, many hours. As noble Lords who have ever seen this know, they are pretty crowded in the crates. That is not necessarily an act of cruelty because to bunch them up is often kinder to them than to leave them to be knocked about all over the place. One supports another as they jolt along. Conditions of oppressive heat can of course prove a very trying time for them, but I have not dealt with that.
Again, I am highlighting things: I am trying to get debate; I am trying to get a response from the Minister; I am trying to keep the thing active so that 'we do not just disappear in the public mind as a Parliament of complacent and indifferent people. What I say here is that the Minister should:
"prepare and make within six calendar months of the passing of this Act regulations limiting the period of time during which vehicles containing live birds may remain unloaded on reaching their destination".
As the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said, it really means "shall remain loaded" but it also means "remain unloaded". Either way they are within the crates waiting outside the slaughter place for an unlimited number of hours, until you can say: "What
588
happened was so bad that they could be prosecuted for causing unnecessary suffering." In these circumstances, you usually have to show that so many hundreds of the birds died through lack of ventilation, that so many were injured, and anyway there was a lot of mess which should never have occurred.
The Minister is probably going to say, "Here we are, this is another example of putting in the legislation something which will appear somewhere else in due course." That may be true. It only deals with one half of the story, but, short of drafting a new Act altogether and taking some of these problems or decisions as already solved, and including them in the Bill, it is difficult to know what else to do.
I offer this one for the Minister's consideration, and ask him what he has to say about something which is probably the main distress caused to the observer, at any rate; people who live near these places are greatly distressed by what goes on, and one can understand how upset they get.
It may be that some premises have not enough accommodation for bringing the crates in, unloading them and giving these unfortunate birds a little respite from their travels and from the congested conditions under which they have arrived.
I beg to move, hopefully but ready as ever for disappointment in my efforts for the afternoon.
Lord John-Mackie: Arranging lorries to arrive at a particular time so that they can be unloaded is a very difficult problem, and it is one which applies to all haulage situations. It does not matter whether it is wheat, potatoes or anything else: there are always hold-ups; lorries break down and the timing is very bad.
When it comes to the transport of livestock, of course, the birds, or the beasts for that matter, suffer. I think my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby is quite right to raise this as a real point. He mentioned that birds were standing for 5 or even 6 hours on one occasion before there was a prosecution. But whether this should go in as part of the Bill, I do not know. I will leave that with the Minister, who I am sure must take the point that this is a very real problem and it is one we should try to solve one way or the other.
I think good management at a poultry slaughter-house would alleviate the situation considerably. I think of trying to make people come at the time the birds are required. I see no reason why that should not be done. But whether it should be in the Bill is a different story. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Somers: I still think that "loaded" would be less misleading than "unloaded". But if the noble Lord wishes to include "unloaded while still in their crates," why not limit the time that birds shall remain in their crates on arrival?
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support this amendment. As Lord John-Mackie pointed out, the troublesome question arises when lorries arrive at the slaughterhouse. If there is not good management, they may arrive at the wrong time. Then the lorry might breakdown. This could prove extremely inhumane and cruel, especially when the

589
lorry is parked in the sun, and the birds become dehydrated. If they are extremely firmly packed they will be extremely uncomfortable and may well die.
I should like to recount something that happened in that regard. I had a big dog show in my grounds this summer, and it was a hot day. There were a lot of cars parked in the sun and some people were so ignorant that they left their dogs in the cars and did not open the windows. We had to go around smashing windows with hammers in order that the dogs should survive. We thought three were dead, but the vet was able to revive them. We broadcast over the Tannoy system, but if the people concerned do not turn up you cannot let the dogs die; so we just smashed the windows.
This is rather outside the scope of this amendment, but great distress can be caused if birds going to the slaughterhouse are not unloaded promptly. Whether it is practical to put it into the Bill I must leave to my noble friend the Minister.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I fully appreciate why the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, wishes to make this amendment. I think all of us in the Committee this evening feel that he is rightly concerned about the condition of birds which may spend long periods in a lorry outside the slaughterhouse before they are unloaded for slaughter.
Incidentally, in passing, I should just say that the suffering of birds in a vehicle through lack of ventilation would, of course, be an offence now against the Conveyance of Live Poultry Order 1919 or the Slaughter of Poultry (Humane Conditions) Regulations 1971.
Having said that, the noble Lord has a very important point here, and the Government share his concern. We are determined to do what we can to improve the welfare of these birds. I was very grateful to the noble Lord for the generous words he spoke about the British Poultry Federation on the last amendment. I was very glad the noble Lord saw fit to do that, and I feel sure that what he said will be appreciated by the federation, which indeed is doing good work in respect of poultry welfare.
There is, I think, a real difficulty about this amendment, and not perhaps quite the kind of difficulty which noble Lords may expect me to put forward; it is a practical difficulty. I think it may be that this amendment could lead to a deterioration in the welfare of some consignments of birds, and I will explain why I say that. If, for instance, a consignment arrives at a slaughterhouse at a time when the operator knows that he will not be able to process the poultry within the time laid down, he might, in order to avoid breaking the law, refuse the lorry admission so that the birds might end up in an unprotected lay-by or a car park somewhere else. This is, I think, a very real possibility.
To take another example, the birds may be kept on the lorry for the period laid down in circumstances in which welfare considerations would have required immediate unloading. In other words, those concerned may simply say, "The law allows us to continue to have the lorry loaded for a period of time." And they just go off and leave the load instead of unloading
590
immediately, as perhaps they otherwise would have done. For these reasons I think we need to think very carefully about the way in which we make regulations, if we are to tie it to the formula in the noble Lord's amendment.
There are two further points which I must make. The first is that we already have powers to make regulations governing the welfare of poultry on lorries, both on the road and at the slaughterhouse. The second point is that this matter is under review at the present time, and I should just say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that if he puts a pistol to the head of the Government so far as timing is concerned, I think we might well find we have not got quite enough time to continue the necessary consultations on this matter. The Farm Animal Welfare Council has already been consulted on the Ministry's proposals for a new order on the transport of live poultry. I understand that the council has recently suggested some modifications to try to cover the problem with which the noble Lord is concerned, and, indeed, to try to cover the sort of problems that I have outlined in my remarks. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the suggestions of the Farm Animal Welfare Council are under consideration now.
So without in any way wanting to appear that we are dragging our feet—I assure the noble Lord that we are not—I give an assurance that we are fully seized of the concern on this matter and that we most certainly intend to take action. But for the reasons I have given, I think that the amendment might be counter-productive as it is drafted. I will not conceal from the noble Lord that I am a little worried about having a pistol put to our heads concerning the timing, although we intend to try to get this difficult problem put right.
Lord Somers: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether it would be possible to achieve the same end by, starting from the beginning, limiting the time in which the birds are allowed to remain in a crate?
Lord Belstead: This may be one of the options which is being considered at present. The difficulty one has to contend with is in trying to make absolutely certain that what is not done is to find that when a lorry arrives at its destination the time limit has run out and the operator may say to the driver: "I am going to break the law if you are allowed to be unloaded," and therefore turn the vehicle away. That is one of the greatest difficulties. But I repeat my assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. We have received some alternative, revised suggestions from the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and I assure the Committee that those and other considerations are under active deliberation at present.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. The last thing in the world I would do is to put a pistol at the Government's head, in case it was loaded and accidentally went off. The Minister has given a full explanation of the difficulties. I am bound to confess that in my own amateur way I have tried to pick out suitable subjects for debate on the Bill in Committee. I realise that in this matter I have only half the problem, and it is a difficult half as well—but all in

591
all it is the transportation and waiting time problem not only at the destination but at intermediate stages.
There is a good deal to consider in this regard and I am glad to receive the assurances of the noble Lord. This is the final word I shall be putting on the Committee stage, and I should like to thank the Minister very much for his patience and endurance to thank also the noble Lords who have stayed to listen to my afternoon of harangue on cruelty to poultry and kindred matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 22, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment to subsection (5), which begins,
"The Ministers shall cause any code issued or revised under this section to be printed, and"—
not "shall" but only—
"may make such arrangements as they think fit for its distribution".
I cannot think of any circumstances in which Ministers "think fit" to do something, have power to do it, but are not required to do it and can please themselves whether they do it or not. If this subsection had been expressed, "Ministers may, but need not, make such arrangements as they think fit", that would not have altered the sense of the subsection, but noble Lords would have been rather surprised to read it.
Particularly is this an important matter in a field in which people are liable to be made guilty of a criminal offence. We are dealing with such a situation here because that appears in subsection (7). If I may for a moment look forward to subsection (7) and summarise it without altering any of the words of the subsection, it reads:
"If…any person…failed to follow…a code issued under this section…that failure may be relied on by the prosecution as tending to establish his guilt".
I know that there is a presumption that everyone is supposed to know the law. I suppose the administration of the criminal law would be impossible without such a presumption; but surely that does not mean that Parliament, the law-maker, shall not make quite certain that proper steps are being taken to make the new law known to those people to whom it is of concern and who may be guilty of a criminal offence if they fail to observe the new law. I should have thought that there was no question that, in this matter of seeing that the codes of practice, which people may offend against, are made known to the people who want to know about them, it should be imperative that the Ministers who see fit to make the arrangements "shall" make those arrangements to see that copies of the code are properly distributed. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: First, I should like to make it perfectly clear to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that the Government most certainly will make arrangements for the distribution of codes of practice issued under this clause. However, the noble Lord's amendment would appear also to oblige the Government to put copies on sale, and we would not wish to be contrained to do so, since, in the interests of
592
promoting the welfare of poultry in slaughterhouses—and precisely because, as the noble Lord has pointed out in his speech, at the end of the day there is a sanction in the criminal law—it is our intention to distribute copies free of charge to, for instance, the slaughtering industry and others with an interest in the humane slaughter of poultry. The Government are anxious to avoid the problem that the amendment would cause in the way I have just explained. With assurance that we shall most certainly be distributing copies, I hope that the noble Lord may think it is right to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Airedale: I am grateful for that reply, but I am sorry to say that I do not find it satisfactory. What we need to do, surely, if the Government are with me as far as the first part of the subsection goes, is to redraft it so that there are separate obligations. One is that Ministers "shall" make proper arrangements for distribution and need not put them on sale, but may distribute copies freely, which I am delighted to hear may happen. It is simply a matter, is it not, of separating two things and applying my amendment to one and not to the other?
Lord Belstead: I admit that what the noble Lord has said is not particularly complicated and I do not know that I need to go away to think about it for too long. But it is the noble Lord's amendment and not the Government's and if I think about it a little perhaps the noble Lord would think about it a little, too, and perhaps we shall come to an arrangement at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Airedale: I think that is a very happy and satisfactory arrangement and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 25, after ("such") insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is very much in the same field. It seeks to alter the last but one line of the subsection so that instead of saying that the document should be put on sale to the public—
"at such price as the Ministers may determine",
it will say,
"at such reasonable price as the Ministers may determine".
I was very glad to hear that there may be free issues of the code, but nevertheless the Government are reserving to themselves the right to put them on sale to the public at a price.
My concern about this arises from my experience of serving on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, because I have come to learn that it is Government policy in many fields that the cost of providing services by Government departments shall so far as possible be met financially, and in an instance like this that would mean that the price put on documents would meet the economic cost of printing them. I am no expert on printing but I think that I know this much: if you are printing a very large number of a document the price per copy may be quite reasonable, but if it is what the printers call a "short

593
print", the economic cost per copy may be extraordinarily high. This code, which is really addressed only to a very small number of people compared with the whole population, will have a very limited circulation indeed and I can envisage that under this Government policy the price per copy to the public might be extraordinarily high.
There is the further point that unless you put in the word "reasonable" you are virtually ousting the jurisdiction of the court because if anybody tried to take a case before the court, unless the Minister had gone quite mad and put a completely ridiculous price on the document, the court would say: "This matter is entirely within the Minister's own discretion and although we, the court, may think that this document is priced extremely high it is not for us to interfere with the Minister's discretion." But the moment you introduce the word "reasonable" that introduces the jurisdiction of the court because it enables the court to inquire into the reasonableness of the Minister's decision to set that price upon the document.
Therefore I trust that this amendment will be acceptable because I think it is extremely important, when you are dealing with documents which may have a bearing upon whether or not somebody commits a criminal offence, that the cost of the document should be reasonable from the point of view of the purchaser. Incidentally, I think that the court would interpret "reasonable" as meaning reasonable from the point of view of the person who wants to purchase the document. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to provide that the price which would be charged when a price is to be charged for the distribution of codes of practice must be reasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in the final words he addressed to the Committee a little earlier this afternoon—they were characteristically generous and I was most grateful to him—came close to saying I think that Ministers—at any rate sometimes—are not unreasonable. I would say that those of us who serve in governments are always reasonable—not because I have an inflated idea of what those of us who work in governments are like but because the advice I have received is that it is the case that all Ministers' decisions are subject to judicial review and a test of reasonableness.
The noble Lord has endeavoured to persuade us that whether or not that is so, if the court came to look at the price which was being paid it would be important to have the word "reasonable" in. The noble Lord felt the court would take the view that "reasonable" would mean "reasonable from the point of view of the person who is paying the price". I do not know whether that is the construction which the court would put on the word "reasonable", and the noble Lord may be right or he may not. At any rate, I shall not attempt to contradict him. I am not entirely sure, for the reasons that I have given about ministerial decisions being subject to the test of reasonableness, that it is completely necessary to have the word "reasonable" in. However, the noble Lord has made a good case and I have great pleasure in accepting his amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Artificial breeding of livestock]:
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 7, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) In all cases an estimated cost of fees for carrying out the regulations in this section including issue of licences etc. will be intimated to the applicant.")
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment to get something out of the Minister about who is to decide how much the fees might be, because there is considerable feeling that it might cost, in the case of Al, up to £300 a bull. That is a fairly heavy charge on the industry. There is also the question of embryo implantation, and to set up an outfit to do that is very expensive. Then in addition to that very high fees are charged for all the various regulations, so that might make it uneconomic. I wonder whether the Minister would care to say a word about how these fees would be decided and how much they might be. There is also the question of an appeal which also has to be paid for, and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord on Second Reading made the point that he was a little concerned about the level of fees, and the effect of this amendment would be to require an estimate of these fees to be provided to an applicant. I think that I can give the noble Lord the assurance which he wants, although I do not think it is necessary, if I may say so, to accept the amendment.
It is the intention to levy fees according to a standard scale, and the assurance I give to the noble Lord is that the scale will be published when regulations on charging are made. The scale of fees will be updated from time to time as necessary and all changes will also be published. Therefore those who are liable to pay fees will know in advance, and that is the effect of the amendment. An applicant therefore will know the fees to be charged under the regulations in connection with any approval, licence, test or appeal. I hope the noble Lord will feel that my assurance meets the intention of the amendment.
Lord John-Mackie: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think that it meets the intention of the amendment, but it is essential that any applicant should know beforehand what he has to pay. Of course, he also has the right of appeal. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Medicated animal feeding stuffs]:
6.1 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 13, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) This section shall not apply to mixing and consumption on the farm.").
The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment. At the present moment we are under pressure in the industry, particularly in the feedingstuffs line, and there is no question that if you have a good on-farm mixer et cetera you can save yourself quite a lot of money. It is essential that the clause and the regulations should not apply to the mixing and the consumption of that food on the farm. This seems to me to be a reasonable amendment which will not do any harm. The additives which a farmer may be putting into his home-mixed food will be controlled in the normal way and I do not see any danger at all, provided that it is consumed on the farm. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: Here, again, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, raised this matter on Second Reading and if the Committee will forgive me I shall spend a moment or two in replying, because it is important and I should like to get on the record what the situation is as people are concerned. The noble Lord is quite right: people want to know exactly where they stand and the noble Lord himself will wish to hear the explanation.
With respect to the noble Lord, if this amendment were accepted there would be no control whatsoever on the incorporation by on-farm mixers of medicines in animal feed, because the amendment would remove from the scope of the new Section 40 all on-farm manufacture of medicated feedingstuffs. It would mean that the new Section 40 was more restricted in scope than the existing section which it will replace. Under the existing Section 40, an on-farm mixer may only incorporate a medicinal product into a feedingstuff in accordance with either the terms of the product licence or, in the case of a prescription-only medicine, a veterinary prescription.
I should like to emphasise, as I said on Second Reading, that these are enabling powers and there will be full consultation with all interested organisations, including, of course, the farmers' unions, before any regulations are made. The important subsections here are subsections (1) and (2) of the new Section 40. Subsection (1) gives Ministers power to prohibit the incorporation of a medicinal product in an animal feedingstuff unless conditions specified in the regulations are satisfied. The conditions are set out in subsection (2). I should like to make it clear that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) will not necessarily all apply in every case. The regulations will be drafted in such a way that an on-farm mixer will not have to be registered with the Pharmaceutical Society under subsection (2)(c). He will, however, have to comply with the conditions specified in subsection (2)(a) and (b) which are already contained in the existing Section 40.
Some on-farm mixers may, of course, choose to register in order to be able to obtain and incorporate products with a high level of medication. As I explained on Second Reading, it is our intention to ensure, through our existing powers in relation to licensing, that products with a high level of medication will be available only to those manufacturers who are capable of incorporating them into feed under carefully controlled conditions; in other words, manufacturers who are registered. Similarly, registered dealers
596
in medicated feed will be able to sell or supply products with a high concentration of medicine to registered manufacturers only. On-farm mixers who can meet the conditions for registration which will be contained in the proposed code of practice will be able to register, if they wish to do so. But on-farm mixers who are not registered will have access to products with a lower level of medication, which can safely be incorporated into feed with fewer controls on the mixing process.
I am sorry for the length of that explanation, but I hope it is enough to demonstrate that it is essential for on-farm mixers to remain within the scope of the new Section 40, and to show that we do not intend to restrict the activities of on-farm mixers unduly. However, we consider it essential that products with a high concentration of potent medicines are available only to those who are capable of ensuring that they are safely mixed into feed. I repeat the assurance that there will be full consultation before these new powers are exercised.
To go back to the beginning, if the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, the effect of the amendment is not acceptable because it would take on-farm mixers out of control, so far as mixers for animal feed are concerned, which would change even the existing law. I hope the noble Lord will feel that that would not be desirable. On the other hand, I also hope he may feel that it has been valuable that he has given an opportunity for me to put this explanation on the record.
Lord John-Mackie: I thank the noble Lord very much for that very full explanation. I can see the point that with their high potency some of these medicines may be misused. Of course, a farmer is not pevented from using lower potencies of medicines which are approved. But the point I was making was that most of these medicines are approved and the noble Lord seemed to be saying that it is not the medicine but the mixing of it that is the difficulty. Modern farm mixers will do as good a job—probably a better job—than a huge mixer in a feedmill, so the noble Lord has not made a very strong point. The incorporation of the medicine is what he was concerned with—not the medicine itself. I do not think any farmer would put in more than was necessary, because these medicines are expensive. All of the medicines that I have seen and used have had instructions on the label and the incorporation of them can be done just as well on the farm, if not better, as elsewhere. I do not want to press the point—
Lord Belstead: May I make the point that in the sort of case which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is speaking about—and he knows about such cases from personal experience—the answer is surely for the farmer who is doing on-farm mixing to become registered. That is open to him, as I endeavoured to make clear in my remarks.
Lord John-Mackie: I do not want to press the amendment and I take the point that the farmer can register. But I just felt that the subject should be aired, because it creates a drag on farming if they have to register and operate under regulations which have to

597
be applied on a big scale, but which do not need to be applied to farm mixing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved manuscript Amendment No. 12A:
Page 15, leave out lines 34 and 35 and insert—
("In this Act 'Ministers' means the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.").
The noble Earl The noble Earl said: I beg to move this manuscript amendment which I shall read, because it appears to me that the Bill is positively wrong. I am suggesting that the words on page 15, lines 34 and 35, should be omitted. These words are:
"In this subsection 'the Agriculture Ministers' has the same meaning as in the Medicines Act 1968".
I am proposing to put in much more straightforward words:
"In this Act 'Ministers' means the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food".
That is a true statement of what is happening.
I object for two reasons to what appears in the Bill. I know that draftsmen have their conventions, but those conventions are not always understood by the general public and the purpose of Bills is that they should be understood by the general public. My first point is that the subsection reads: "In this subsection". But it is not in this subsection; it is in this Bill that the word "Ministers" needs to be understood. Secondly, the Medicines Act 1968 includes the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. But as Northern Ireland is excluded from the Bill, it seems rather absurd that the Northern Ireland Minister should be included therein. Furthermore, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services is included, but he has nothing to do with this Bill. It seems to me that the public should know who are the Ministers concerned, so that if they want to write to them they know who to write to. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I ought to take away this point and have a look at it. My noble friend has made what seems to be a formidable case, that the drafting could be clarified, an objective which we all want to achieve. On a manuscript amendment I do not believe that I ought to say anything, from the Government's point of view, which might change the drafting. If my noble friend feels that it is reasonable for me to take the amendment away in a constructive spirit, I shall be very happy to do so.
The Earl of Selkirk: I thank my noble friend for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 18, line 1, after ("paragraph") insert ("1").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Roads (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
6.12 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): 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 Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 97A:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause:
("Control of horses and cattle on roads.
The owner of any horse or cattle commits an offence if he allows it to be at large on a road without being in charge of a person able to exercise effective control of it.")
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move the amendment standing in my name. It would be for the convenience of the Committee if a connected amendment were considered at the same time. It is unnumbered in my copy, but it appears between Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 and was presumably, therefore, intended to be Amendment No. 152A.
Amendment No. 152A: Page 107, line 8, at end insert—
("Section 00 (allowing horses and Level 2. £50.") cattle to be on road without effective control).
The new clause which this amendment would introduce is to deal with the control of horses and cattle on roads. Over the years, considerable problems have been experienced in Scotland, in particular from riding schools where a suitable adult has not been in control of horses on the road with riders. A working party was set up in 1972, which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, will remember (it was set up when I was Secretary of State), to look into what legislation should replace the Burgh Police Acts when they came to an end. That working party made the following recommendation:
"It should be an offence to allow any horse or cattle to be at large in a public place without someone able to exercise control".
So far as I know, nothing has been done by governments since that recommendation on this point. Nothing was done on it, I understand, in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act and there appears to be nothing in the Bill. If horses are to be taken into this new clause, livestock, and therefore cattle, should be treated in the same way. Normally, however, a responsible person is in control of cattle when they are

599
on the road, because farmers want to make sure that they are protected.
It may be that the Government will say that this is too difficult an offence to monitor and police. I simply do not know. However, I would suggest that something needs to be done to improve the present situation. This proposal has been put to me by the Grampian Regional Council, who are especially concerned about it. I ask the Government to explain why they have not yet responded to this recommendation in the working party's report.
May I add a word or two about the drafting. To a layman like myself it may seem a little strange. It seems to me that, in the language of the parliamentary draftsman, cattle can be both plural and singular. Therefore it reads:
"The owner of any horse or cattle".
But later in the amendment it looks as though "cattle" is in the singular.
Another point is that the wording of the new clause reads:
"without being in charge of a person able to exercise effective control".
At first sight, it may look as though the horses are in charge of the riders. In many cases that may be so, but I can assure your Lordships that these two amendments have been prepared by parliamentary agents. Therefore I, as a layman, have to be guided by them as to whether it is the correct language for a Scottish Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I appreciate the intention behind the amendments which have been moved by my noble friend. Clause 95 of the Bill already provides for seizure and detention by the roads authority of any animal which is left on or strays on to a public road, unless that road runs through unenclosed countyside. I doubt whether my noble friend intended the amendment to apply in an area such as that. Clause 95 covers the situation where an animal is at large on the road with nobody being in charge of it. If an owner were so imprudent as to put a horse or cattle in charge of someone who was not able to exercise effective control, he might well lay himself open to a charge under the common law. I am aware that Clause 95 does not include an offence provision, but it provides for the authority to recover from the owner its expenses in seizing and detaining the animal. And administrative costs being what they are, the sums involved, and consequently the degree of deterrence, are likely to be much greater than the fine proposed in the noble Lord's second amendment.
There is another question. I have no complaint about the drafting of these amendments, but there is a question as to whether criminal responsibility should be put upon the owner of the animal. For example, it could be that the owner of the animal has left it in charge of some estate or stable which is perfectly competent to have charge of it, so far as he knows, and the animal is allowed to get out as a result of some failure on their part. There seems therefore to be a question as to whether it would be appropriate in any event to put this responsibility upon the owner.
For these reasons, we feel that the amendment which has been moved by my noble friend is probably
600
unnecessary. In the light of what I have said, I hope that he may feel able to reconsider the matter.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It is true to say that we touched on this subject during our debate last year on the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill. I remember making a brilliant speech on the subject of the offence created there of being drunk in charge of a horse. I made reference to Tam o'Shanter on that occasion, but I bow to the superior knowledge of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in this respect.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, for reminding us of that occasion. I am reminded of other occasions on which he also made brilliant speeches on that Bill. The speech to which he referred introduced the element of being drunk in charge, whereas this does not.
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for what he has said. It appears that the other clause to which he referred is intended to cover the situation to some extent. I assume that is how the recommendation of the 1972 working party is being dealt with. I hope that my noble and learned friend will confirm that point. I am sure that those who are interested in this matter will want to read what he said in relation to that other clause of the Bill before reaching any further conclusion. I am sure that they will also be grateful that the drafting, which did look a little strange to the layman, has nonetheless passed the Lord Advocate's eagle eye. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Power of roads authorities to stop up roads by order]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 41, line 42, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("subscription (1) above").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if Amendment No. 98 is taken together with Amendment No. 99.
Amendment No. 99: Page 42, line 5, leave out ("(b)").
These are drafting amendments, and they are suggested because it seems to me quite unnecessary to detail and particularly specify subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) when it appears that making reference to subsection (1) only would be sufficient. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I appreciate the point which the noble Lord is making, but there is a substantial difference between what he has proposed and what we have proposed, and I shall try to explain that difference briefly. If the noble Lord will refer to Clause 66(1)(b), he will see that what is being contemplated is that the road,
"is or will become unnecessary".
If the noble Lord's amendments were given effect to, the possibility of dealing with a road which "will become unnecessary" will be prejudiced. The existing subsection is an important improvement on the situation because, under the law without that provision, it would mean that, if one were making a new stretch of road, one could only close up the old

601
stretch of road once the new stretch was in position and in use. It takes some time to make an order under that provision, whereas we wish to have the additional facility of making the arrangements in advance so that, when the new road comes into action, the old road that has become superseded and unnecessary can be taken out of action immediately. That will have some benefit, as I am sure the noble Lord will immediately appreciate. As I understand the amendments proposed, that is the difference between us. A substantial and important benefit will be damaged by the approach that is proposed.
Lord Ross of Marnock: These two amendments were the brainchild of my noble friend Lord Hughes, who is not here to argue them. It would be presumptuous on my part if I proceeded to cross swords with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in respect of this matter. I am prepared to examine what the noble and learned Lord has said because there are other stages in the Bill at which we can tackle the subject again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Stopping up of dangerous access from public road to land or premises]:
6.25 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No.100:
Page 42, line 19, leave out ("a") and insert ("the")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment which is intended to correct what is a mistake: The word "a" should have been "the".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Provisions supplementary to sections 66 to 68]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 43, line 8, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Where a roads authority propose to make an order under the said section 66 or 67, then, before the expiry of 28 days from the date of the first public notification, in accordance with regulations under subsection (1) above, of the proposal to make the order, any person may object to it to the authority, and—

where the roads authority is a local roads authority—

if no such objection is made, or objection is made but withdrawn, they may confirm the order themselves; and

if such objection is made and not withdrawn, the Secretary of State shall determine the matter, and may confirm the order with or without modification or refuse to confirm it;

where the roads authority is the Secretary of State, he shall not make the order without having considered any such objection.")

The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to extend the application of Clause 69(2) to orders by the Secretary of State, as roads authority, under Clause 66. It will enable objections to
602
be made to such an order proposed by the Secretary of State and will require him to consider the objections before going on to make the order, if he decides that that is the course to take. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Temporary provision of substitute road]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 45, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Without prejudice to section 112(1) of this Act, from the commencement of the making of a road through land under subsection (1) above until reinstatement of the land under subsection (3) above, rent shall by the roads authority he payable for so much of the land as is taken for the road; and the amount of that rent, and the person or persons to whom it is so payable, shall, in the absence of agreement between the roads authority and each person on whom they have served notice under subsection (2) above as regards the road, be determined by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, whose decision on the matter shall be final.")
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment provides that where land is taken over by a roads authority to provide a temporary substitute road, rent is paid for the use of the land. This would in no way affect the right to compensation under Clause 112(1) for damage sustained by execution of the works. The amendment also provides for disputes as to the amount, or the proper recipient of the rent, to be determined by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 72 and 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Discontinuation of operation of certain swing bridges]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 103:
Page 47, line 10, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: In the interests of speed, I am prepared not to move this amendment. We have taken far too long on this Bill!
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clauses 75 and 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Transfer to Secretary of State of privately maintainable bridges carrying trunk roads]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 103A:
Page 49, line 13, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 119(1) of the Transport Act 1968 (ending of liability of certain Boards to make payments on being relieved of responsibility for bridges carrying trunk or special roads),").
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I take with this amendment, Amendments Nos. 103B, 103CA and 103D.
Amendment No. 103B: Page 49, line 14, leave out ("the Secretary of State shall pay to the owner") and insert ("the owner shall pay to the Secretary of State").

603
Amendment No. 103CA: Page 49, line 18, after third ("the") insert ("extinguishment of any liability of the owner for the maintenance or improvement of the bridge and the Secretary of State shall pay to the owner such sum as may be so agreed or determined to represent the value, to the owner, of the").
Amendment No. 103D: Page 49, line 19, leave out ("Such arbitration") and insert ("Any arbitration under the foregoing provisions of this sub-section").
I should point out that Amendment No. 103CA is the same as Amendment No. 103C was, with the addition of the word "so" which has been omitted in the preparation.
These are purely drafting amendments. Amendments Nos. 103B and 103CA are required to ensure that the Secretary of State does not assume the liability to maintain a private bridge carrying a trunk road without an agreed financial settlement from the bridge owner. Amendment No. 103A is required to prevent the clause conflicting with Section 119 of the Transport Act 1968, which exempts the British Waterways Board from making such payments. Amendment No. 103D is consequential and will be required because there would be two references to arbitration if the earlier amendments are agreed; the existing wording could be construed as referring only to the second reference to arbitration.
I should mention also that these amendments have a bearing on Amendment No. 104 dealing with the point raised by noble Lords opposite that it might well be that, although there was revenue, there was not net revenue. We have now sought to deal expressly with the two possibilities; that something is an asset or that it is a liability according to which way the income and expenditure goes out. We have attempted to deal with that point expressly in these amendments. It is right that I should note that noble Lords raised that point for our consideration and that we have tried to take account of it. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: These amendments are eminently sensible and I am very grateful that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has covered the point. I fully support what he has done.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it to your Lordships' pleasure that I put Amendments Nos. 103B, 103CA and 103D together?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 103B, 103CA and 103D.
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78 [Transfer to Secretary of State of privately maintainable bridges carrying special roads]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 51, line 1, leave out ("the said section 7") and insert ("section 9 of this Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is necessary to correct a wrong cross-reference. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 79 to 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Control of builders' skips on road]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 54, line 18, after ("clearly") insert (", legibly").
The noble Lord said: This seems to be only a drafting amendment, but I think if we look at some of the vehicles, skips and so on seen on the roads we find that all sorts of devices are used to explain which particular contractor or owner they belong to. Although it may be clear, I think that it would be an improvement if it was also legible and understandable by ordinary people who do not have a handy reference to the various codes that are used in the industry. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, may I put a question on Clause 82? At line 20 on page 54, Clause 82(2) says:
"Such permission…in subsection (1)(a)…may be granted either unconditionally or subject to such conditions".
and when it mentions the conditions it says:
"and the conditions may in particular relate to".
It is not for me to interfere in a family debate about Scottish roads, except that something always happens to me on Scottish roads and so I watch them with the greatest of care whenever I have the privilege of being in that lovely country. I particularly wanted to ask the Minister about the siting and lighting of the skip. It does not look as though Clause 82 makes it mandatory for the skip to be lit; only that it may be lit if the local authority desires it. Because skips are so dangerous —and again because I have such danger on Scottish roads, sometimes simply because of the speed at which I go; I find that the police force in Scotland watch for English bishops, but that is a personal matter—may I ask, what about the lighting of skips?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The first thing I would like to say is that we regard "clearly" as including the kind of considerations the noble Lord mentioned. If a skip is clearly marked with the owner's name that means that it is clear to those who look at it what the owner's name is, and therefore I would suggest that "legibly" does not really add anything to this provision. I have had a look at the dictionaries and I think they confirm my earlier impression that that would be the situation; there is a good deal of common ground between "clearly" and "legibly".
Now if I might address myself to the question posed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, first of all may I say how much I welcome his participation in our consideration of this Bill because what happens in Scotland is of course vitally important for everyone, including the bishops. I should also say perhaps that the Scottish police are extremely impartial in their dealings with people, and therefore no particular favour is to be expected by an English bishop travelling in Scotland; on the other hand, I think it is also fair to claim that no special disfavour is likely to be meted out to him either.

605
So far as his question is concerned, what we have done is to give power to the local authority on the basis that they may grant permission for the use of the road by the builder's skip either unconditionally or subject to such conditions, including, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, the siting and lighting of the skip. We have done it on that basis because there is no question that if the skip was to be there overnight in the hours of darkness then it would be a reasonable condition that one would expect the local authority to impose. On the other hand, if it is going to be there an hour or two during the day any condition about lighting would be inappropriate.
Of course, the siting is also a question of circumstances; what one would impose in the way of conditions as to siting would also be a matter of discretion for the local authority. The right reverend Prelate will also be aware that Clause 58(1)(b) makes other provisions for the lighting of obstructions. I hope that in the light of these explanations the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Even before this came to my notice I had been taking a close look at some skips. Many of them are clearly marked, but not legibly; one cannot read who the owner is. That was the point I wished to cover. It may well be that one is clearly marked at the time it goes out and is put on the site, which may be on a pavement or just off a pavement. By the time loading up is finished—and many of these things lie there for two or three days—it has become illegible.
The right reverend Prelate has a very good point. I have seen a skip in the small quiet street in which I live lying there for about a week or so. In many cases mud is splattered over them, and although they are marked they are not marked so as to be legible all the time. That was the only point I wished to make. There may be other points we can raise on this on the Question that the clause stand part, more validly in respect of the point raised by the right reverend Prelate. So far as the amendment is concerned, it was designed to be helpful. As the Lord Advocate knows, I always agree with him when he is being sensible about these things, and if he is satisfied I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 82 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I return to a point which has been mentioned before and which I feel will come up on many other discussions on the Question that the clause stand part. This clause gives the roads authorities powers to control the siting and operating conditions of all types of builders' skips which are unlike their present powers. I understand Section 22 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970 limits skips being used for purposes other than building to only the roads authority. It seems a logical extension that all skips on the road be now the responsibility of the roads authority rather than the district authority.
The problem arises—and this is the point we shall continually come back to—that it will add, with all the other conditions in the Bill, additional expense and
606
responsibility to the regional authorities, who are in most cases the roads authorities.
I think that there will be perhaps substantial increases in the work load. It is not an easy matter. Inspectors or other highway people may be out on the roads representing the district, doing 101 other jobs and merely noticing these things as they pass, taking notes and getting the process going. The responsibility cannot just be taken from them with the assumption that money is being saved by transferring the responsibility to the roads authority and that it will all balance out.
Various other responsibilities will be put on the roads authority and the Bill will cause regional councils considerable extra expense. I have been approached by regional councils which are concerned about this. This is not perhaps a matter for the Lord Advocate in his judicial role but perhaps it is in his role as a Government Minister generally. He should be aware that the regional authorities are concerned about the amount of extra work that will be put on them as a consequence of the Bill.
Lord Drumalbyn: I believe that skips are not always used by their owners but are let out to others from time to time. Therefore, would it not be the person operating the skip who would require permission from the roads authority?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I have no doubt that such considerations are taken into account. We are doing what we can to make sure that the arrangements for distribution of the powers are as economical as possible. That is one of the reasons why my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston was asked to chair a committee to examine these matters.
I say to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn that the permission is not particularly to be given to the owner. It is not specified particularly who asks for the permission, but the identification of the skip is by reference to the owner. That seems a good arrangement. Whoever happens to be using the skip at the particular time, it is important that when the skip is found on the road it shall be easy to discover who owns it and who therefore has the ultimate responsibility for the way that it is being used.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clauses 83 and 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Removal of projections which impede or endanger road users]:
6.43 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 55, line 42, leave out ("such").
The noble Lord said: I think that we could sensibly take Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 together with this.
Amendment No. 108: Page 55, line 43, leave out ("therefrom as") and insert ("which")
Amendment No. 109: Page 56, line 5, after ("payable") insert ("by the roads authority").
This is an effort to improve the drafting of the Bill. I am sorry to upset the draftsman who delights in using the phrase, "therefrom as", but I think that the subsection makes much more sense if we adopt my word. As an English teacher, I feel that if the expression, "any such projection", is used, there should have been a reference to a projection before that; but there is no mention made in the subsection of any projection before that. My suggested change would make the wording much more clear.
The same applies to the phrase:
"No compensation shall be payable".
I suggest that a phrase should be added to show by whom. That is the simple purpose of the amendment. As ever, we on this side of the Committee are trying to be helpful. We know that on this Bill the Lord Advocate needs all the help that he can get. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Noble Lords opposite can certainly take it that the Lord Advocate is always grateful to them for all the help they can give. I appreciate the spirit in which the amendments are moved. I appreciate the elegance of the noble Lord's drafting, but the difficulty is that if the drafting in Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 is given effect to, there is no connection necessarily between the projection and the building. The responsibilities accrue according to the building which is owned or occupied. Therefore, I think it is necessary to specify some connection between the building and the projection which is the source of the trouble.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock: The phrase:
"and is specified in the notice",
is already in the clause.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: But what is specified in the notice must be a projection from the particular building. It is that concept—the connection between the projection and the building—which is required as the basic power, apart altogether from the notice, which the noble Lord's amendment does not leave clearly in the clause.
I think that Amendment No. 109 is not necessary for this reason. The amendment is being suggested to subsection (3). Subsection (3) plainly refers to compensation. "payable under subsection (2)". When one looks at subsection (2), it is plain that the person paying the compensation is the roads authority. That is the obligation of subsection (2).
Much as I appreciate the spirit in which these amendments are moved, we have considered them carefully and have concluded that on this occasion the present drafting is to be preferred. I hope that the noble Lord may feel persuaded by that.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am not persuaded. I should like to argue the matter out, but this is not the Scottish Grand Committee. May I tell the Government that if ever they get this Bill into the Scottish Grand Committee in another place they will never get it out. That is not a warning, because I am not there now, but others have followed on.
I disagree with the noble and learned Lord in respect
608
of the wording of subsection (1). In respect of subsection (3), I was making it absolutely clear as to where responsibility would lie and clarifying the phrase:
"No compensation shall be payable",
by making it clear to whom that referred—the authority. When I read the Bill I see the number of otiose phrases in it. The amendment has much more to commend it than have many of the other things that we have in the Bill and will be putting into it. But at this late hour of the night I do not see why we should prolong the argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and I shall not move the two succeeding amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.]
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clauses 86 and 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Prevention of danger to road from nearby vegetation and fences etc. or from retaining walls being inadequate]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 109A is agreed to, then I cannot call Amendment No. 110.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 109A:
Page 57, line 10, leave out from ("with") to second ("a") in line 11 and insert—
("—(i) road users' view of the road;
(ii) the light from a public lamp; or
(iii) ")
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 109A is intended to deal with the point that is raised in Amendment No. 110 by noble Lords opposite, by making it clear that the subsection embraces obstruction of the lamps and signs as well as interference with them. The idea is to prevent obstructing, for example, the lamp in such a way that it spoils the effect of that lamp in lighting the road. I think that the grammar and sense is improved by putting it this way. At the same time we have embraced the point which is made by noble Lords opposite in Amendment No. 110. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am prepared to agree to this amendment. I think it is an improvement. The point that also concerned me when I put down Amendment No. 110 is that very often the offender is the local authority parks department which allows trees to overhang roads, completely shrouding the light from the lamps that it has put up, which are then not effectively lighting the roads. I know of roads where there are lights on only one side, and the local authority fails properly to trim the trees that overhang the road. I have even seen people having to walk on the carriageway because of bushes and so forth overhanging, not from the gardens of private dwelling-houses, but from public parks. I hope that this point will be taken notice of not only by other people who are concerned, but also by the local authorities themselves, so that they meet their obligations to pedestrians and motorists in regard to branches and bushes that obscure and overhang.
The Earl of Selkirk: I should like briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has said. I have been trying to work in a certain idea which I should like to mention. In many cases local authorities dig ditches and then leave the spoil on the side of the road. I have tabled one or two amendments to deal with the point, though I am not sure that they are in the right place. In this part of the Bill all the emphasis has been on the ill-deeds of frontagers, and so I think that the noble Lord is perfectly right in that a certain obligation should be placed on local authorities. I know of cases where on narrow roads there has been built up from the spoil of ditches—which no doubt are necessary—a considerable bank which interferes with the view down the road. I do not think that that point is covered, and I should like my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate to look into it to see whether a duty can be imposed on the local authority to ensure that it does not restrict or obstruct vision in this way. I have down an amendment which roughly covers the point, though, as I say, I am not sure that it is in the right place, and I should like my noble and learned friend to consider putting it in the most appropriate part of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I certainly take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and my noble friend Lord Selkirk have made—that it behoves authorities which have powers to keep other people in order to make quite certain that their own parks, trees, and shrubs are in proper order. I have no doubt that, if they failed in their duty to see to that, they would certainly lay themselves open to questions at common law if damage resulted.
With regard to my noble friend's concern about the view being obstructed by the placing of spoil on the roadside, I think that we discussed the point at the last proceedings of the Committee, and I agreed to look at it in detail. We are in course of doing that, and I should not like to take the matter further at the moment, though I shall certainly let my noble friend know when I have completed my consideration of it. I think that some of the amendments are still to be dealt with, though really we dealt with them all effectively on the earlier occasion. I am grateful for what has been said, and I am glad of support for the amendment
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 89 [Restriction on planting of trees etc. near carriageway]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 58, line 35, leave out ("48 or").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment to make it clear that the roads authority does not require permission from itself for its own work. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 90 [Protection of road users from dangers near a road]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 59, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: The amendment has been put down because the subsection strikes me and my noble friends as being extremely wide, giving very great powers to a roads authority. It would be wrong to let the subsection go through without at least registering the point that the powers are extremely wide and if not properly and sensitively used could bring about much unhappiness and could perhaps result in people being greatly disadvantaged. I should like to draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to the fact that the powers are very wide. I should also like to have from him an assurance that the powers have been looked at very carefully and that there are enough safeguards for people who will perhaps be intruded upon by the powers contained in the subsection. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: As the noble Lord has said, subsection (1) of the clause contains a fairly wide power. It is essentially a power to provide for road safety and, I think all your Lordships would agree, it is most important that land adjacent to a road, in particular unfenced land, is maintained so as to avoid danger being caused on it to road users.
Generally speaking, the Bill does not concern itself with land beyond the road boundary, except in cases of danger or obstruction. There are other provisions of the Bill to deal with specific dangers; for example, the clause that deals with dangerous vegetation, fences and walls on adjacent land, and Clause 80, which deals with obstruction of view. But they do not cover all possible circumstances where a roads authority may need to Act for the protection of road users. For example, dangerous machines, holes, or heaps of rubbish—to which my noble friend Lord Selkirk referred—that are not adequately fenced could constitute a danger to the road users. So I believe that it is necessary to have a power of this kind. It has its sources in the act of 1878 and in the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892.
When I was looking at the noble Lord's amendment suggesting that the subsection should be deleted, I wondered whether he had in mind the part of it which, in regard to the steps taken by the roads authority, provides that the authority,
"may recover the expenses reasonably incurred in so doing from the owner of the land".
and whether that might be regarded as a point that should not go completely unmarked. Looking at the clause as a whole, I have wondered whether it would not be right to provide an appeal to the owner of the land in respect of that matter in the same way as is at present provided for subsection (2). So I respond to the noble Lord's amendment by saying that it has led us to consider the point, and we shall consider further whether it would not be right to extend the provisions to allow for an appeal to the sheriff in relation to an attempt by the roads authority to recover expenses in connection with the matter. My noble friend Lord Selkirk also has down an amendment to the clause, dealing with a more specific point.
The Earl of Selkirk: Perhaps I may say a few words at this stage, since it may save me from having to move the next amendment. I took a different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I thought it very important that the local authorities should be compelled to take action. The words that I considered important were,
"constitutes a danger to road users".
I have a picture of a danger to road users, and if there is such a danger, it must be removed, and it is a proper duty of the local authority jolly well to see that it is removed. I propose that the word "may" should be changed to the word "shall". I agree that it involves a slightly different interpretation from that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, but I would say that, if the matter in question is a danger to the road, it should be removed, and that should be a clear duty on the local authority.
I do not want to press the point unduly, but I hope that my noble and learned friend will be good enough to look at it and see what can be done. The danger should not be regarded merely as something that could be removed or as something which the authority is free to remove; it is something that must be removed, if that is what is meant by the words. I see that the subsection refers to matters near a road, and perhaps it could be recast to make quite clear whether the danger is a possible danger. If it is a possible danger, that is a different thing. But, if it is a positive danger to road users, it must be removed, and it should be clearly stated that that is the duty of the local authority. I should be very grateful if my noble and learned friend is able to consider possible rewording of the subsection.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Most certainly, I can see the force of substituting for the word "may" the word "shall" as proposed in my noble friend's amendment No. 113. I do not think that in its practical effect it would make a substantial difference at all because the roads authority, of course, are the persons who have, in the first case, to form the opinion that there is a danger. When you are in this situation where it is a matter of first forming an opinion and then giving them power to take action, it seems appropriate that it should be a power to take action rather than a matter requiring an expression such as "shall". I do not think that there is much difference in effect between the two in this context. I agree with my noble friend that this power is an extremely important one and that where the roads authority have a power of this kind, there will be an implied duty to exercise it where danger actually exists.
Lord Drumalbyn: I should like to ask whether the word "anything" in line 5 would include an animal. For example, an animal that is tied up might cause a child on a bicycle to swerve into a line of traffic.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think that we are dealing, at the moment, with Clause 90.
Lord Drumalbyn: The first line says:
"If, in the opinion of the roads authority, anything which is on land"—
and so on.
Lord Ross or Marnock: I apologise to the noble Lord. I have a thing about things. I consider that it is a matter of inadequate draftsmanship of words when we resort to use of the word "thing". We come to this again. I missed the opportunity by not being here on the last occasion that we considered the Bill. This is a fallback power. The authority use this power only when they cannot use any other power under any other clause. That being the case, it is a very important power and a very sweeping power. It is the roads authority which consider the thing a danger. There is no notice to the owner of the land, as I read it. The roads authority just go in and do it. They do what they think is necessary and then they charge the owner of the land.
I was a little surprised that noble Lords who have more interest in land than I have should not have spotted the nature of the power that is taken here. I do not know that the Government would get away with it anywhere else. You might get away with it in the House of Lords, but I doubt if it would happen anywhere else where people take a keener interest in the acutal words of the Bill and the powers that are being given. There is no reference to the powers being given only in an emergency. They are to be available at any time. This is a very dangerous power. I am glad that, in respect of expense that might be passed on to an individual, the power of appeal is being considered by the Lord Advocate. I would prefer him to tighten up the whole of this particular power.
The Bill mentions all sorts of other things where the roads authority can take action after having given notice, but this one is very dangerous. I agree that the word "shall" should make this a mandatory power. In an emergency, you cannot wait for that kind of thing. It should not be tied up with phrases such as "in the opinion of the roads authority". We have had a few emergencies this past fortnight although I do not think that there were many English bishops skating around the roads of Scotland at that time. I would gladly have met one on the Fenwick Moor the other night. The right reverend Prelate always goes at the right time. However, I consider this a most important clause. I am glad that it has been noted by the noble Earl and others.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 59, line 27, leave out ("thing") and insert ("barrier").
The noble Lord said: Here, we come to things. This is a hangover from a long list of amendments of mine considered just over a week ago where the dictionary of the draftsman had failed him. The result was the use of the word "thing" at least five or six times in one clause. My amendment here is in relation to "thing". I suggest that we use instead the word "barrier". It is to get rid of this seeming inadequacy when walls, window-sills, spikes, broken glass and barbed wire and similar devices are all barriers. The word "barrier" has been used by the Government in other parts of the Bill. I consider that it would be much better here than the word "thing".
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I understand the noble Lord's aversion to the word "thing" if a better word can be found. Unfortunately, I doubt whether the word "barrier" is appropriate here because it has to cover all the matters—I almost said "things"—that are mentioned in subsection (2). The noble Lord will see reference to "a wall or window-sill". It would be inappropriate to describe a window-sill as a barrier. Therefore, the word "barrier" does not seem appropriate.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 90 agreed to.
Clause 91 [Power to fill in roadside ditches etc.]:
The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 60, line 4, after ("ditch") insert ("or the spoil therefrom").
The noble Earl said: We are back on the same subject. There is a complication. I am thinking really about spoil on the verge of the road. According to this Bill, the verge of a road is the road. We therefore have this slight complication. The clause states:
"If it appears to the roads authority that a ditch on land adjoining or lying near to a public road constitutes a danger".
I am talking about obstructions or anything that interferes with the vision of a road actually on the verge. This, because it is part of the road, is an obstruction of the road.
The amendment does, I think, make sense by adding the words "or the spoil therefrom", because spoil can also be an obstruction. It is, technically speaking, part of the road according to the definition of the Bill. It may be argued that it does not apply to this clause. I have spoken about this enough. It is an important point and I hope that my noble and learned friend can see that it is effectively incorporated.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: When we considered this before I said I would look at the matter carefully and, as I remarked a few minutes ago, we have not completed our consideration. My noble friend will perhaps allow me some further time for consideration.
The Earl of Selkirk: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 agreed to.
Clause 92 [Deposit of mud from vehicles on roads]:
On Question, Whether Clause 92 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: There is a small point to which my attention has been drawn. This is perhaps the only time I can raise it because I was too late to put down an amendment. On clause stand part, the Lord Advocate will perhaps be kind enough to take note of what I say and to look at the matter. The description of the clause is "Deposit of mud from vehicles on roads". However, line 29 refers to mud dropped or deposited on carriageways. That would seem to exclude the pavement or the footpath. It has been drawn to my attention that perhaps it would solve the problem—because it is just as dangerous and
614
distressing to have mud on the footpath as it is to have it on the carriageway—if "road" were substituted for "carriageway", that would be more satisfactory in every way and would take in everything. At this stage I can only ask t
he noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to take note of it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It seems to me that the noble Lord has suggested an improvement, and he has kindly allowed me time to consider it, and I would like to do that. But at first sight it would seem to be an improvement and I am most grateful to the noble Lord for raising the point.
Clause 92 agreed to.
Clauses 93 to 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 [Damage to roads etc.]:
7.11 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 64, line 7, after ("or") insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: Clause 97 lists a number of events that shall be construed as offences provided the person who commits them does so:
"without lawful authority or excuse".
I do not presume that the word "lawful" covers the word "excuse". If they have an excuse it might be a good excuse or it might be a bad excuse. I suggest that to make it fairly foolproof it should be "reasonable excuse". I am suggesting that we insert the word "reasonable". It may well be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will want a long time to consider the matter. I am prepared to give him two minutes. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The noble Lord has kindly given me considerably longer than that to consider the matter, because I saw the amendment shortly after he put it down. It seems to me, with respect, to be an extremely good suggestion and I am very happy to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 64, line 12, after ("sign") insert (", slogan").
The noble Lord said: I think that this provision could be improved by adding the word "slogan" in case it is not covered by any other words that are catalogued in respect of marks. The noble and learned Lord will know quite well what I have in mind in respect of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I have certainly considered the matter. Whatever might be described as a slogan is fairly well covered by the provision that we already have in the Bill and, of course, if one were to make a collection of letters an offence, one might be slightly complicating the matter. If each sign or mark constitutes an offence it would probably be safer. So in this situation I would prefer to leave the drafting as it is, and I hope that the noble Lord will, perhaps, on reconsideration feel able to agree with me.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am prepared to reconsider the matter, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will reconsider it as well. What we have at present is:
"paints or otherwise inscribes or affixes upon the surface of a road or upon a tree, traffic sign, milestone, structure or works on or in a road, a picture, letter, sign or other mark".
It is not necessarily a mark. It may well be something made on paper, and very often when it is made on paper it is a slogan. The noble and learned Lord has seen them as well as I have. Why not be clear about it? However, if the noble and learned Lord is not satisfied at the moment I will think again about it myself and about the statement he has made. There are other stages of the Bill to go through. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved manuscript Amendment No. 118A:
Page 64, line 14, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
("(c) by lighting a fire within, or by permitting a fire for which he is responsible to spread to within, 30 metres of a road, damages the road or endangers traffic on it;".
The noble Lord said: This is an afterthought that has been suggested from a very authorative source and it is one with which I concur. It suggests that we leave out paragraph (c) and insert:
"by lighting a fire within, or by permitting a fire for which he is responsible to spread to within, 30 metres of a road, damages the road or endangers traffic on it".
The endangering of traffic on the road is something which I felt had been missed out. These words are much more felicitous and I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this manuscript amendment. He earlier put forward the idea that not only damage to the road should be taken into account, but also danger to traffic on the road. It was fairly apparent that he had in mind the kind of danger that comes from fire adjoining the road. That led on to thinking that that kind of danger can arise not only when someone starts the fire within 30 metres of the road, but when someone starts a fire further from the road and it burns towards the road. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for moving this amendment which seems to cover that concept very fully.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 119 is therefore eliminated. The next amendment is Amendment No. 120.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 64, line 17, after ("wall") insert (", barrier").
The noble Lord said: This is a similar type of amendment, to ensure that all the things that the Government have mentioned which might be damaged or interfered with, shall be covered. The amendment adds the word "barrier" to the list, so that it concludes with
"post, rail, wall, barrier or fence".
The noble and learned Lord will find that the word is used elsewhere in such a list. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Again, in our view this is an improvement which noble Lords have suggested, and I am very grateful to them for bringing this amendment forward. I am happy to advise that the amendment should be accepted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 97, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I should like to raise a very small point. It has been brought to my attention that the only things that have been omitted and which we see on the roads every day are lighting columns. If we look at paragraphs (b) and (d) we see all sorts of things, such as:
"a tree, traffic sign, milestone, structure or works on or in a road".
Lighting columns may be included in that list, but it seems as though they are blindingly obviously things that have been omitted, as was pointed out to me by somebody else. I would be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord would look at the situation with a view to adding them or reassuring us that lighting columns are included in the more general descriptions.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Certainly I will be happy to look at the matter. My first instinct would be to say that they probably are covered, but I would like to look at the matter.
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 98 to 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 [Further provision as regards acquisition of land for construction, improvement, etc. of public roads]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 66, line 4, after ("preserving") insert ("or improving").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seems to be an improvement on the original wording. It may be desirable to acquire land to improve the road, not merely to preserve the road. There may be a necessity' to improve it, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will see that certainly nothing is lost by adding "or improving". It gives a great deal more scope for the reconstruction and development of public roads. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I respectfully agree with the noble Lord that the addition of the words "or improving" is an improvement and I am happy to recommend acceptance of the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 103 to 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 [Determination of disputes as to compensation]:
7.21 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No.122:
Page 73, line 10, after ("103") insert ("112,").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 112 enables a person who sustains damage from execution of works under certain provisions in the Bill to recover compensation. Disputes may arise over such compensation and, by adding Clause 112 to other clauses listed in Clause 113, the amendment provides a means of determining such disputes under the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 114 to 117 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 123:
After Clause 117, insert the following new clause:
Saving for obligation to obtain planning permission.
(".Subject to any express provision to the contrary, nothing in this Act authorises the carrying out of any development of land for which permission is required by virtue of section 20 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (development requiring planning permission) and which is not authorised by permission granted or deemed to be granted under or for the purposes of Part III of that Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The powers provided in the Bill are not intended to override requirements to obtain planning permission, unless specifically so stated in the Bill. For the avoidance of doubt, however, the amendment provides an appropriate saving clause, making that absolutely plain. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 118 and 119 agreed to.
Clause 120 [Miscellaneous summary offences]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No.124:
Page 77, line 23, after ("rider") insert ("or some other person").
The noble and learned Lord said: As it happens, this amendment has exactly the same effect as Amendment No. 125, the amendment on the Marshalled List to be proposed by noble Lords opposite. We noticed this point independently and I am very grateful to noble Lords opposite for bringing this forward. We entirely accept the view in their amendment. Therefore, as it just happens to come first, I beg to move Amendment No. 124.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would clear my mind. What is the difference between "some other person" and "another person"? The noble and learned Lord prefers the words "some other person" rather than the words "another person". Perhaps he could explain this just to help me in my legal education.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am always delighted to help the noble Lord. The only reason I prefer this amendment is that it happened to come first. We tabled this amendment and the noble Lord tabled his. If I had known of the noble Lord's amendment before we tabled this amendment, I should have been perfectly content with his.
The Earl of Selkirk: I should like to ask my noble and learned friend one question. There used to be a convention, or a rule, that one could lead a horse on the righthand side of the road. I presume that this was due to the fact that horses are normally led on the lefthand side. They can be led on the righthand side quite well too. Is there anything to support that rule? Does my noble and learned friend know of any such rule that still exists? Certainly as a young man many years ago I learned that that was a permissible way of travelling. If my noble and learned friend has never heard of it, it is probably pure myth.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I should not like to suggest that there is anything mythical about it. It seems to be a sensible suggestion. However, just at this moment I should not like to give chapter and verse for it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 126:
[Printed earlier: col. 653.]
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is one of a series of amendments to which I spoke earlier dealing with the amendments necessary to give effect to the provision of cycle tracks. This amendment provides an offence in respect of a person who parks a motor vehicle wholly or partly on a cycle track. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 78, line 10, after ("any") insert ("proper")
The noble Lord said: This is a very small amendment. The paragraph reads:
"Where materials, tools, machinery or other equipment—(a) have been deposited in any proper place for use by the roads authority in constructing or maintaining a road".
That may not be a strong enough word. However, although I have great admiration for road builders, occasionally they do silly things, and I think it is important that we emphasise the fact that before materials or anything else to be used for construction or repairs are placed on a road care should be taken that they are put in the proper place. That is actually emphasised in the Bill itself. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Of course, the general structure of the Bill suggests that it would not be right, for example, to put such materials in a place where they obstructed the road, and so on. This particular provision, in which the amendment is proposed, is for an offence. It is provided at line 15 on page 78 of the Bill that:
"a person who without reasonable excuse takes away, or displaces, the materials, tools, machinery or equipment commits an offence."
Therefore, "without reasonable excuse" would appear to cover that matter, and if it was a question of displacing or moving the materials from a wrong place, the person would not be a guilty of an offence.

619
So we think that it is difficult to specify what is a "proper" place (and the noble Lord has indicated this). The reasonableness of the action taken to move the materials is perhaps the most satisfactory test. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: This matter is rather difficult, because it might well be that if you put something in a place that is not a proper place, you are giving the person who has taken it away an excuse to get away with the offence. It might be quite important equipment. I have known of people taking away tractors, cranes and other machinery. If they can say, "That was not the proper place for it; it did not look as though it belonged to anyone", they might get away with it. Therefore, I think that we should try to cover this aspect. Valuable property and valuable materials are being taken away, and it may well be that we are giving justification for taking them away if they have been left in a place where it is not sensible or proper to leave them in the first instance.
However, we shall not press this amendment. We are all anxious not to offend the Government Chief Whip; I know how concerned he is about Scottish business. I do not propose to go further with this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Denham: My Lords, after those soft words from the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I think that the best I can do is to offer your Lordships an adjournment because we seem to have reached the hour for one. Through the usual channels, the suggestion is that we should adjourn for three-quarters of an hour until 8.15 p.m. My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.30 until 8.15 p.m.]
Clauses 121 to 134 agreed to.
Clause 135 [Regulations, orders and schemes]:
[Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 not moved.]
Clause 135 agreed to.
Clauses 136 to 142 agreed to.
Clause 143 [Interpretation]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 89, line 36, leave out ("'cycle track', 'footpath' and 'footway'")
The noble and learned Lord said: Perhaps I may take with Amendment No. 130 Amendments Nos. 131 and 133.
Amendment No. 131: Page 90, line 2, at end insert ("'cycle track' shall be construed in accordance with subsection (2) below:")
Amendment No. 133: Page 90, line 7, at end insert ("'footpath' and 'footway' shall be construed in accordance with subsection (2) below;")
The purpose of these amendments is to respond to observations made in the Second Reading debate that the definitions of "cycle track", "footpath" and "footway" in Clause 143(2) are difficult to locate. These terms are already mentioned in subsection 143(1) but are associated there with a "carriageway". Therefore, what we have done is to take them out of that and put them into an alphabetical order. It is hoped that the separate references in alphabetical order provided by the amendments will be an improvement and also provide a clear signpost to subsection (2). I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think I am content with this. It is an improvement. I think the person who mentioned this was one of the Liberal Peers. There is no Liberal Peer present, so I take it that they have seen the amendments and they agree with them. I think it is an improvement.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 131:
[Printed above.]
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 90, leave out line 3.
The noble Lord said: This is something I felt strongly about a long time ago, that "days" had to mean "clear days" We have not had very many clear days in Scotland over this past month. I am still not satisfied with the explanation that was given to me at an earlier stage by the Lord Advocate as to why we need to define "days" as "clear days". I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I have given the explanation. I do not think I have anything to add to what I said before about it. There is certainly indication in judicial dicta that where one is talking about "days" and one means the whole of the day it is wise to say so, and that "clear days" is a good way of doing that, and that is the one we have chosen. I think I cannot say much more.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I hate to say it, but the explanation is not very clear. But then, "clear" has another meaning. I am sad to realise that the lawyers in Scotland and the legal luminaries in Scotland cannot define a day without having the word "clear" in front of it. It does not say very much for them—or it tells you a lot about them. I am not going to press the matter now. I hope it does not mean that we have to go through every piece of legislation we have ever had in order to redefine "day" or "days". I can think of quite a lot of legislation where we never felt it necessary to put in "clear days", but it may well be that the lawyers in Scotland are becoming more confused by the kind of legislation that they are getting and having to contend with. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 133:
[Printed above.]
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 134:
[Printed earlier: col. 683]
The noble Lord said: This is, I think, another of Lord Hughes' amendments. He was very concerned about the definition of "frontager". I will move it formally and listen to the reply from the Government.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: This does go back to discussions that we had earlier about the matter. I think it would not be appropriate to have this amendment in the Bill as it stands at the moment, but I have undertaken to Lord Hughes to consider various matters that he mentioned and I shall certainly indicate to him in due course what conclusion I have reached in the light of that reconsideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 91, line 19, leave out ("and a proposed road").
The noble and learned Lord said: As presently drafted the definition of "road" in the Bill, except where specified to the contrary, includes "a proposed road". Having looked over the matter with the Bill in its present state, we consider that this definition is not now necessary, and that it is therefore wise to delete "a proposed road" from the definition where the Bill does deal with proposed roads separately. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 136 and 137:
Page 91, line 27, leave out ("constructed") and insert ("provided").
line 28, leave out ("(a)").
The noble and learned Lord said: I will take Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 together. These are drafting amendments necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State is defined as the roads authority for special roads; not only for those which he constructs but also for those which he provides by appropriation or transfer of existing roads. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment Nos. 138:
Page 92, line 9, after ("section") insert ("or section 198(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is essentially a drafting amendment which makes good an omission in the definition of a trunk road in Clause 143. Section 198(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 empowers the Secretary of State to provide or improve any road in connection with development and provides that where the Secretary of State is the roads authority for such a road, it is to be a trunk road.
622
Consequently it should be included in the definition of "trunk road". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 139 to 144:
Page 92, line 25, at beginning insert ("For the purposes of this Act").
line 27, leave out ("in this Act referred to").
line 28, leave out ("as a footway") and insert ("a 'footway'").
line 30, leave out ("as a footpath") and insert ("a 'footpath'").
line 32, leave out ("so referred to as a cycle track") and insert ("a 'cycle track'").
line 34, leave out ("so referred to as a carriageway") and insert "a 'carriageway'").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of your Lordships, I beg to move Amendment Nos. 139 to 144 en bloc.
These amendments are all intended to clarify the definition of "road" in Clause 143(2). The terms "footway", "footpath", "cycle path", and "carriageway" are included in the general term "road", and we want to make plain what each of these expressions is intended to mean in the Bill. We think that the present arrangement is not as clear as it perhaps might be, and I believe that doing it in the way we now propose makes it plainer. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not know how the lawyers will regard this but I know how the general public will regard it: as a piece of absolute nonsense; not just this but many other aspects of it. But if the Lord Advocate, the head of the legal profession, or the leader of that band in respect of this kind of thing, is satisfied, who am I to put the layman's point of view!
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 145:
[Printed earlier: col. 653.]
The noble and learned Lord said: This is the last of the amendments which are referred to under the general heading of "cycle tracks", and this is the amendment which makes provision for the order which is required in this connection. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The only thing I have to say about this business is that the heading of this clause is "Interpretation", and in an Act of Parliament where we have an interpretation clause it is not usual to have powers. I am just wondering whether or not during this stage and the next the Lord Advocate will look to see whether he should put powers, if powers are necessary, anywhere else, but not in the interpretation clause.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am certainly happy to look at the point that the noble Lord has mentioned.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 143, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 144 [Consequential provision]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 93, line 22, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: This is a very small point. It is really substituting on page 93, line 22, an "and" for "or". It would read:
"transitional or supplementary provision as appears to him to be necessary and proper—".
I think it is a fairly small amendment, and I hope the Lord Advocate will agree that it is an intelligent one.
I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The idea of this provision is to give the Secretary of State power, in effect, to make incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provisions by order.
The provisions that he can make, as provided by the Bill, are such as appear to him in that light to be necessary or proper. If the amendments are necessary, then it is really implied that without them there would be something wrong with the statutory provisions. They have to be made, but it is also usual to provide that even if amendments are not necessary in that strict sense, if it is correct to do so it should be done. I think it is the usual form to allow consequential provisions of this kind to be provided for by order where they are necessary or proper, and I suggest it would be in accordance with the usual practice to have the word "or" in as the present draft proposes.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I must say that I do not think I have previously noticed the Lord Advocate being quite so unsure of himself in this Bill. I felt that he was not altogether happy himself with the explanation he gave, and I wonder whether he would think that just because it has always been considered as correct, necessary or proper that it should be done, now might be the time to reconsider it. I felt that he was unsure about it. While he seems to be very familiar with it in other statutes, it appeared tome that he was saying, "Why the hang have we got this in in any case? Why do we not do it as the word suggests?" I am sure there is more comfort in adding something which has always been done, but I would be most grateful if he takes this away to reconsider how important it really is to substitute this word "and" for "or".
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was not as sure of myself as I usually am. I certainly have no hesitation in advising the Committee that the Bill as it stands is the correct form in relation to this particular clause.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 144 agreed to.
Clause 145 agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 147:
After Clause 145, insert the following new clause: General adaption of subordinate legislation etc.
(" . Without prejudice to section 144 or 145 of this Act and except where the context otherwise requires or the Secretary of State by order under either of those sections otherwise provides, in any order, scheme, regulation or other instrument which before 1st January 1985 was made under or confirmed by a public general or local Act and in any local Act passed before or during the same session as this Act (such order, scheme, regulation, instrument or local Act not being an enactment which has ceased to have effect by virtue of subsection (1) of the said section 145) any reference—

(a) to a street, to a highway or to a road shall be construed as a reference to a road within the meaning of this Act;

(b) to a turnpike road, to a public carriage road, to a public highway, to a maintainable highway, to a public street or to a public road shall be construed as a reference to a public road within the meaning of this Act;

(c) to a private street or to a private road shall be construed as a reference to a private road within the meaning of this Act;

(d) to a prospective public road or to a prospective public street shall be construed as a reference to a road which is declared likely to become a public road in a declaration made by the local roads authority under Schedule 2 to the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 and is registered in the register kept by them under paragraph 2 of that Schedule;

(e) to a highway authority or to a street authority shall be construed as a reference to a roads authority within the meaning of this Act:

(f) to a roadway or to a carriageway shall be construed as a reference to a carriageway within the meaning of this Act; and

(g) to a cycle track, to a footpath or to a footway shall be construed in accordance with this Act.")

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment provides that references in subordinate and local legislation passed before the enactment of this Bill, where expressions such as "street", "turnpike road" and "highway authority", and so on, are used, should be interpreted in accordance with the system used in this Bill. In my submission that is the correct way to proceed.
Your Lordships will appreciate that such references in the primary legislation are being dealt with, particularly, in Schedule 8, and each Act that requires to be amended is specified there. We have further amendments to deal with that. As far as subordinate and local legislation is concerned, it does not seem appropriate to do it in that way and it is best to have a general scheme such as this. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Advocate says that it would not be appropriate to deal with it in any other way but this one, may I say that this is a belated discovery because this is the Committee stage of the Bill. If it were the only appropriate way to deal with it, I would have thought it might have been put in the Bill at the start. What he says is "appropriate" is the only possible way to deal with it. I want to congratulate the draftsmen for having found a formula to get round a difficult piece of legislation. I am sure that they are probably looking at all they have done in Schedule 8, and all they intend to do in Schedule 8, and saying, "I wish we had thought of this earlier".
I will say a word or two about Schedule 8 when we reach it; but I congratulate them on having found this formula and having found it just in time. It is a bit of

625
a liberty, but we are covering many private Acts and many pieces of legislation that have hitherto been forgotten, that we have this overall piece of comprehensive drafting to bring them in within the meaning of the Bill. I shall not object to it but I shall congratulate them on it. I have no doubt they will find mistakes in it, probably before the next stage; but that is the nature of the Bill. I do not know how many draftsmen have died of heart failure or from nervous exhaustion over this Bill. It may be that the patience of the Lord Advocate has been tried over the last few weeks since he started to read the Bill. My colleague my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove has spent a long time on this Bill during the Recess, as everyone will appreciate from the way he has mastered it, and in the meantime we are prepared to agree to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Procedures for making or confirming certain orders and schemes]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 148 to 152:
Page 95, line 20, after ("9") insert ("or 12")
line 31, after ("person") insert ("(other than himself or as the case may be themselves) ")
Page 96, line 39, leave out ("public utility") and insert ("statutory")
Page 97, line 32, after ("7") insert ("or 72(3)")
line 32, leave out ("that section or section 72(3) of this Act") and insert ("either of those sections")
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 148 and 151 correct omissions. Amendment No. 149 removes the possibility of a roads authority having to serve on itself copies of a proposed order. Amendment No. 150 changes the undefined term "public utility undertakers" to the term defined in the Bill, "statutory undertakers", and Amendment No. 152 is a minor improvement consequential on Amendment No. 151. These are all minor drafting amendments designed to clarify the provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 2 to 6 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 152A not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Penalties for offences]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 153:
[Printed earlier: col. 653.]
The noble and learned Lord said: I think I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 153A to 156E:
Page 108, line 10, at end insert—
("The Highway (Railway Crossings) Act 1839 (c. 45)
. In section 1 of the Highway (Railway Crossings) Act 1839
626
(duty of proprietors of railways to maintain gates where railway crosses highway)—

(a) for the words "any turnpike road or any highway or statute labour road for carts or carriages in Great Britain" there shall be substituted the words "the carriageway of a public road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"; and

(b) for the words "turnpike or other road as aforesaid" and "turnpike or highway" there shall in each case be substituted the word" carriageway".

The Railway Regulation Act 1842 (c. 55)
. In section 9 of the Railway Regulation Act 1842 (gates at level crossing to be kept closed across road)—

(a) for the words "any turnpike road, or any other highway or statute labour road for carts or carriages, in Great Britain" there shall be substituted the words "the carriageway of a public road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984)"; and

(b) for the words "turnpike or other road" and "turnpike or other roads", wherever either expression occurs, there shall be substituted the word "carriageway".")

Page 111, line 18, at end insert—
("The Railway Clauses Act 1863 (c. 92)
.—(1) The Railway Clauses Act 1863 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 5 (restriction on shunting trains), for the words "a turnpike road or public carriage" there shall be substituted the words "the carriageway of a public".
(3) In each of sections 6 (erection of lodge at level crossing) and 7 (requirement for bridge instead of level crossing), for the words "turnpike road or public carriage" there shall be substituted the words "carriageway of a public".
(4) In section 16 (access to shore under or across railway)—

(a) after the word "footways" there shall be inserted the word", footpaths"; and

(b) after the word "footway", wherever it occurs, there shall be inserted the word ", footpath".")

Page 111, line 25, at end insert—
("The Explosives Act 1875 (c. 17)
.—(1) The Explosives Act 1875 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 22 (general rules for premises registered for the keeping of gunpowder), in each of subsections (1) and (2)(a), for the words "highway, street, public thoroughfare" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(3) In section 30 (restriction on sale of gunpowder), for the words "highway, street, public thoroughfare, or" there shall be substituted the words "road or in any".
(4) In section 80 (penalty for throwing fireworks in thoroughfare), for the words "highway, street, thoroughfare," there shall be substituted the word "road".
(5) In section 108 (interpretation), at the end there shall be added the following definition—
"The expression "road" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".")
Page 111, line 25, at end insert—
("The Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 (c. 29)
In paragraph 9 of the Schedule to the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886, after the words "public road" there shall be inserted the words "(within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984".")
Page 111, line 30, at end insert—
("The Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1888 (c. 255)
. In section 16 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1888 (power to apportion expenses between railway company and applicants for works)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "highway board, surveyor of highways acting with the consent of the vestry of his parish" there shall be substituted the words "or local road authority (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act
1984)"; and

(b) subsection (3) shall cease to have effect.

"The Light Railways Act 1896 (c. 48)
. In section 7(1) of the Light Railways Act 1896 (application for authorising light railway) for the words "road authorities" there shall be substituted the words "local roads authorities (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984".")
Page 111, line 41, at end insert—
("(4) In section 56(1)(a) (penalty on exposure of infected

627
persons), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(5) In section 74 (rules as to underground dwellings), for the word "street", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".")
Page 111, line 41, at end insert—
("The Congested Districts (Scotland) Act 1897 (c. 53)
. In section 10 of The Congested Districts (Scotland) Act 1897 (interpretation), at the end there shall be added the following definitions—
"The expressions "footpath" and "public road" have the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".")
Page 111, line 41, at end insert—
("The Dogs Act 1906 (c. 32)
. In section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906 (seizure of stray dogs)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road";

(b) in subsection (1A), for the words "a highway" there shall be substituted the words "in a road"; and

(c) after subsection (1A) there shall be added the following subsection—

"(1B) In subsections (1) and (1A) above "road" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".")
Page 111, line 41, at end insert—
("The Light Railways Act 1912 (c. 19)
. In section 6 of the Light Railways Act 1912 (amendment of section 24 of the Light Railways Act 1896)—

(a) for the words "road authorities" there shall be substituted the words "roads authority";

(b) the existing words, as amended by paragraph (a) above, shall be subsection (1) of the section; and

(c) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(2) In subsection (1) above, "public road" and "local roads authority"; have the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".")
Page 112, line 2, at end insert—
("The Railways Act 1921 (c. 55)
. In section 73(3) of the Railways Act 1921 (interpretation), for the words "a public carriageway" there shall be substituted the words "the carriageway of a public road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984)".
The Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act 1928 (c. 44)
. In section 5(3) of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act 1928 (interpretation), in the definition of "light railway", for the words "public carriageway" there shall be substituted the words "the carriageway of a public road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984)".")
Page 112, line 16, at end insert—
("The Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933 (c. 53).
. In section 45 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933 (interpretation)—
(a) after the word them:—" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'Carriageway' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";
(b) after the definition of "Minister" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'Public road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;"; and
(c) in the definition of "Railway", for the words "a public carriageway" there shall be substituted the words "the carriageway of a public road".").
Page 112, line 40, at end insert—
("The Coal Act 1938 (c. 52)
. In section 34(1)(c)of the Coal Act 1938 (saving for certain statutory rights), for the words "highway authority" there shall be substituted the words "local roads authority (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984)".
The Civil Defence Act 1939 (c. 31)
. In section 90(1) of the Civil Defence Act 1939 (interpretation), in the definition of "public utility undertakers", for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".").
Page 113, line 2, at end insert—
("The Local Government Act 1948 (c. 26)
. In section 144(1) of the Local Government Act 1948 (interpretation), in the definition of "railway", for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
The Civil Defence Act 1948 (12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 5)
. In section 4(2) of the Civil Defence Act 1948 (powers as to land), for the word "highway" in each of the three places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "road".").
The noble and learned Lord said: These are amendments in Schedule 8 which make consequential amendments to a number of statutes. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said, we have followed the principle of making the appropriate amendment to square with the structure of roads legislation proposed in this Bill to the individual Acts which form primary legislation. We have done a more general revision of the local and private legislation in the amendment I moved a while ago. One of the reasons for doing it individually in each of these statutes is to ensure that they are in accordance with the structure of roads legislation, as now modernised, to make it unnecessary for the users of this great variety of other legislation always to look at the roads legislation to see what the provisions are and, at the same time, to have these other provisions consistent with the scheme of the roads legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Now we come to Schedule 8. When we first saw this Bill we found 24 pages in this schedule. We are now adding another 24 more pages to the schedule. I am told by the Lord Advocate that we wanted to make sure that everything was covered. Could I ask him when his department started on this Bill? How many years ago? I think they probably started on this Bill, without my knowledge, when I was Secretary of State, and I stopped being Secretary of State in 1976. But between the publication of the Bill, its Second Reading and this stage, we are adding as many pages to it as we had before. It does not inspire one with confidence that before this Bill is finished in another place another few pages will be added and we are making this thing up as we go along.
I shall suggest seriously to the Government that because of the complications that have arisen in relation to this Bill, which is not a consolidation measure but covers Acts of Parliament from 1839—I think the last one mentioned in the Bill is the Civic Government Act that we dealt with a year ago, and we have lived quite happily with them; there has been no cause célèbre about a "street", "highway" or anything else—they should lose this whole Bill between here and the Commons.
I think it has been a complete waste of time. I do not think it makes very much sense to interfere when we do not need to interfere. We have got this business here—getting rid of the word "turnpike" and the word "highway". What are we going to call the Highway Code in future by the way? We are wiping "highway" out of all the legislation but all the behaviour on roads is going to be called the Highway Code. What was the legislation or the subordinate legislation that produced the Highway Code? If it is in subordinate legislation it is already out by virtue of the amendment that was moved last. Does it make any great sense? Has anybody been at a great loss in respect of "highway"?

629
I have heard the noble and learned Lord himself and my noble friend mentioning highways tonight. There ain't none!
This is quite unnecessary, and I am perfectly certain that already there will be other pages ready to go in at the next stage unless the Government are too embarrassed to put them in. I am sorry about this, but this is how I feel about it. I gave them the opportunity to think about it on the very first amendment that I moved on this Bill, when they took out the word "highway". Nobody is worried about this. Here we have been living quite happily with the 1839 Act and nobody has bothered at all. But now here we are making further changes in these ancient and not so ancient Acts. I am not going to object to them. If the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate wants this trawl—because they have been trawling through all the Acts to see what they have missed—then I am prepared to play along with them at this particular stage. But, quite frankly, I hope that somebody somewhere has another think about this. This is the responsibility of the Lord Advocate, because the draftsmen are his responsibility, but somebody in the Crown Office has had far too much time on his hands: that is all I can say.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: This Bill, so far as ministerial responsibility is concerned, is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland and I think the technical position is that my departmental responsibility is to provide the draftsmen, but provision for the drafting of a particular Bill is the responsibility of the Minister whose Bill it is. I say that only in view of the way the noble Lord put his point.
As he has said, the position is that much of the legislation in relation to roads in Scotland is extremely old and if a legal system is to be operating in modern conditions with all the difficulty of modern times, it is very important that the statutory provisions should be as concise and as well structured as possible. To attempt a consolidation of Acts passed over such a long period as that without making some effort to bring them into a consistent structure would be a great mistake, in my view. It is for that reason that this Bill has been brought forward.
As the noble Lord said, certain work in connection with it would have started when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, but that was in the nature of examining the old law to see how much of it should be retained and how it fitted together—because it had been added to at various stages over a long period—in order to see what the nature of the provisions should be.
The actual drafting is a more recent matter, and there is no point in starting to look through other legislation to see the effect on it until we have the roads Bill structure complete. These are in the nature of consequential drafting amendments, and I feel certain that the right thing to do is to put that structure, where relevant, into other Acts to avoid difficulty for the future. So I certainly feel very strongly that this is an important and necessary piece of legislation. I am glad that the noble Lord, during his tenure of office, was responsible for putting work in progress to lead to this fine result.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I can assure him that I never gave my consent to producing a Bill like this; and my recollection of trying to get legislation through was that one of the big hold-ups was the availability of draftsmen. It may well be that the Lord Advocate is so much more kindly disposed to every suggestion that comes from a Secretary of State that he makes draftsmen available for this kind of thing.
He can look as far as he likes but he will never find me responsible for a thing like this. This is not consolidation. If there had been consolidation, we should have had some guidance, it may well be from the Law Commission. After the Bill was produced we should have a special committee of Lords and Commons. I used to be a member of it hack in the late 1940s. We used to meet up here in a room in the House of Lords and I used to feel that I ought almost to take my shoes off and put on my slippers when I went into it. It was gone into very thoroughly to see that it was actually consolidation. But this is not consolidation; and I shall be glad if the noble and learned Lord can tell me truly that he thinks it is fair to any legislator to bring in a Bill like this. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is the only one who has shown the slightest interest—though occasionally we have had the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and a few others on the Labour Benches taking part—and we really ought to have had every Act of Parliament from 1893 right through to 1980 in front of us if we were going to do the job properly.
This is being done first by the House of Lords and we claim that we do an essential service. It is no essential service to the country for us just to sit and say "Yea" to everything the Government produce in a Bill like this. I have spent hours on it and I do not think those hours have been usefully spent. I could have spent them on something much more important. I think it is an unnecessary Bill and I still think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate should examine the fact that he gave his consent to his draftsmen spending valuable time on a thing like this. It should not have been done, especially as they are so busy that they have to farm out Government Bills to private Members. We have got an education one coming along—filling the statute book with unimportant stuff when there is important stuff, certainly for Scotland, that requires to be done. I say in all sincerity that I think this Bill should be lost in the distance between the Lords and the Commons.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 114, line 7, after ("than") insert ("a substitute road made under section 71(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 or").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment makes an important change in the definition of "road" which will consequentially amend the definition of "street" in the Public Utility Street Works Act 1950. The arrangement here for a substitute road is the system by which a road may be in use while a new piece of road is being constructed. It is important that although that road is used as a road for a certain period the public utilities would not be able to put their apparatus in such a road because it is only going to be there for a temporary period. This amendment ensures

631
that the statutory undertakers cannot bring their apparatus on to a substitute road built under Clause 71. By definition, being a temporary road, such apparatus should not be there. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 157 A to 166A:
Page 126, line 22, at end insert—
("The Pet Animals Act 1951 (c. 35)
.—(1) The Pet Animals Act 1951 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 2 (pets not to be sold in streets or public places), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(3) In section 7(3) (interpretation), after the definition of "pedigree animal" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;"
Page 127, line 38, at end insert—
The Mines and Quarries Act 1954 (c. 70)
. In section 151(2) of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 (fencing of abandoned and disused mines and of quarries) in each of paragraphs (b)(ii) and (c)(ii), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984)".
Page 127, line 38, at end insert—
("The Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 (c. 21)
. In section 37(1) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 (interpretation), after the definition of "predecessors in the tenancy" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'public road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".").
The Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 (c. 59)
. In section 1(3)(i>) (election of alternative to executing remedial works in relation to subsidence damage), for the words "highway maintainable or repairable by the inhabitants at large or a highway in Scotland managed and maintained by the Secretary of State or by a regional or islands council" there shall be substituted the words "public road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984".").
Page 128, line 15, at end insert—
("The Opencast Coal Act 1958 (c. 69)
. In section 13 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 (apparatus of statutory undertakers)—
(a) in subsection (4), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road";
(b) in subsection (5), for the words "highway" and "highways" there shall be substituted, respectively, the words "road" and "roads";
(c) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(5A) In subsections (4) and (5) above, "road" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984."; and
(d) in subsection (6), the words "'highway' includes a public right of way;" shall cease to have effect.").
Page 128, line 15, at end insert—
("The Weeds Act 1959 (c. 54)
. In section 11(2) of the Weeds Act 1959 (interpretation), in the definition of "occupier—
(a) for the words "the authority by whom the road is being maintained" there shall be substituted the words "the roads authority ("public road" and "roads authority" having the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1983)"; and
(b) at the end there shall be added the following proviso—
": Provided that this Act does not apply as regards a road for which the roads authority is the Secretary of State".").
Page 128, line 21, at end insert—
("The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (c. 31)
.—(1) The Weights and Measures Act 1963 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 21(2)(h) (requirement of document as to weight of vehicle and its load), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(3) In section 58(1) (interpretation), after the definition of "prescribed" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".
(4) In Schedule 6 (provisions as to solid fuel)—

(a) In each of paragraphs (3B)and (2), 3C(1) and 10, for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(b) in paragraph 6A(1), for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

The Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964 (c. 28)
. In each of sections 13(7) and 21(2)(a) of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964 (reservation as regards powers of entry), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".").
Page 128, line 27, at end insert—
("The Agriculture Act 1967 (c. 22)
. In section 23(5) of the Agriculture Act 1967 (reservation as regards powers of entry), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".").
Page 131, line 19, at end insert—
("The Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27)
. In section 57(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 (interpretation), in the definition of "public place", for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984."
The Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 (c. 47)
.—(1) The Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 3(1) and (2) (construction of public sewers and public sewage treatment works), for the word "street", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".
(3) In section 12(7) (breaking open street in relation to connecting premises with public sewer etc.), for the word "street", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".
(4) In section 41 (power to break open streets)—

(a) for the words "the carriageway and footways of any street and of any bridge carrying a street" there shall be substituted the words "any road, any bridge carrying a road,";

(b) for the words from "or vault" to "footway", where it first occurs, there shall be substituted the words ", vault, sewer, drain or tunnel in or under a road"; and

(c) for the words "carriageway or footwa", where they occur for the second time, there shall be substituted the word "road".

(5) In section 59(1) (interpretation)—
(a) after the definition of "river purification authority" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'road' has the same meaning as in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950;";
(b) the definition of "street" shall cease to have effect; and
(c) after the definition of "trade premises" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'trunk road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".
The Transport Act 1968 (c73)
.—(1) The Transport Act 1968 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 116 (transfer of responsibility for maintenance of highways on bridges)—
(a) in subsection (3), for the word "highway" where it occurs for the first and fourth times there shall in each case be substituted the word "roads", and where it occurs for the second, third and fifth times there shall in each case be substituted the word "road";
(b) for subsections (4) and (5) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(4) Where paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this section are not satisfied immediately before the appointed day in the case of any such bridge as is mentioned in that subsection, or such a bridge as aforesaid

633
is constructed after that day, then if on any subsequent day—

(a) the Board or Boards concerned are responsible for maintaining the road carried by the bridge, or that road together with the road giving access to the bridge (the "access road"); and

(b) the road at each end—

of the bridge; or

if the Board or Boards are also responsible for maintaining the access Road, of the bridge and the access road, is a public road,

the road (or roads) for which they are so responsible shall forthwith be entered by the local roads authority in the list of public roads kept by the authority under section 1 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.";
(c) in subsection (6)—

at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Without prejudice to the provisions of the said Act of 1984,"; and

for the word "highway" where it occurs for the first, third, fourth and fifth times there shall in each case be substituted the word "road", and where it occurs for the second time there shall be substituted the word "roads; and

(d) in subsection (7), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(3) In section 117 (duties as respects bridges carrying highways)—
(a) in subsection (1)(a), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road";
(b) in subsection (3)(b), for the words "when it is opened for traffic" there shall be substituted the words—
"—

when the bridge is opened (the date of opening being before 1st January 1985) for traffic on the highway so carried;

when the bridge is opened (the date of opening being on or after 1st January 1985) for traffic on the road so carried."; and

(c) in subsection (5), after the word "highway" there shall be inserted the words ", or as the case may be road,".
(4) In section 118(1) (duty of highway authority as respects road bridge over railway or inland waterway)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(b) in paragraph (b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(5) In section 199(1) (ending of liability of certain Boards to make payments on being relieved of responsibility for bridges carrying trunk or special roads)—

(a) for the words "229 of the Highways Act 1959 or section 7 of the Trunk Roads Act 1946" there shall be substituted the words "266 of the Highways Act 1980 or section 77 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984";

(b) after the word "highways", in both places where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words ", or as the case may be roads,";

(c) for the words "230 of the said Act of 1959 or section 8 of the Special Roads Act 1949" there shall be substituted the words "267 of the said Act of 1980 or section 78 of the said Act of 1984";

(d) in paragraph (a), for the words "58(2) of the said Act of 1959, section 7(3) of the said Act of 1946 or section 8(2) of the said Act of 1949" there shall be substituted the words "55(2) of the said Act of 1980 or subsection (4) of the said section 77 (or that subsection as applied by subsection (2) of the said section 78)", and after the word "highway" there shall be inserted the words ", or as the case may be road,"; and

(e) in paragraph (b), for the words "229(3) or 230(2) of the said Act of 1959 or the said section 7(3) or 8(2)" there shall be substituted the words "266(5) or 267(2) of the said Act of 1980 or subsection (4) of the said section 77 (or that subsection applied as aforesaid).".

(6) In section 121(8) (interpretation), at the end there shall be added the words "; and in the application of the said subsection (5) to Scotland the reference to a highway authority shall be construed as a reference to a roads authority.".
(7) In section 122 (further provision as regards interpretation)—

(a) in subsections (1) and (3), for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(b) subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.

(8) In section 123 (power of highway and other authorities to contribute to cost of barriers, etc., at level crossings), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
(9) In section 124(1)(a) (Railways Board's obligations at level crossings with roads other than public carriage roads) for the words "public carriage" there shall be substituted the words "carriageway of a public".
(10) In section 149 (application of road traffic enactments to Crown roads)—

(a) in subsection (2), in each of paragraphs (a) and (b) for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

(b) in subsection (5)(b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "public road".

(11) In section 159(1) (general interpretation)—
(a) after the definition of "bus service" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'carriageway' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";
(b) in the definition of "highway authority", paragraph (b) shall cease to have effect;
(c) after the definition of "liability" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'local roads authority' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";
(d) after the definition of "plated weight" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'public road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;"; and
(e) after the definition of "the Railways Board" there shall be inserted the following definitions—
"'road' and 'roads authority' have the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;" ").
Page 131, line 24, at end insert—
("The Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972 (c. 27)
. In section 7(1) of the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972 (interpretation), for the definition of "road" there shall be substituted the following definition—
"'road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".")
Page 131, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) In section 14 (disregarding of representations with respect to development authorised by or under other enactments), in paragraph (a), for the words from "1 of" to" 1949" there shall be substituted the words "5, 7, 9, or 12 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984".
( ) In section 19(2) (certain operations or uses of land not to be taken to involve development)—

(a) in paragraph (b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

(b) in paragraph (c), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".

( ) In section 136(2) (compensation not payable in respect of imposition of certain conditions), for the word "highway", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".
( ) In section 181(1) (scope of certain provisions relating to blight notices)—
(a) for paragraph (e) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(e) is land on or adjacent to the line of a road proposed to be constructed, improved or altered, as indicated in an order or scheme—

which has come into operation under; or

which is proposed to be made or confirmed under, and in respect of which a notice has been published under Schedule 1 to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, being land in relation to which a power of compulsory acquisition conferred by that Act may become exercisable as being land required for purposes of construction, improvement or alteration as indicated in the order or scheme; "; and

635
(b) in paragraph (f), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads"
( ) In section 194(2) (questions as to appropriate authority for purposes of certain provisions), in each of paragraphs (a) and (b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
( ) In section 195 (interpretation)—
(a) in subsection (3), for the word "highway", in each place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and
(b) in subsection (4), for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(aa) the coming into operation of any requisite scheme or order under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".
( ) In section 198 (highways affected by development: orders by Secretary of State)—
(a) in subsection (1), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road";
(b) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(2) Any order under this section may make such provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for the construction or improvement of any other road, and may direct that the other road so constructed or improved—

(a) shall be entered by the local roads authority in the list of public roads kept by them under section 1 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984; or

(b) shall be deemed for the purposes of that Act, to have been constructed by him under section 18 thereof,

and in the case of a road so deemed, that it shall, on such date as may be specified in the order, become a trunk road within the meaning of that Act.";
(c) in subsection (3)—

in paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (ii), and the word "or" immediately preceding that sub-paragraph, shall cease to have effect; and

in paragraph (b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(d) in each of subsections (4) and (5)(a), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
( ) In section 198A (highways affected by development: orders by planning authorities)—
(a) in subsection (1)—

for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road";

in paragraph (a), for the words "section 50 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970" there shall be substituted the words "the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"; and

in paragraph (b), for the words "section 1 of the Special Roads Act 1949" there shall be substituted the words "that Act";

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for the word "provision", where it occurs for the second time, there shall be substituted the word "construction", for the word "highway", where it first occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road", and for the words "any highway so provided or improved shall be maintained and managed by the highway authority" there shall be substituted the words "the other road so constructed or improved shall be entered by the local roads authority in the list of public roads kept by the local roads authority under section 1 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"; and

(ii) in paragraph (b)(i), the words "sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of" shall cease to have effect;

(c) in each of subsections (3) and (4), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and
(d) in subsection (5), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
( ) In section 201 (order extinguishing right to use vehicles on highway)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

for the word "highway", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

for the words "8 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act 1909" there shall be substituted the words "3 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984";

(b) in subsection (2), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road";

636

(c) in subsection (3), for the word "highway"—

where it first occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

where it occurs for the second time, there shall be substituted the word "road";

(d) in each of subsections (4), (5) and (8), for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road";

(e) in subsection (9)(b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads";

(f) in subsection (10)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for the word "provision", where it occurs for the second time, there shall be substituted the word "construction", for the word "highway", where it first occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road", and for the words "any highway so provided or improved shall be maintained and managed by the highway authority" there shall be substituted the words "the other road so constructed or improved shall be entered by the local roads authority in the list of public roads kept by the local roads authority under section 1 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"; and

(ii) in paragraph (b)(i), the words "sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of" shall cease to have effect; and

(g) in subsection (11)(a), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".

( ) In section 202 (provision of amenity for highway reserved to pedestrians)—

(a) in each of subsections (1) to (4), for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(b) in subsection (5), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

( ) In section 204 (procedure for making of orders by Secretary of State), in each of subsections (2) and (7), for the word "highway" wherever it occurs there shall be substituted the word "road".
( ) In section 205A(1)(a) (further procedure in anticipation of planning permission, etc.), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word"
( ) In section 206(3)(aa) (provision as to time specified in certain orders), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".").
Page 131, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) In section 210A(2) (recovery of costs of making orders relating to roads paths, etc.)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

(b) in paragraph (d), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".

( ) In section 242(1) (contributions by local authorities towards certain expenses incurred by a local highway authority or the Secretary of State)—

(a) for the words from "the provisions" to "highways" there shall be substituted the words "section 5(9) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (power of local roads authority to contribute towards costs incurred by Secretary of State in construction or improvement of trunk road"; and

(b) for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

( ) In section 250(1) (expenses of, and borrowing by, local authorities), for the words "highway" and "highways" there shall in each case be substituted the word "roads".
( ) In section 275(1) (interpretation)—
(a) in the definition of "engineering operations", for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
(b) for the definition of "improvement" there shall be substituted the following definition—
"'improvement', in relation to a road, has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";
(c) for the definition of "local highway authority" there shall be substituted the following definition—
"'local roads authority' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";
(d) in the definition of "means of access", for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

637
(e) after the definition of "restriction on the winning and working of minerals" there shall be inserted the following definitions—
"'road and roads authority' have the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".")
Page 132, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) In section 65—
(a) subsection (1) shall cease to have effect; and
(b) in each of subsections (2) and (3), for the words "this section" there shall be substituted the words "section 181(1)(e)(ii) of the Act of 1972".")
Page 132, line 19, at end insert—
("The Control of Pollution Act 1974 (c. 40)
.—(1) The Control of Pollution Act 1974 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 13 (dustbins etc.)—

(a) in subsection (7)(c), for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

(b) in subsection (7A)—

(i) for the word "highway", where it first occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(ii) in paragraph (a), for the words "relevant highway authority" there shall be substituted the words "roads authority".

(3) In section 27(1) (interference with refuse tips and dustbins etc.)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "parish or community council" there shall be substituted the words "roads authority";

(b) in paragraph (b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(c) the words "or council" and from "In the application" to "1970" shall cease to have effect.

(4) In section 32(1)(c) (control of discharge of matter other than trade or sewage effluent)—

(a) for the words "works which a highway authority is obliged or entitled to keep open by virtue of section 10 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970" there shall be substituted the words "a drain which a roads authority is obliged or entitled to keep open by virtue of section 30 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"; and

(b) for the word "highway", where it occurs for the third time, there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(5) In section 62 (noise in streets)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the word "street", where it first occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(ii) the words from "In this subsection" to "public" shall cease to have effect; and

(b) in subsection (2)(e), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "public road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984)".

(6) In section 105(1) (interpretation), after the definition of "regulations" there shall be inserted the following definitions—
"'road' (except where the context otherwise requires) has the same meaning as in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950;
'roads authority' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".
(7) In section 106 (general application to Scotland), subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.").
Page 132, line 35, at end insert—
("The Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 (c. 66)
.—(1) The Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 28(2) (interpretation)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "Special Roads Act 1949" there shall be substituted the words "Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"; and

(b) in paragraph (b), for the words "2 to that Act, as varied from time to time by any order under section 2" there shall be substituted the words "3 to that Act, as varied from time to time by any order under section 8".

(3) In section 139(1) (interpretation), in the definition of "hawking", for the words "the streets, highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 (c. 3)
.—(1) The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 2(1)(a) (unauthorised dumping of motor vehicle etc.), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(3) In section 3 (removal of abandoned vehicles)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road";

(b) in subsection (3), the words "within the meaning of the Highways Act 1959" and "within the meaning of that Act" shall cease to have effect; and

(c) subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.

(4) In section 6(1) (removal and disposal of things other than motor vehicles), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(5) In section 11(1) (interpretation)—
(a) for the definition of "highway" there shall be substituted the following definition—
"'carriageway' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;"; and
(b) after the definition of "the relevant date" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".")
Page 132, line 43, at end insert—
("The Water (Scotland) Act 1980 (c. 45)
.—(1) The Water (Scotland) Act 1980 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 9(5) (powers of water authority as regards supply of water for non-domestic purposes), for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
(3) In section 10(5) (interpretation)—
(a) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) roads authorities as defined in section 143(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;"; and
(b) for paragraph (d) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(d) road managers as defined in section 2(5) of the said Act of 1950;".
(4) In each of sections 13(5) (accelerated procedure for supply of water in bulk) and 22 (power to break open streets), for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
(5) In section 23 (power to lay mains etc.)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for the word "street" where it occurs for the first and second times there shall in each case be substituted the word "road" and for the words from "the persons" to "street" where it occurs for the third time there shall be substituted the words—
"—
(i) where the road is a public road, the roads authority: and
(ii) in any other case, the authority or person responsible for the maintenance of the road, or, if no authority or person is so responsible, to the owners of the solum of the road,"; and
(ii) in paragraph (b), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and
(b) in subsection (2), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(6) In section 24 (communication and supply pipes), in each of subsections (1) and (4) for the word "street", there shall be substituted the word "road".
(7) In section 25(2) (power of islands or district council to erect and maintain drinking fountain or trough)—

(a) for the word "street", where it first occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(b) for the words from "if" to "authority" where it occurs for the second time there shall be substituted the words "there shall be no such erection by the district council without the roads authority's consent".

(8) In section 33 (temporary discharge of water into watercourse)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the word "street", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road" and for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads";

(b) in subsection (2), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

639

(c) in subsection (10), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "public road".

(9) In section 75(2)(b) (saving as regards penalty for polluting water), for the words "highway, so long as the highway" there shall be substituted the words "public road, so long as the roads".
(10) In section 76(3) (carrying of drain etc. under, across or along any street)—

(a) for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads";

(b) for the words "street", where it first occurs, and "streets" there shall be substituted respectively, the words "road" and "roads"; and

(c) for the words "street maintainable at the public expense"there shall be substituted the words "public road".

(11) In section 77(3)(c) (application of order relating to obtaining supplies of water to meet drought), for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
(12) In section 109 (interpretation)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) the definition of "bridge authority" shall cease to have effect;
(ii) in the definition of "communication pipe", for the word "street", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road";
(iii) the definitions of "highway" and "highway authority" shall cease to have effect;
(iv) after the definition of "prescribed" there shall be inserted the following definitions—
'"private road" and "public road" have the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;';
(v) after the definition of "river purification authority" there shall be inserted the following definitions—
'"road" has the same meaning as in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950;
"roads authority" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;'; and
(vi) the definition of "street" shall cease to have effect; and
(b) subsection (2) shall cease to have effect.
(13) In section 110 (further provisions as to communication pipes), in each of subsections (1) and (2), for the word "street", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".
(14) in Schedule 3 (provisions as to breaking open streets and laying communication and supply pipes)—
(a) in paragraph 1—

for the words "the roadway and footpaths of any street and of any bridge carrying a street" there shall be substituted the words "a road";

for the word "street" where it occurs for the third time there shall be substituted the wood "road"; and

for the words "roadway or footpath", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the word "road";

(b) in paragraph 2—

in sub-paragraph (1), for the words "the roadway or footpath of a street or bridge (not being a street or bridge maintainable at the public expense) which is" there shall be substituted the words "a private road"; and

in sub-paragraph (2), for the words "the roadway or footpath of any length of street" there shall be substituted the words "any length of road";

(c) paragraph 3 shall cease to have effect;
(d) in paragraph 4—
(i) in sub-paragraph (1), for the word "street" where it occurs for the first and second times there shall in each case be substituted the word "road" and in the proviso, for the words "the persons having control or management of the street" there shall be substituted the words—
"—
(i) where the road is a public road, the roads authority; and
(ii) in any other case, the authority or person responsible for the maintenance of the road, or, if no authority or person is so responsible, to the owners of the solum of the road";
(ii) in sub-paragraph (2), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road";
(e) in each of paragraphs 5, 6(1), 7(2) and (8) for the word "street", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and
640
(f) in paragraph 9, in the proviso to sub-paragraph (2)—

(i) for the word "street", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(ii) for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(15) In Schedule 4 (provisions to be included in orders relating to water undertakings)—
(a) in paragraph 2 for the word "street", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road";
(b) in paragraph 5—
(i) in sub-paragraph (1)—
for the word "street", in both places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "road" and for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and
in the proviso, for the words from "—(a)" to the end of head (b) there shall be substituted the following words—
"in, on or over—

(a) any public road except with the consent of the roads authority;

(b) any other road or other land or, without prejudice to head (a) above, any public road for which the roads authority is the Secretary of State, except with the consent of the regional or islands council within whose area the road or other land is;"; and

(ii) in sub-paragraph (2)—
for the words "council or a highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and for the word "street" in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road";
(c) in paragraph 22, for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road";
(d) in paragraph 24—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(e) in paragraph 36, for the word "streets", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads" and for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and
(f) in paragraph 39—
(i) in the proviso to sub-paragraph (1), for the words "to the persons having the control or management of the street or other place where they propose to open the ground, and" there shall be substituted the following words—
—(a) where the ground is, or comprehends, part of—

a public road, to the roads authority; or

any other road, to the person responsible for the maintenance of that road, or, if no authority or person is so responsible, to the owners of the solum of that part; and

(b) where or in so far as the ground is not mentioned in head (a) above, to the person having the control or management of the ground;
and the undertakers";
and for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and
(ii) in sub-paragraph (2), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".")
Page 134, line 9, at end insert—
("The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (c. 45)
.—(1) The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 19(5) (restriction on power to appoint taxi stance)—

(a) for the words "highway authority (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970)" there shall be substituted the words "roads authority";

(b) for the word "highway", where it occurs for the second time, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(c) the words "being a highway" shall cease to have effect.

(3) In section 48(4) (interpretation of provisions relating to fouling of pavements by dogs), for the words "meanings respectively assigned to them by section 50(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970" there shall be substituted the words "same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984".
(4) In section 54(3)(e) (non-application of provisions relating to annoyance caused by playing musical instruments etc.), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(5) In the proviso to section 96(1) (restriction on exercise of certain powers as rega3rds statutes and monuments), for head (ii) there shall be substituted the following head—
"(ii) where such land is a road, the roads authority,".
(6) In section 125(1) (interference with dustbins etc.) for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(7) In section 128(2) (control of stray dogs), for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the words "in roads".
(8) In section 133 (interpretation), after the definition of "public place" there shall be inserted the following definitions—
"'public road', 'road' and 'roads authority' have the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".")
Page 134, line 19, at end insert—
("The Level Crossings Act 1983 (c. 16)
. In section 1(11) of the Level Crossings Act 1983, for the definition of "road" there shall be substituted the following definition—
"'road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".")
The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments are explained in the same way as the previous bloc. These are consequential amendments to a number of statutes consequent upon the new arrangements and the new structure of road legislation in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Here we have not only a highways Bill, but a streets Bill as well. Is it contended that people will more readily understand and be more legally satisfied with the fact that you can sell pets in roads rather than in streets? Where are they usually sold? Ask anybody and off the cuff he will say "in the the streets". But the word "street" has gone. It is now a dirty word. It is like "highway" and "turnpike". It is such nonsense. I now come to Amendment No. 159, which is part of this group that is moved en bloc. Am I right in thinking that there is a new power in paragraph (b) and that it is not, as the noble and learned Lord said, bringing something up to date? Am I right in thinking that this is a new power?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I think not. What is being done in Amendment No. 159 is to adapt the provisions of the Weeds Act 1959, so that they conform with the principles which are set out in respect of the subordinate legislation in the amendment which I moved earlier. As I understand it and as I explained, that is all that is happening.
Lord Ross of Marnock: As I understand it, it applies to the Secretary of State as the roads authority, though previously it did not apply to the Secretary of State; and, of course, the Secretary of State has always been a roads authority in respect of special roads. So I think that this is a new power. I am not prepared to argue whether or not he should have it. I think that he should have it, provided I know what the Weeds Act does. But I do not think anybody in this House will be able to tell us what the Weeds Act 1959 really does. This is the nonsense of this Bill. This matter should not be dealt with in the this way in a Committee of the Whole House. This should have gone to some special committee of two or three people, who could have gone over anything that was done. But I am not objecting. There are a few other points which I could
642
make, but there is no point in making them. The process is a farce.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 8, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ross of Marnock: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could tell us exactly why the words "highway" and "road" have been left in, and given a special definition under the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950? We have not got rid of "road" here, where elsewhere we have. The same is true in respect of some other words. We deliberately leave in the word "highway" in respect of Section 117 of the Transport Act 1968.
There is one other question that I want to ask about this schedule. Many of these Acts are United Kingdom Acts. Does that mean that we shall have one definition of "road" in respect of England and Wales, and another definition for Scotland? In other words, will the word "street" remain for England and Wales, but be changed to "road" for Scotland? There is an indication of that happening in Amendment No. 161A:
"(5) to Scotland the reference to a highway authority shall be construed as a reference to a roads authority."
Does that mean that in England it is still a highway authority, and that in England there will still be a reference to turnpike roads and even to streets, but not in Scotland? All this is for the better understanding of roads legislation! It really is asking us to accept far too much. But the question I want to ask is in respect of United Kingdom legislation which we are amending here. What happens to the English part of the legislation?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The situation is that, so far as the English part of the legislation is concerned, it is consistent with the structure of the English system of legislation in relation to roads or highways. The Scottish legislation, and the parts affecting Scotland in United Kingdom legislation, will be consistent with the Scottish system when these amendments are made. We have tried to be consistent throughout in that. So far as the Public Utilities Street Works Act is concerned, the provisions there are adapted for both jurisdictions and are, in my view, adapted appropriately.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I expect that they will be adapted appropriately, but they have not been explained. The answer to my question is, yes. There will still be highways in England but not in Scotland, because the Scottish lawyers have had a great deal of trouble, worry and concern over the presence of the word "highway", but there has been no such trouble in England. I cannot understand the difficulties into which Scottish lawyers have got, as compared with their English counterparts. But I will not quarrel with it. I am still trying to demonstrate the nonsense of this whole business.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Certain special roads to be trunk roads]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 166B to 173:
Page 136, line 21, at end insert—

("51 & 52 Vict. c. 25.

The Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1888.

Section 16(3).")

Page 136, column 3, leave out lines 35 and 36.
Page 137, line 45, at end insert—

("6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 69.

The Opencast Coal Act 1958.

In section 13(6), the words "'highway' includes a public right of way;".")

Page 137, line 53, at end insert—

("10 & 11 Eliz. 2. c. 58.

The Pipe-lines Act 1962.

In section 66(1), the definition of 'carriageway'.")

Page 138, line 14, at end insert—

("1968 c. 47.

The Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968.

In section 59(1), the definition of 'street'.")

Page 138, line 15, column 3, at beginning insert—
("In section 119(1)(a), the word "repair".
Section 121(6) and (7).
Section 122(4).")
Page 138, line 15, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 159(1), in the definition of "highway authority", paragraph (b).")
Page 138, line 27, column 3, at beginning insert—
("Sub-paragraph (ii) of section 198(3)(a) and the word "or" immediately preceding that sub-paragraph.
In section 198A(2)(b)(i), the words "sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of".")
Page 138, line 27, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 201(10)(b)(i), the words "sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of.")
Page 138, line 55, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 232(3), in paragraph (a) the words "under section 200 by the Secretary of State," and ",200,"; and in paragraph (b) the words "under section 200 by a highway authority,".
In section 236(1), the words "200,".")
Page 138, line 58, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 20, paragraph 3.")
Page 139, line 6, column 3, at end insert—
("Section 65(1).")
Page 139, line 9, at end insert—

("1974 c. 40.

The Control of Pollution Act 1974.

In section 27(1), the words "or council"; and from "In the application" to "1970".")

Page 139, line 10, column 3, leave out ("Section 14(1)(a).") and insert ("In section 14(1), paragraph (a) and the words "local highway authority," where they occur other than in that paragraph.")
Page 139, line 11, at end insert—

("1978 c. 3.

The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978.

In section 3, in subsection (3) the words "within the meaning of the Highways Act 1959" and "within the meaning of that Act"; and subsection (4).").

Page 139, line 11, at end insert—

("1980 c. 45.

The Water(Scotland)1980.

In section 109, in subsection (1), the definition of bridge authority", "highway", "highway authority" and "street"; and subsection (2). In Schedule 3, paragraph 3.").

Page 129, line 19, at end insert—

("1982 c. 45.

The Civil Government (Scotland) Act 1982

In section 13(6), the words "(within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1972)".

In section 19(5), the words "being a highway".

In section 97, the words "street or" and "to which the public have access".").

The noble and learned Lord said: I would ask leave to move these amendments to Schedule 10 en bloc. They make minor repeals of provisions which will be rendered unnecessary or inappropriate by the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am not going to object. It becomes so crazy with this Bill and it is pointless. I even passed over a mis-spelling of the word "structure". I did not want to draw anyone's attention to it, but it was spelled without a "t". I shall give the noble and learned Lord the reference, but I really thought that it was some new term that had been introduced by the Scottish Office, and who am I to question even the spelling of the Scottish Office as interpreted by the printers? But may we have a promise that there will be no further amendment of this schedule at the next stage of the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am sure that the noble Lord would not like me to put myself in a position where I could not get the Bill, on leaving this House to go on its journey to the other place, as perfect as it is possible for us to make it. Apart from anything else, the noble Lord has put to me some points which we shall have to consider in relation to further amendments, and I feel certain that the noble Lord, with his great interest in and regard for the Scottish system, would like the Bill, now that it has gone thus far, to be as perfect as possible when it leaves here.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I was referring not to the points which I raised during the course of the Bill but to the changes which have been made to this schedule, which spring from the additions which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is to make to Schedule 8. It must be a record to have 24 more pages added to a schedule. It will run to over 50 pages, depending upon how the printer prints the schedule. No doubt the printer will be instructed to print it closely, so that my suggestion is not brought to fruition. Can the Lord Advocate tell me whether any more additions will be made to Schedule 8 which will necessitate further amendments to Schedule 9 at the next stage of the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: As I have already said, I have no doubt that the noble Lord would like the Bill to be as perfect as possible. If it appears as our work continues that the Bill would be made more perfect by further amendments, I am sure that the noble Lord would wish me to come forward with them. I am not

645
very good at prophecy. I do not know that I ought to endeavour to make any prophecies at this stage about what will happen at the next stage of the Bill. However, perhaps I may take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and to my noble friends Lord Selkirk, Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Stodart of Leaston for the interest they have taken in the Committee stage of the Bill and for the help they have given in making the Bill as perfect as it is now.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
House adjourned at three minutes past nine o'clock.

  BRITISH CITIZENSHIP: OUTSTANDING APPLICATIONS
  BRITISH CITIZENSHIP: OUTSTANDING APPLICATIONS
  PRISONERS: TRANSFERS
  PRISONERS: TRANSFERS
  FOOD PRODUCTION IN NUCLEAR WAR
  FOOD PRODUCTION IN NUCLEAR WAR
  BADGER TRAPPING
  BADGER TRAPPING
  MAGPIE POPULATION STATISTICS
  MAGPIE POPULATION STATISTICS
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981
  MIDDLESEX AREA MAGISTRATES' COURTS
  MIDDLESEX AREA MAGISTRATES' COURTS
  LEBANON: PEACE INITIATIVES
  LEBANON: PEACE INITIATIVES
  MALAYSIA: DEATH SENTENCES
  MALAYSIA: DEATH SENTENCES
  MR. MAHMUT DIKERDEM
  MR. MAHMUT DIKERDEM
  TURKISH PEACE ASSOCIATION MEMBERS' TRIAL
  TURKISH PEACE ASSOCIATION MEMBERS' TRIAL
  TURKISH PEACE COMMITTEE: NOBEL PRIZE PROPOSAL
  TURKISH PEACE COMMITTEE: NOBEL PRIZE PROPOSAL
  AFRICAN STATE BOUNDARIES: OAU RESOLUTION
  AFRICAN STATE BOUNDARIES: OAU RESOLUTION
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS: WARSAW PACT PROPOSAL
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS: WARSAW PACT PROPOSAL
  US NUCLEAR WARHEAD PRODUCTION
  US NUCLEAR WARHEAD PRODUCTION
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: VOTING ON UN RESOLUTIONS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: VOTING ON UN RESOLUTIONS