Sitting of 3 July 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    SELBY BRIDGE BILL
    Lords amendments agreed to.
    CHARING CROSS AND WESTMINSTER MEDICAL SCHOOL BILL [Lords]
      SWAVESEY BYE-WAYS BILL [Lords]
      Read the Third time, and passed.
    MERSEYSIDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL
    To be read the Third time.
    LONDON TRANSPORT (TOWER HILL) BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Youth Training Scheme
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the future of the youth training scheme.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison):The Government expect to receive further advice from the Manpower Services Commission on the future development of the youth training scheme within the next few weeks and will take this into account in reviewing the scheme.
    Mr. Haselhurst:Has my hon. Friend seen sufficient of the scheme to be satisfied that it has been successfully instituted? Could it be expanded in the reasonably near future to become a two-year programme?
    Mr. Morrison:I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that, by general consent, the scheme has been very successful indeed. Expanding the scheme so that it lasted for two years would, of course, involve considerably more resources.
    Mr. Cyril Smith:If the Minister is not able to give the House an assurance that the whole scheme can be extended to last for two years, will he give particular consideration to the needs of young people who are slow learners or who are physically handicapped? They need a two-year
    130
    scheme, as opposed to a one-year scheme, in order to obtain the full benefit from it. Will the Minister consider extending the scheme for two years for such young people?
    Mr. Morrison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the needs of the groups to whom he refers are among the matters which my right hon. Friend and I are carefully considering. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the scheme has been extended for the disabled.
    Mr. Rowe: Given the often extremely mischievous attempts to decry the scheme as a total failure, can my hon. Friend tell us how many of the young people involved have managed to find permanent employment, or the promise of permanent employment, at the conclusion of the first year of the scheme?
    Mr. Morrison: It is a little early to give a precise figure. However, the early signs are very encouraging and suggest that the placement rates will compare very favourably with those achieved on the youth opportunities programme.
    Mr. Leighton: Why have the Government devalued the YTS by lowering the real value of the YTS allowance? Is the Minister aware that an increase of 5 per cent. in no way keeps pace with the rate of inflation? Has he noticed that the Secretary of State for Transport plans to increase London Transport fares by 10 or 12 per cent., on the plea that that is necessitated by the rate of inflation? What is the reason for those double standards?
    Mr. Morrison: There are just under a quarter of a million trainees on the scheme and they do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the level of allowance. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Manpower Services Commission recently made a recommendation to my right hon. Friend, which we are now considering.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister not realise that when his Department and the MSC took the decision to abolish mode B1 places for community projects under the YTS considerable damage was done to area boards? Will he, in reviewing the operation of the scheme, take the advice of area boards of the MSC rather than rely on the MSC, which seems to be out of touch with the realities of the situation?
    Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is a significant waste of taxpayers' money if only 55,000 of the 90,000 mode B1 places are occupied. We have decided that there will be about 70,000 places, which seems to be the right way of approaching the matter.
    Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend liaise with his hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence to ascertain whether its scheme, which, I believe, is one of the best in the country, can be further extended and advertised?
    Mr. Morrison: I assure my hon. Friend that my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence and I talk about that scheme. I appreciate what my hon. Friend said about advertising the scheme.
    Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware that the proposal to increase the YTS allowance by only £1·25 per week is disgraceful, bearing in mind that the YTS allowance has been pegged at £25 since its inception? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government

    131
    continually veto all proposals to increase that allowance in line with inflation, such as the proposal recommended by the MSC? Is he further aware that YTS trainees should be paid properly, at a figure of about £34 per week, not £26·25 per week? Are the Government not using this measure to depress wage levels for all young people generally?
    Mr. Morrison: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that the MSC recommended an increase to £26·25, by a majority of six to three. That means all the local authorities agreeing with the CBI, and the TUC dissenting. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not yet made up his mind about the precise level of allowance in the year ahead.

    Work Permits
    Mr. Ashbyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what action has been taken about the corrupt issuing of work permits by officials of his Department.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): The Director of Public Prosecutions has recently decided that there is no adequate basis for proceedings against any official of my Department. Following this, an internal investigation has been started to establish whether further procedural safeguards are needed to supplement those already introduced since these matters first came to light in 1982.
    Mr. Ashby: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the investigation was carried out by the most junior police officer that one could find? Is my hon. Friend really satisfied that these matters have been fully and properly investigated? Does he think that the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions was based on evidence obtained by police officers who did not have the will to investigate the matter properly?
    Mr. Clark: I have read the transcript of the trial. I understand some of the points that my hon. Friend has implied, although I certainly would not endorse the tone of his question. My Department co-operated fully with the police in this matter. I am not responsible for the vigour with which the police pursue their investigations or the level at which they conduct them—those are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Is it fair that Mark Fiora and Brett Saunders have been denied work permits and prevented from riding for the Monarchs, the famous Edinburgh speedway team?
    Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman has made great headway on these cases, and he knows very well that I have done my best to help him. The fact remains that speedway riders in that category of competition do not earn sufficient money to support themselves simply by speedway riding. It is generally recognised that they take odd jobs and perform casual labour, to the detriment of the prospects of the domestic work force, and, for that reason, their permits are refused.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that Reuben Davis was earning £50,000 per year from illegal immigration into this country—£8,000 a time for a work permit from the Department? Is my hon. Friend also aware that in 1975 Alex Lyon, then the Minister of State, Home Office, warned the right hon. Member for Glasgow,
    132
    Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), then the Home Secretary, of what was going on in his Department and that there seems to have been a glorious cover-up? Does my hon. Friend understand that Back Benchers will not tolerate the kind of cover-up that we have seen in the Civil Service?
    Mr. Clark: I always welcome my hon. Friend's robust interventions. I am sure that the whole House appreciates the manner in which he sets himself up as a watchdog on this type of subject. I have no knowledge of Reuben Davis's earnings, whether legal or illegal. As I said earlier, an investigation is under way. I hope that the report will be to hand by the end of the month. If my hon. Friend attends the next Employment Question Time on 2 August, he will be able to ask me about the subject again.

    Special Employment Measures
    Mr. Martinasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of people occupied on Government special employment measures; and how this number has altered since 1979.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): A total of 622,000 people in Great Britain were supported by the Government's special employment and training measures at the end of April 1984. This is an increase of 388,000 over the April 1979 figure.
    Mr. Martin: Surely this shows that Government intervention can reduce unemployment. Therefore, the Minister should embark on schemes of public expenditure to help inner cities such as the area which I represent. Does he accept that he should embark on road-building schemes and perhaps even turn his attention to the sewerage systems in many major cities? That approach would help to reduce unemployment.
    Mr. Gummer: I believe that we should seek every means of reducing unemployment, but it would not help to reduce unemployment by taxing successful schemes to produce jobs which would reduce the opportunities of employment in successful firms. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Thurnham: At what level does my hon. Friend envisage the total number on such schemes in future?
    Mr. Gummer: We are examining the schemes, because we have to consider how we may improve them. I shall be happy to answer my hon. Friend's question when we have completed the investigation.
    Ms. Clare Short: Is the Minister aware that in Birmingham we are gravely concerned about the operation of the largest of the schemes, the youth training scheme, because it appears that between two thirds and three quarters of those who have left it are unemployed? We are told by the local area board that the minimum criteria for renewal that it has set are not met by 40 per cent. of the schemes and that only 3 per cent. are better than the criteria.
    Mr. Gummer: I ask the hon. Lady to help the young people concerned by supporting the schemes which we have introduced instead of constantly attacking them and making statements which seem not to tally with statements made in the Birmingham area.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Has any estimate been made of the net cost to public funds of these schemes? Even if there is a negative cost to the Exchequer, will the Minister accept that the community benefit of many of the schemes is such that he might be well advised to increase their number, rather than inhibit their growth?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we should consider the schemes from that point of view, and we are doing so. Each scheme has a different net cost, and sometimes net costs differ from one part of a scheme to another.
    Mr. Lawler: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the MSC makes it clear to young people who are denied opportunities in the postal services, local and national Government service and in printing that they will not be able to follow schemes in those sectors because of politically motivated opposition from the trade unions?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has made an important point. However, I should much prefer Opposition Members to speak in a non-party political way about the youth training scheme. It is for that reason that I have gone in for a self-denying ordinance of not pointing out the outrageous activities of those who seek to oppose the scheme.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister acknowledge that the job release scheme, introduced by a Labour Government, is one of the best and most imaginative of all Government schemes, but that, regrettably, more than 250,000 men between the ages of 62 and 64 no longer qualify for that scheme? Should not the Government have reduced the age of eligibility from 62 to 60, rather than increasing it from 62 to 64?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure we all agree that it is an imaginative scheme —so much so that the hon. Gentleman's party changed the rules four times. [Interruption.] I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we have to look at all the schemes together and decide how best the money should be spent. We have not at the moment any intention of changing the scheme.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest number of unemployed in the United Kingdom.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): On 10 May the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,084,457.
    Mr. Flannery: Will you accept from me, Mr. Speaker, that I am about to talk in a non-party political way, like the chairman of the Tory party?
    Will the Minister agree that, after the figures have been massaged so brilliantly, there are 1 million more unemployed than the number to which he is confessing? In view of the Government's grand passion to get the miners back to work, will the Minister begin by getting the other 4·5 million people back to work? They all want to work, but the Government will not allow them to go back to work.
    Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his bipartisan approach to the question. I do not see the point of trying to argue about whether or not the figures are
    134
    massaged in a particular way, unless there is an hon. Member who actually thinks that 3 million unemployed is an acceptable figure and that 3·5 million is not acceptable. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in saying that the figure is too high, that it is a matter of concern to everybody in the House, and that we are all concerned to see that unemployment is reduced and people are able to get real jobs. Against that background, I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that in the past month, in his city of Sheffield, placings in the jobcentre were 22 per cent. higher than for the same period last year.
    Sir Dudley Smith: In view of that last answer. will my right hon. Friend say whether productivity is increasing, and, if it is, what effect it is having on employment generally?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend puts his finger on a very important point. Of course, we have the problem of a further 160,000 people corning into the work market at present. It is also important to note that we have a continuing improvement in productivity of about 8 per cent. in manufacturing. That is very important indeed for the future competitiveness of Britain, but it raises problems at the present time in regard to employment. It is vital, if we are to have real jobs, that we continue to improve our productivity.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite his attitude about the unemployment figures in the west midlands, the unemployed to vacancy ratio stands at over 35? Even if every one of the unemployed—on the Secretary of State's definition—got a job, there would still be 34 in the west midlands, on his statistics, who would not. Does the Secretary of State agree that he actually likes to have 3 million unemployed, because he uses them as a weapon against the rest of the organised trade union movement?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say categorically from this Dispatch Box that the present level of unemployment is unacceptably high, and I do not in any sense regard it as acceptable. The only hope of getting jobs that last is to have an economy in which inflation is low, in which interest rates are lower than those of some of our major competitors overseas, in which productivity keeps rising, and in which growth continues to improve. Those are the conditions that we have established and they are the best hope for the unemployed.
    Mr. Latham: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there would be a further severe rise in unemployment if there were to be a public sector moratorium on construction work? Will he make it clear to his Cabinet colleagues that such a thing must be resisted at all costs?
    Mr. King: I feel that, in a previous incarnation, I have been here before. My hon. Friend will know—I do riot wish to trespass on other matters—that one of the most important issues which we must tackle are the levels of public expenditure to ensure that, through them, interest rates do not rise and that we do not have inflation rising again, otherwise we shall do infinitely more damage to the construction industry and every other industry, but I have no comment to make on the point that my hon. Friend raises.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has been telling the House, can he say whether unemployment at the end of this year will be lower than it was at the beginning of the year?
    Mr. King: So far as I know, no Minister of any Government has forecast future levels of unemployment. I have put these issues to the House in what I hope is a sensible and responsible way. The House knows the challenges that we face. The rates of unemployment of some of our partners in the EEC are now at significantly higher levels than those which we face. This is a world problem that we are tackling, and we are tackling it in a responsible way.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the mad antics of Arthur Scargill and his cohorts are likely to cause more long-term unemployment than anything else that is happening in Britain, because of the effects of what they are doing on other people's costs, coupled with the fact that people will find substitutes for coal, which in turn will damage long-term employment in the mining industry?
    Mr. King: The present situation is extremely serious. It is interesting to note, for example, that were serious damage to be done to the steel industry by the present dispute, that would be likely to cost more jobs in the mining industry than possibly even in the steel industry. Therefore, the present situation poses a major threat to jobs.
    Mr. John Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that included in the appalling unemployment total is the high figure of long-term unemployed, now running at more than 1·25 million? Is he further aware that we would take his protestations of concern more seriously if the Government would, for example, give the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to the long-term unemployed? If the Government are not prepared to give these people social justice, what hope does the right hon. Gentlemam offer to more than 1 million people, most of whom will never work again?
    Mr. King: That was an irresponsible statement for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make. He knows that about 6 million people will get new jobs in Britain this year and that among them will be many of the long-term unemployed. I have complaints coming to my Department about the difficulties faced, for example, by London Transport in recruiting bus drivers in London, and about the difficulty that is being experienced in getting people for skilled and semi-skilled jobs in London and the southeast. It so happens that the greatest number of long-term unemployed are in London and the south-east. I do not accept that they must feel that there is no chance of getting a job. We are determined to see that they have that chance.

    Westcombe Industrial Unit, Peterborough
    Dr. Mawhinneyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will visit the Westcombe industrial unit for the disabled in Peterborough.
    Mr. Alan Clark: As my hon. Friend will know, I intend to visit the unit on Tuesday 24 July.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Is my hon. Friend aware that he will be most welcome in Peterborough? Is he further aware that the Westcombe unit and its associated sheltered workshops
    136
    are among the best in the country and that we hope that as a result of his visit he will be able to disseminate information to other workshops for the benefit of the disabled?
    Mr. Clark: I look forward to being able to corroborate the favourable comments of my hon. Friend. Westcombe industries are playing a constructive part in the employment of the disabled, because a high proportion of the work force is in sheltered industrial groups, which give better value to the taxpayer and, we believe, give a greater degree of fulfilment and self-esteem to the disabled people so placed.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister, when looking at the whole question of industrial development and sheltered workshops, consider changing the law in regard to blind people? Is he aware that the only disabled who cannot move in and out of sheltered employment are the blind? Paraplegics can. Is this not an injustice to the blind?
    Mr. Clark: I think I heard you say under your breath, Mr. Speaker, that the general question of the blind was not really germane to the main question. When in Peterborough, I shall look at the position as it relates to Westcombe industrial estates.

    Race Relations Act 1976
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to amend section 47 of the Race Relations Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Yes, Sir, but precise details have yet to be decided. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement in due course.
    Mr. Proctor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Commission for Racial Equality's code of practice for employment exacerbates rather than soothes racial feelings? Since the code was introduced under section 47 of the Race Relations Act in a way which makes it impossible for the House or the Secretary of State to amend it, does my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members would like that legislation to be amended as soon as possible?
    Mr. Clark: I reject the allegation that the code exacerbates racial feelings. The code has no legislative force, as my hon. Friend knows, but it is extremely useful as a general document of reference for the majority of cases in which natural common sense and humanity applies and which might need reference to a set of advisory assertions. The code has a value in that role. My hon. Friend says that the Secretary of State does not have the power to amend the code, only to accept or reject it. We hope to correct that by legislation in the near future.
    Mr. Janner: If the Minister rejects the views expressed by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor), which I venture to doubt, why do he and his Government play down the importance of the code by calling it merely advisory, when it has more force than that? Why do Ministers fail to implement its recommendations in any Government Department, including that of the Minister?
    Mr. Clark: On the contrary, I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who lays claim to a certain stature and respect in

    137
    the House, should make personal allegations of that kind at Question Time. I do not propose to comment further. The Commission for Racial Equality published its report today. The hon. and learned Gentleman might not have had time to see it. That report welcomes the steady progress that the Government are making in this respect.
    Mr. Budgen: Is it the business of the Government to introduce codes which have no legal force and which are merely advisory? Would it not be better to say honestly and openly that this is not an area of activity in which any Government should be engaged?
    Mr. Clark: No. In this complex and evolving example of race relations it is useful to have a work of reference. The code is no more than that.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister not only reject the views expressed by his colleagues on the Back Benches, but go further and give the code a more positive position in his Department and in the Manpower Services Commission? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that after much probing Opposition Members discovered that only 15 of the area manpower boards have any ethnic representation? Will he ensure that his Department issues a directive so that black people can be members of the manpower boards?
    Mr. Clark: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The Manpower Services Commission is aware of the position. The trouble is that the candidates are not coming forward.

    Professional and Executive Recruitment Service
    Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will consider proposals for the privatisation of the Professional and Executive Recruitment Service.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: There are no plans for the moment to change the basis of operation of the service, but we shall be keeping it under review in the light of its financial performance.
    Mr. Brown: Since the service used to cost the taxpayer £5 million a year, and since, thanks to the excellent work of the Manpower Services Commission, it now operates on a cost-recovery basis, does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to invite the Manpower Services Commission to prepare proposals for the privatisation of the service?
    Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend says, the Manpower Services Commission and the officials in the Professional and Executive Recruitment Service have done a magnificent job in putting it on to a cost-recovery basis. We have only just achieved that position and in future options can, perhaps, be considered.
    Mr. Fatchett: Given the growing public concern over the number of Tory Members of Parliament financially linked with companies seeking privatisation, would it not be useful for the Government to ask any company which seeks private work through the Professional and Executive Recruitment Service to publish the names of those Conservative Members who are on the payroll of such interested companies?
    Mr. Morrison: As I understand it, all hon. Members declare their interests.

    Community Programme
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the operation of the community programme.
    Mr. Tom King: Since its introduction in October 1982 the community programme has proved a valuable scheme to help the long-term unemployed. Its progress has been much helped by the efforts of sponsors, who have organised projects to achieve the programme's objectives. We now have 116,000 long-term unemployed on the scheme.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to extend the community programme, which is very popular and which provides jobs?
    Mr. King: The community programme is expanding and we are building up to the first target of 130,000 places. I am reviewing a number of schemes at this moment and I am aware of the popularity of the community programme.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Secretary of State aware of the difficulties which the £60 average wage is creating in running some of the courses? How much has the real purchasing power of that depreciated since the scheme was introduced? Why can it not be adjusted according to inflation?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a straight test between the level of the average wage or salary on the scheme and the number of people who can be accommodated on it. We are anxious to provide for the maximum number of people and therefore it is a question of trying to determine the right balance in that respect. I understand why he asks that question.
    Mr. Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the community programme is being used to support the so-called TUC centres for the unemployed? While some of those are doing a constructive job in helping the unemployed, others are no more than centres for extreme Left-wing party political propaganda. What guidelines will he give the MSC on the use of the community programme for that purpose?
    Mr. King: I know that the MSC has been concerned about some aspects of the earlier schemes in some of the centres that were set up. I understand that it has been having discussions with the TUC on that matter.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the county of Cumbria community programme places have been cut from 1,600 to 900 in two years and yet we made a valiant effort to make the scheme succeed within the county? Will he give us an assurance now that he will go into the Cabinet and argue with Treasury Ministers the need for an additional allocation next year to compensate for the loss in areas such as my own where this is the only form of new employment available?
    Mr. King: I know that the hon. Gentleman has been having discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister of State on that matter. I know also that he will be fair and recognise that it was possible in the initial stages to give Cumbria an allocation higher than its percentage of long-term unemployment would have justified, because there. was a short delay in take-up in other places. I am sure that

    139
    he would not argue for Cumbria to have an unfair allocation in relation to other counties, but I know why he raises the question.
    Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the community programme has done excellent work, particularly in Scotland? In view of its worthwhile contribution to improving the environment, will he give an assurance that the scheme can be carried on and so provide employment for workers from the very depressed construction sector?
    Mr. King: There is general support, which I note from comments made in the House, for the community programme as a means of helping the long-term unemployed. I do not propose to comment further at this moment, but I hope to have something to say before too long about the programme and its continuance.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Secretary of State take the trouble to read the CBI report "The Fabric of the Nation", where he will see that Britain's industrial managers are calling for a sensible programme of public works which would, first, benefit Britain's infrastructure and, secondly, reduce long-term unemployment? Surely that would be the most intelligent community programme of all?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman raises that question as though there were not a very substantial programme of public works at the moment. We are carrying out a substantial programme of public works in terms of public expenditure on infrastructure and other areas consistent with what we think the country can afford and which does not damage the prospects for inflation and interest rates, thereby damaging employment prospects for the whole country. That is an issue which we must have very much in mind.

    Apprenticeships
    Mr. Lofthouseasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the role of apprenticeship training in meeting the requirements of British industry for a skilled work force.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: Apprentice training remains an important source of skilled manpower. But the wider aim must be to open up access to training and hence to jobs through a coherent system of standards and certificates of competence.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Minister not see the need to expand Government aid for the apprenticeship scheme, especially when they have abolished the ITBs, and bearing in mind the effect of the Government's disastrous policy on the scheme? If the hon. Gentleman shares that view, why has he or the Secretary of State, found it necessary to give instructions in recent weeks to stop the unemployment pay of craft apprentices in the mining industry? Was it a direct instruction from the Secretary of State, or was it a nudge from Mr. MacGregor to put the boot into the miners yet again?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that training is very important. As I said in my original answer, apprenticeships have a very important part to play. But, as I also said, we must have broader based training. That is why the Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, have invested a significant amount of money through the youth training scheme.
    Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency already, as a sign of emergence from recession, employers, especially in the newer industries, are again finding a shortage of skilled people to work in those industries, despite all that this Government and their predecessors have tried to do? In view of that, is my hon. Friend willing to meet a deputation from the Dorset chamber of commerce and industry so that it may make direct representations to him?
    Mr. Morrison: I am always happy to meet any deputation, especially when there are skill shortages. However, the general form of the adult training strategy is to be more flexible and more responsive than has been the case hitherto.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware of the role that revamped apprenticeship schemes could play in the uprating and updating of our technical skills for the high-tech industries? Is he aware, further, of the recent NEDC report, which showed the horrific gap between this country, Japan, Germany and the United States in this respect? Was he not present at a recent meeting of eight senior Ministers which turned down a proposal for £400 million to switch into new technology training?
    Mr. Morrison: I thought that there was general agreement in the House that we should get away from time serving and get on to standards. That is precisely what we are doing in terms of the quality of both the YTS and our adult training strategy.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Gummer: The fight for jobs is a battle to improve Britain's competitiveness and to ensure that higher productivity leads to new opportunities and not only to higher wages for those in work.
    Mr. MacKay: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the best way of creating real lasting jobs for the future is for us to produce goods and services at a competitive price and thus create real new markets?
    Mr. Gummer: I can confirm that, and I remind my hon. Friend that other countries are finding a very much better way of decreasing unit labour costs compared with ourselves. We have to make sure that those at work do not kill the prospects for jobs of others who do not have them.
    Mr. Canavan: Is it not ironic that when unemployment seems to be our only growth industry the Government propose to cut the services to help the unemployed get jobs? What advice would the Minister give to an unemployed person in a place such as Denny in my constituency, where unemployment is more than 30 percent. and the Government's only response is to downgrade the local jobcentre so that anyone unemployed who cannot afford the bus fare has to walk several miles into Falkirk to the nearest jobcentre?
    Mr. Gummer: The present proposals will create 200 more jobcentres and provide a better service than the present ones.
    Sir John Page: Does my hon. Friend agree that employment could be improved greatly if people bought

    141
    more British goods, provided that they were of equal quality and competitive in price? Will he smile upon the "Think British" campaign?
    Mr. Gummer: It is obviously true that if people bought more British goods there would be more jobs in Britain, but those goods much be competitive in price and design. One of the problems at present is that the Labour party does little to help that work.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on his statement in reply to a previous question, when he exhorted us to adopt a non-party approach to unemployment? Will he also reflect on the statements made by the Tory party in 1979 and in its manifesto in 1983, when it decided to cut unemployment? Has it done so, and if not, when does it intend to do so?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I said that the youth training scheme would be benefited if people took a non-party political view, instead of constantly attacking it, like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) does.
    Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is it not time that the Labour party recognised that Arthur Scargill is threatening to cause more unemployment, not only among the miners but among steel workers, transport workers and many other groups, than anyone else in the country?
    Mr. Gummer: The jobs of miners and steel workers depend on sensible production in the coal mines. The Government are providing £2 million a day to ensure that those coal mines are able to produce as they ought to. It is very sad that in the name of only part of the mining industry some people are trying to torpedo that.

    PRIME MINISTER

      Engagements
      Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 July.
      The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
      Mr. Skinner: Now that the Prime Minister has turned the United Kingdom into a land fit for drug pushers to live in and is bailing out the international bankers, the French farmers and shutting British pits, is it not treating the British people with contempt to agree proposals at Fontainebleau to have a European flag, a Common Market coin and a Euro anthem? Why did the Prime Minister not have the guts last Wednesday to come to the Dispatch Box and tell us about this sell-out to European federalism?
      The Prime Minister: That was a rapid tour around many subjects — from international bankers to Fontainebleau. I answered questions on Fontainebleau for about an hour, and on the whole I thought that I answered all the questions that were put to me. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about this country, but I am happy to report to him that Bolsover colliery has won a £2 million a year contract — [Interruption.] — which will keep people working in the pit.
      Dr. Hampson: In considering the Government's response to their Lordships' recent decision on the Local
      142
      Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if she is considering a compromise which allows for an extension of the term of office of the existing councillors, it will be tolerable to many of us only if at the same time she introduces legislation which ensures that we do not get asset-stripping on a massive scale which any fag end of local government will ensure occurs, particularly if it is as ideologically committed as the metropolitan counties and the GLC?
      The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are aware of that point and will take it into account.
      Mr. Kinnock: On the subject of asset-stripping, why was it apparently against the public interest for one purchaser to own more than 10 per cent. of Enterprise Oil last Thursday, but apparently not against the public interest for the same purchaser to own 15 per cent. of Enterprise Oil on the following Monday?
      The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered that point yesterday. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has muddled two things. The 10 per cent. in the initial allocation is made under very special conditions. The rest must be obtained under the normal rules of the panel on takeovers and mergers and the Council of the Securities Industry. Those rules apply to shares bought in the market place. Shares that are allocated come under different rules.
      Mr. Kinnock: Why was the 10 per cent. not mentioned in the prospectus, and why, if the Prime Minister understood the situation so well, did the Secretary of State have to come here last Thursday to make a panic statement to explain the condition? Can the right hon. Lady tell us whether she understood what would be the consequences of the flotation of shares in Enterprise Oil? If she did, why was it necessary for the Secretary of State to come to the House? If she did not know, how can she excuse such crass ignorance of the capital market system—[Interruption.] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen can laugh. In the Cabinet a week last Thursday, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Prime Minister understood the God-awful mess they were going to get us into over Enterprise Oil. Can the right hon. Lady excuse ignorance of a system which she is supposed to regard with something near religious faith?
      The Prime Minister: The reality is that the privatisation of Enterprise Oil was completed successfully last week and the sale raised £392 million for the taxpayers. Under the terms of sale, Enterprise Oil is now an independent British oil company. RTZ has not gained control. The Government clearly stated in the prospectus their intention that the company should be free from outside control in its early years. All that has been carried out successfully.
      Mr. Kinnock: If the Enterprise Oil fiasco has been a success, God help us if the Government encounter a failure.
      Can the right hon. Lady tell us what will happen in the future — [Interruption.] If the Prime Minister understands what her right hon. Friend said last Thursday, she should be able to tell us, as well as the British taxpayers and those who are interested in the affair around the country, what will happen in the future. Can she tell us whether other major purchasers will enjoy the same generosity as that shown to Enterprise Oil? Can she tell us,

      143
      as the Government are supposed to be in charge, what is their policy, given RTZ's stated objective of getting 49 per cent. control of Enterprise Oil—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give the Leader of the Opposition a fair chance.
      Mr. Kinnock: These are our assets, the British people's assets, that are being flogged off by the Government. We want to know from the Government where they will stop this list of flops, failures and fiascos, drop their programme now, before they get in an even bigger mess over Jaguar, British Airways, British Aerospace, or British Telecom.
      The Prime Minister: I have never heard a bigger mess made of a question than that. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has lost sight, in his tirade, of the fact that the Government took a special share to protect Enterprise Oil's independence for a number of years. Therefore, if anyone in the market were to bid up to a substantial figure for shares, he would know full well that that special share would be used to keep Enterprise Oil independent, so long as that special share lasted. To call something a fiasco which in fact gets £392 million for the taxpayers and which is independent, merely means that the right hon. Gentleman does not have a clue about the way in which these matters work.
      Mr. Ottaway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to intervene in the coal mining dispute when, on the one hand, there is a commercial standpoint and, on the other, a political argument?
      The Prime Minister: I see little point in intervening. Indeed, there is no point in the Government intervening when it seems as though the dispute is not about the industrial side of the offer, but about something else.
      Mr. Dobsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 July.
      The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
      Mr. Dobson: Will the Prime Minister take time today to instruct the Minister for Health—who has already met the employers, Crothalls—to meet representatives of the women on strike at Barking hospital who object to their pay being reduced from £57 to £17 per week? Could any of the right hon. Lady's family get by on £17 a week?
      The Prime Minister: I gather that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the dispute at Barking hospital between a private company and the health authority. I understand that the company that was tendering re-examined its work schedules and carried out a re-rostering of staff to produce the most cost-effective work patterns. It also altered the conditions of employment. The effect was to reduce staff hours by between 40 and 60 per cent., and earnings by 40 per cent. However, rates of pay are being maintained at previous levels. The health authority is using the savings to improve nurse staffing, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.
      Mr. Thornton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning the millionth person visited the international garden festival on Merseyside? Has not the festival proved to be an overwhelming success and justification of this Government's faith in the ability of the people of
      144
      Liverpool and all connected with the festival to make it a success? May I invite my right hon. Friend to congratulate them?
      The Prime Minister: The festival is a great success and morale booster for the people of Liverpool. It is also a great success for the chairman and other members of the Merseyside Development Corporation. I hope it means that Liverpool will enter a new era and that it can be fully associated with success.
      Mr. Woodall: Is the Prime Minister aware that this year unemployment in my constituency has risen, due to the mining dispute? Is she further aware that married and single ladies in my constituency who cannot work in colliery canteens because of the dispute have signed the register as being unable to work? A test case was brought and they received unemployment benefit, but a diktat came from somewhere and that unemployment benefit has now been stopped. That is yet another blatant example of the attempt to starve miners back to work. Will the right hon. Lady have a word with the Secretary of State for Employment, who shakes his head, and ask him and his colleagues to review that case urgently and to act like honourable Gentlemen?
      The Prime Minister: I note that the hon. Gentleman has clearly made the point that strikes cause unemployment. They do so in the coal, steel and rail industries, and in many other industries that depend on coal supplies. However, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that decisions about unemployment benefit are made not by the Government but by independent authorities. If the first decision is the subject of argument, there is a right of appeal to independent authorities. The Government cannot interfere with their decision.
      Mr. McQuarrie: Will my right hon. Friend offer her support to the steel unions which have refused to accept the blackmailing diktats of Arthur Scargill, and record her congratulations of those lorry drivers who, for 24 hours, have carried coal and iron ore to Ravenscraig steelworks to keep Scottish steel workers working?
      The Prime Minister: There are 60,000 people working in the mining industry and earning good money. Many people are taking the products of that work to steelworks and power stations. I earnestly congratulate those who regard it as their responsibility to continue to work and look after their families.
      Dr. Owen: As the only negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States are the comprehensive test ban negotiations, in which Britain plays a full part, will the Prime Minister ensure that when the Foreign Secretary talks to President Chernenko he suggests that the comprehensive test ban negotiations should be resumed, especially since considerable progress was made on the issue of verification in 1978? Will the Prime Minister confirm that she is not withholding her permission or wish to continue with the negotiations because of the Trident missile system?
      The Prime Minister: The difficulty with the comprehensive test ban treaty is its verification, as the right hon. Gentleman surmised. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has seen President Chernenko, and will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, make make a full report to the House tomorrow.
      Later—
      Mr. Rathbone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have quite rightly continued the habit of previous Speakers in granting extra time to the Opposition Front Bench for asking supplementary questions during Prime Minister's
      146
      Question Time. However, I have never before noticed the Opposition Leader having to read out most of his third supplementary——
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is very experienced, and I am sure that he knows that that is not a matter for me.

Halvergate Marshes
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future of 92 acres of Halvergate marshes which is a grade 1 listed landscape in the ownership of Mr. David Wright.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Four of the five farmers who gave notice some months ago of their intention to plough parts of Halvergate marshes have now agreed not to proceed this year. The fifth, Mr. David Wright, declined to enter into a holding agreement, and the strategy committee of the Broads authority decided last week not to offer him a full management agreement, nor has it sought a direction under article 4 of the general development order. While I greatly regret that Mr. Wright has decided to start drainage operations on his land, I do not consider that the Broads authority's decision in this case seriously jeopardises the protection of the Halvergate landscape as a whole.
Dr. Cunningham: Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread anxiety about our national heritage, and the fact that Halvergate marshes are a unique example of that heritage? Why did the Under-Secretary of State tell the House on 4 April that Halvergate marshes were safe for at least one year, when that clearly was not the case? He gave that reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Is it not also the case that several more farmers have notified the Broads authority of their intention to drain and plough grade 1 listed land? Does the Secretary of State agree that they decided to do that because of the common agricultural policy, and that they intend to grow cereals, much of which will go, at public expense, into intervention?
Surely those examples show that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is incapable of properly protecting our natural heritage. Will the Secretary of State agree to our frequently repeated proposal to sit down and talk with us about a Bill to plug the loopholes in the Act? Finally, will he assure the House that he will act by means of an article 4 order, or in some other way, to protect the marshes until a long-term solution can be agreed?
Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State used the words to which the hon. Gentleman referred but has since corrected himself in a further parliamentary answer. When he gave his first answer, it was hoped that it would be possible to negotiate management agreements with all five farmers. I regret that it has not proved possible in this case.
The hon. Gentleman raised the point about other farmers. He may be aware that the Broads authority received notification late last week from the Howell brothers of their intention to convert their holding of about 76 acres. I understand, however, that there is no immediate threat to plough. The hon. Gentleman referred also to the common agricultural policy and the incentives that it offers to convert grazing land to cereals. I am well aware of that. He may have taken note of the speech that I made when I launched the Nature Conservancy Council's new strategy document.
With regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has today sought to
148
get in touch with the hon. Gentleman to discuss a possible Bill to close the three-month loophole. This Government have shown a real interest for the protection of landscapes and nature conservancy special sites. It was this Government who carried through the House the Wildlife and Countryside Act after our predecessors had done nothing for the previous five years.
Mr. Richard Ryder (Mid-Norfolk): Is my right hon. Friend aware that a vast number of my constituents around Halvergate supported his welcome readiness to intervene in the case of Mr. Archer's land at Limpenhoe and wonder why he cannot do so in the case of Mr. Wright's land?
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the recognition that I acted in the case of Limpenhoe, in response to a request from the Broads authority for an article 4 direction which would withdraw the land from the general consents of the general development order. In the case of Mr. David Wright's land, for reasons which no doubt seemed good to it, the Broads authority has not sought such a direction. In those circumstances, because an article 4 direction involves an encroachment upon the rights of ownership of the land, I have not thought it right to act on my own.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Secretary of State been told that, during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill in Committee, briefed by Mr. Robin Grove White and Mr. Tony Long of the Council for the Protection of Rural England when I spoke for one and a quarter hours on Halvergate —[HON. MEMBERS: "Not long enough."] That was clearly not long enough, in view of what has happened. The Department cannot say that it has not been nagged endlessly about Halvergate. I asked:
"Is Halvergate now safe?"
The Under-Secretary replied:
"I can assure the hon. Member that Halvergate is safe for a year."—[Official Report, 4 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 954.]
Will the Secretary of State spell out what has happened between the time that the Under-Secretary gave that undertaking to the House—I am sure in good faith—and today, when there is a completely different explanation?
Mr. Jenkin: At that time my hon. Friend answered the hon. Gentleman — I have already said that my hon. Friend has since corrected it in Hansard — we were optimistic that it would be possible—[Interruption.]—to negotiate management agreements for all the land. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), regrettably it has not proved possible in this case. The Broads authority decided not to offer a management agreement because of the cost involved, and it has not asked for an article 4 direction.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is but one example of the problems that arise all over the country, not least in Somerset? Bearing in mind that a farmer's livelihood depends on how he uses his land, will he see that management agreements, which are the solution to this extraordinarily difficult problem, get sufficient funding from his Department so that both sides can be properly satisfied?
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recognition that it is indeed the Government's policy to proceed in this complex and difficult matter by voluntary agreements wherever this is possible. The article 4 direction which I gave in the case of Mr. Archer's land at

149
Limpenhoe represented a departure from that, and one which I am perfectly prepared to justify in the particular circumstances of that case. I entirely take the point that the Wildlife and Countryside Act needs to be backed by sufficient funds so that the voluntary system can work.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Is it not a fact that existing mechanisms are quite inadequate to deal with the pressure that is put on authorities like the Broads authority and the Nature Conservancy Council, in that landowners are demanding enormous sums in compensation, as a result of which some 25,000 acres of marshland are now estimated to be at risk? What discussions are taking place to rectify the situation? I realise that the Secretary of State has just announced that he intends to introduce legislation, but that will take too long. The matter is immediate. What discussions have been held?
Mr. Jenkin: The legislation will be on the rather narrow point of the three-month loophole in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have recently received a report of an interdepartmental working party specifically on the question of trying to find a new and more satisfactory regime for the Broads, and have sought various ways of helping the Broads authority to finance landscape conservation. One interesting possibility canvassed in that report, which we are studying urgently, is an experimental scheme by the Countryside Commission to offer incentive payments to farmers who retain livestock grazing. Therefore, the matter has been under consultation for some time, and I hope to reach conclusions on this very soon.
Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Mid-Bedfordshire): Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support on the Conservative Benches for sensible strengthening of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, but that underlying the problem is the fact that EEC influences are pulling in two directions, and, more specifically and immediately, that sensible intermediate proposals have come forward from the Countryside Commission and, I think, from the EEC, for a system of management for this important area of the Broads?
Mr. Jenkin: I do not disagree with what my hon. and learned Friend has said. Indeed, it is obvious to all who have studied this problem that the desire to conserve landscapes and sites of special scientific interest pulls in the opposite direction from some of the pressures under the common agricultural policy. However, I think that it is right to point out that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the first Minister who has succeeded in negotiating the first major change in the common agriculture policy, and I hope that that is a step in the right direction.
Mr. Ken Weetch: Is the Secretary of State aware that the problem under consideration in respect of this marshland is but one example of something that is happening throughout East Anglia, in that hedgerows, woodlands and other areas for wildlife are constantly disappearing? Is the Secretary of State aware that a stipulation that one pays farmers and landlords not to use land is an open invitation to blackmail the taxpayer? Will he give the House an undertaking that the entire countryside legislation will be critically reconsidered?
Mr. Jenkin: The implication of the hon. Gentleman's question is that he would move immediately to some form
150
of compulsion on this matter without question, and that is not the Government's policy. We wish, if we can—the great majority of farmers are prepared to go along with this — to have a programme of voluntary agreements in order to secure the conservation of land.
Mr. John Evans: It does not work.
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman shouts that it does not work. In the great majority of cases, it is working and has worked, and the vast majority of farmers who have been approached in this regard have negotiated perfectly sensible satisfactory agreements. The problem arises when, for reasons which may seem good to them, they wish to deal with their land In ways that do not involve an agreement. That is something of which we must clearly take account, and which I am discussing with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) is shared by people throughout Norfolk and in particular by my constituents in north-west Norfolk, where there are considerable expanses of similar marshland?
Mr. Jenkin: I am well aware of the concern in East Anglia, and of the general concern about the impact of some farming practices upon the natural landscape. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has withdrawn grants for grubbing up hedges, and I understand that there are now grants for replanting hedges. I hope that those measures will help to restore the traditional countryside. The Government are giving careful and urgent attention to the matter.
Mr. Jack Straw: If the Secretary of State is unwilling to make an article 4 direction under the general development order, does he not already have power under section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to make an order which extends to the whole area, including Halvergate marshes, and does not the Minister of Agriculture have power to refuse to make discretionary grants for drainage, including the pumps? Why does not the Secretary of State use his powers under section 29 to give a year's breathing space, as we have demanded?
Mr. Jenkin: The short answer is that the Broads authority, which is the planning authority for the area, has not asked me to do so. [Interruption.] It is all very well, but how often should Governments take matters out of the hands of those who are appointed to deal with them? [Laughter.] That is the truth of the matter.
In a suitable case, I made an order under article 4, and it was widely welcomed by those who have followed this affair.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to have regard to the subsequent business, and a private notice question is merely an extension of Question Time.
Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A very important distinction has arisen out of the recent exchanges with the Secretary of State for the Environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to a specific assurance given in the House of Commons. An assurance is something which, if it does not actually have legal

151
status, certainly has tremendous authority. All Members of the House and members of the public are greatly influenced in their conduct if any Minister gives a specific assurance. Certain trains of action may be no longer pursued, while others may take a particular direction.
A ministerial assurance is the nearest thing that there is in the House of Commons to a specific commitment. Are we to be told that a ministerial assurance given in such circumstances is no more than an expression of optimism? If that is so, the currency of ministerial statements is totally devalued and the very nature of the Government's relationship to the House and to the country is altered. I should be grateful, Sir, if you could throw some light on the matter.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot do that. However, I believe that the Secretary of State is about to respond.
Mr. Jenkin: I cannot let the right hon. Gentleman get away with that. As soon as my hon. Friend realised that the assurance that he had given would not be delivered, he answered a question from the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), stating the position perfectly accurately. My hon. Friend's reply has been on the record for many weeks. It is less than fair to my hon. Friend to chide him with having misled the House when he gave his answer in perfectly good faith.
Dr. Cunningham rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. No point of order can possibly arise for me on that matter.
Dr. Cunningham rose——
Mr. Speaker: Well, the hon. Gentleman may try it out.
Dr. Cunningham: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the House was given an assurance on this matter. We have raised the matter several times since. The Secretary of State has the power to ensure that an assurance is carried
152
through. He is now choosing not to exercise that power. The House deserves more of an explanation about that decision than it has had. The Secretary of State is effectively telling the House that he is withdrawing the assurance given by his hon. Friend.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot rule on such matters. Ministers and every other hon. Member must take responsibility for what they say.
Later——
Several hon. Members rose——
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not propose to go back over what has already been said about the private notice question. Mr. Tam Dalyell.
Mr. Dalyell: This is a new point of order, involving parliamentary procedures. If an assurance is given by a Minister in good faith——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is doing precisely what I asked him not to do. There is no way —the hon. Member knows this—in which I can answer for what the Secretary of State has said. That is not a matter for me; it is a matter for him.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If an assurance is given to an hon. Member, is it not a matter at least of parliamentary courtesy that the withdrawal of the assurance should be given to that hon. Member and other hon. Members? The truth is that my hon. Friends and I, and, more importantly, a number of interest groups outside such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England, did not know that the assurance had been withdrawn. Is it not a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, that when assurances solemnly given in the House are for some reason withdrawn, those to whom the assurances were given should at least be told?
Mr. Speaker: There is nothing particularly novel in this. It is not a matter for the Chair. All right hon. and hon. Members must take responsibility for what they say.

Questions to the Prime Minister
3.50 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day before us. Does the point of order have anything to do with the subject of Halvergate marshes?
Mr. Winnick: My point of order arises on a different subject, Mr. Speaker. You rightly told hon. Members that the position of the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister's Question Time is certainly not a matter for you. We know that over many years the Leader of the Opposition has rightly had the opportunity of questioning the Prime Minister. That should occur. Is it not important that hon. Members have the facilities in the Chamber to ask the Chief Executive, the head of the Government, questions relating to Government responsibilities? Today's Order Paper shows that a large number of hon. Members have tabled questions to the Prime Minister. I do not want to declare an interest, but I am third on the list.
Is it not the case, Mr. Speaker, that 15 minutes on Tuesday and 15 minutes on Thursday are totally inadequate, bearing in mind the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who wanted the right—we should have this right—to question the Prime Minister orally today? I know that you are in no position to extend Question Time, but would it not be appropriate for this matter to be dealt with by the Procedure Committee to ascertain how much time should be devoted to occasions such as Prime Minister's Question Time?
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that we did not get beyond question No. 2 today. I have to balance both sides of the
154
House. I shall bear the hon. Member's point in mind for some future occasion. The proposal made by the hon. Member is a matter not for me but for the usual channels.

Presentation of Bills
3.53 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The rules for presentation of a Bill in the House require the publication of its short title. There are usually procedures by which hon. Members may know what is included in the Bill. This afternoon, the Secretary of State announced not only his intention to introduce a Bill but the fact that he had obtained the prior agreement of the Opposition, as represented by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). This type of cosy consultation between the two Front Benches is an abuse of the procedures of the House. If the Minister intends to shorten the normal procedures, he might at least have the courtesy to consult other Members who have at least as great an interest in the matter.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me either.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the questions on the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft International Tropical Timber Organisation (Legal Capacities) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No. 6) Order 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 553), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Co-ownership of Flats
3.56 pm
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give powers to residents of purpose-built blocks of flats in private ownership to form a company constituted for the purpose of acquiring the premises of which their flats are part; to specify the procedures to be adopted; to make consequential provisions as to the management and upkeep of premises so purchased; and for connected purposes.
The Bill addresses itself to a problem which is important for Kensington, which I have the honour to represent. It concerns a serious matter, however, for the whole of London, for many cities outside London and for the south coast, where there are many mansion blocks and converted buildings which are occupied as flats in private ownership.
The difficulty, which is well known, is that the condition of the blocks and the relationship between the tenants and the owners is often extremely unsatisfactory. Current repairs are often delayed or neglected, and the structures of the blocks are often in need of major capital work for which no one is prepared to pay. As time passes, the neglect of these important repairs often means that the cost, when the problem reaches the stage where it has to be tackled, is so severe that in the end there is nothing for it but to demolish the structure. This is a waste of capital which Parliament should seek to avoid.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction is well aware of the problem. He has done the right thing by setting up a committee to make a specific study of it under the chairmanship of Mr. Edward Nugee, QC. I have read the questionnaires which have been devised and sent out by the committee. They are extremely well drafted by experts on the problem and I have no doubt that they will introduce a great deal of invaluable and up-to-date information into our debates. Both sides of the House will look forward to receiving the committee's recommendations.
Whatever recommendations are made, the analysis will still stand that a large amount of money must be found to prevent the blocks and structures from deteriorating. Landlords, for very many reasons, are not prepared to find the money. Some of them have been disheartened by years of rent control and feel that it would be inappropriate to lay out a great deal of capital on which they may never get a satisfactory return. Others have acquired their blocks with a view to making a quick capital gain. They use various methods to obtain vacant possession as quickly as possible so that they can make their profit and move out.
I think the House will agree that it is no good looking to the owners of the property to put up the capital that is required. Some years ago it was possible for the owners to obtain extremely generous levels of grant; but I am sure that there was a considerable element of abuse and unnecessary public expenditure through the grant system for modernising premises. The Department rightly made the payment of grant much more difficult to obtain.
I am not averse to grants being made available with discretion for the maintenance or improvement of blocks of flats in private ownership, provided that there is a corresponding increase in the rates, which has the effect of turning grants into long-term loans; but I am sure that
156
we cannot expect hard-pressed ratepayers to find enormous sums to improve or at any rate repair and maintain these premises.
The obligation therefore comes down to the tenants, and the tenants have shown, by resistance to increases in service charges, and by the resentment that has arisen in many instances where large capital sums are demanded from them, that they will not find the money and that in various ways they will resist even the maintenance of the premises in which they live unless they have a hope of ownership.
Home ownership is axiomatic for Conservatives. I think it is widely accepted in all parts of the House as a principle of great value. We have seen legislation introduced on the enfranchisement of leasehold houses. In recent years the Government have introduced powers under which people living in council houses and flats may acquire their freeholds, but premises in private ownership and occupied as flats are still not covered by comparable powers, and that puts the tenants and residents of flats in private ownership into the position of second-class citizens. They ought to have the opportunity of the right of home ownership which is available to other classes of tenant.
I recognise that there are particular difficulties, and that is the reason why the House stopped short of extending the principle of leasehold enfranchisement to flats 10 or 15 years ago when the enfranchisement of houses was carried through. We cannot leave the position unattended to however, and I hope that the House will feel that my seeking to introduce the Bill again this afternoon is timely and worth while.
This is not the first time that I have sought to introduce a Bill on co-ownership of flats. I know that the difficulties that I ran into with earlier Bills arose on two particular points. One was that I provided for an element of compulsory purchase, so that a tenants' association—constituted as I thought appropriate in my previous Bills —would have the right to acquire the block, whether or not the landlord was willing to sell. that, I recognise, gave rise to opposition fom a number of hon. Members. It also gave rise to difficulties over the definition of the principle of valuation, because if one is to introduce power for compulsory purchase, one has to specify the way in which the valuation will be arrived at.
I have never wanted the tenants to be put in a position where they could acquire their premises for less than the market price, but the situation which obtains at the moment is that the tenants, even when they are given the opportunity to buy by a willing seller, are not able to mobilise themselves quickly enough and to raise the funds that are necessary to meet the price which other buyers of the block may be willing to lay down, sometimes at quite short notice. Therefore, to try to solve that problem I am seeking to reintroduce some ideas from earlier Bills.
It should be appropriate for the tenants to set themselves up as a company properly constituted for the purposes of acquiring and managing the block. With a view to achieving that I should like—if I am given leave to introduce my Bill—to repeat the schedule which set out the memorandum and articles specially designed to be appropriate for a company which had set itself up with a view to the management of a mansion block or conversion.
We should find every method that we can to make such a company eligible for grants or assistance or tax concessions in so far as it is possible to do so. I should like

157
to give time to that aspect and, If I am able to introduce the Bill, I should like to make specific suggestions as to the ways in which such things might be done.
It is important, too, that the condominium company or the co-ownership company should be a recognisable legal entity with which building societies or other people who may be willing to offer funds can deal on a recognised basis, and will not be afraid that if there were defaults they would have no one against whom they could proceed.
I want the apparatus of a company to be used rather than a partnership or some other form of looser association, because I think the idea of running a company is very generally understood. People know that it must have annual meetings, that there must be proper accounts, that directors must be named and that reports must be properly filed. It is also appropriate because in many cases mansion blocks are worth very substantial sums of money.
The memorandum and articles of a company should set out specific rules to establish the rights and also the obligations of the tenants of a company which in fact consists of the tenants or residents themselves. In many of the blocks in London—and, I think, in other parts of the country — there are mixed regimes, with some people still living under protected tenancies and others who have bought leases, sometimes of different lengths and under different terms, even within the same block. It is necessary to establish exactly what are the rights and obligations of each of the different classes of residents within the block.
It is possible to find fair solutions and it is necessary to lay them down so that they are clearly understood from the start. Having looked into the question extensively with the aid of people who are expert in this area, I am certain that such companies can be viable without subsidy in the long run, and that they can find the money necessary to purchase on fair terms the blocks in which the residents live. But they can do it only if they are properly run over a substantial length of time and if the residents do not try to take out more than is their fair share of the gain which
158
undoubtedly arises over the course of time through home ownership. Those are the provisions that I want to deal with in the Bill.
Very briefly, within the confines of a ten-minute Bill, I should like to say that the financial structure which I envisage should allow equity shares in the company to be held by the residents themselves, and that there should then be provision for debentures or for participating preference shares for building societies, the Housing Corporation, perhaps the local authority, or possibly for a special revolving fund which the Department may think fit to set up for the purpose of such companies.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has now spoken for 10 minutes. Perhaps he will bring his remarks to a close.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I ask the leave of the House to finish my speech, which I can do very shortly.
I believe that Parliament, sooner rather than later, will have to address itself to the question of the tenure of flats in private ownership. There is a need for legislation. I hope that my Bill will be seen as a useful contribution to finding a practical and fair solution to the many problems. I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Michael Shersby, Mr. Martin Stevens, Sir David Price and Mr. John Wheeler.

Co-ownership of Flats
  CO-OWNERSHIP OF FLATS
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams accordingly presented a Bill to give powers to residents of purpose-built blocks of flats in private ownership to form a company constituted for the purpose of acquiring the premises of which their flats are part; to specify the procedures to be adopted; to make consequential provisions as to the management and upkeep of premises so purchased; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

European Community (Milk Quotas)
[Relevant documents: Draft Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984 and EEC document No. 6059/84.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister, may I say to the House that there is great interest in the debate? No fewer than 35 right hon. and hon. Members have indicated their wish to take part in it. I make a special plea for brevity today. There is no profit in coming to the Chair. I have done my utmost to balance the various parts of the country and also to take into account those who have spoken in previous debates.
4.6 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): In the debate today, hon. Members and the House will, I am sure, be mainly concerned with the milk supplementary levy, and I intend to direct most of my remarks to that issue. We had wide-ranging debates on CAP prices and other related issues in the House on 1 December and 22 March.
I reported to the House on several occasions earlier in the year on the progress of the negotiations, including the final settlement. Detailed notes on the price fixing have been given in an explanatory memorandum in document 6059/84 and in a note on the settlement prepared by my Department which is available in the Library of the House.
Nevertheless, today's motion enables us to have a wide debate, and if hon. Members wish to raise points on the price fixing not concerned with the supplementary levy I am sure my hon. Friend will do his best to answer them when he winds up the debate. For the moment I shall simply record that among the important decisions taken at this year's price fixing, apart from the milk supplementary levy, were the non-revaluation of the green pound, thereby meeting the NFU's primary negotiating objective, a reduction in cereals prices which will aid livestock producers, and retention of the beef premium scheme in the face of widespread and total opposition within the Council.
At the same time, common prices were reduced by an average of about 0.5 per cent. and, taking account of "green" currency changes, real prices will be reduced in all member states. Guarantee thresholds were introduced for several extra commodities. The effect of the price fixing on the retail price index was negligible; if anything, it is expected to be beneficial. All this marks a major step towards reforming the CAP and containing its costs.
Other important decisions were taken recently which will benefit agriculture, including the extension of less favoured areas in the United Kingdom to include 1·2 million hectares of marginal land, the doubling of the suckler cow subsidy and a 5p per kilo increase in the wool guarantee.
We should also note the major achievement gained by the Prime Minister at Fontainebleau last week. It was a major achievement for Britain and for the Community. We now have a fair and durable solution to a problem that has preoccupied the Community for a long time. As a result, agriculture can begin to look ahead with greater certainty. Of course, there remain difficulties still to be sorted out in Brussels, but the problem of rapidly increasing
160
expenditure on agriculture must continue to be tackled, and negotiations in Brussels can now proceed in a more orderly way.
One major benefit for us is that other member states will in future have a greater interest themselves in making more rational expenditure decisions, since they will have to make a larger contribution. This can only be good for the long-term interests of the Community.
The European Community has, for a number of years, recognised the problem that the milk sector posed. Genetic improvements in dairy cows, leading to higher yields, as well as improvements in the management of dairy herds, have resulted in the increase in production. At the same time, consumption of milk and milk products has not grown at anything like the same rate. Supplies of milk have continued to rise faster than consumption. The surplus of milk has grown, and so has the cost of dealing with it.
Efforts have been made to try to keep the growth of milk production under control and to find outlets for more milk and milk products, through, for example, schemes to encourage farmers to abandon milk production and to convert to beef production and through a wide range of subsidies on milk and milk products aimed at increasing consumption generally and at stimulating the use of skimmed milk and skimmed milk powder in feeding livestock. Markets have also been sought outside the Community both through general export refunds on milk products and through offering milk products as food aid.
The combined effect of the various measures, including price policy, as well as the massive expenditure directed towards stimulating consumption and facilitating exports, have not brought the European Community's milk market into a better state of balance. On the contrary, the gap between supply and demand continued to grow and so did the cost of disposing of the surplus.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Has Britain any surplus of dairy products?
Mr. Jopling: The hon. Member will see from page 185 of "Dairy Facts and Figures, 1983", published by the Milk Marketing Board, that in 1982 the United Kingdom was self-sufficient to the extent of 131 per cent. in solids not fat, and 91 per cent. in butter fat. If we add to that the extra production in 1983 of about 3 per cent., and take into the account the fact that successive Governments, including the last Labour Government, have taken the political view that part of our butter market should be reserved for New Zealand, we end up with the rough estimate—I accept that it is an estimate—that in 1983 we were about 103 per cent. self-sufficient, including New Zealand, for butter fat and about 131 per cent. self-sufficient in solids not fat.
Last year we reached the point where expenditure on the milk regime was about £3 billion, representing one third of expenditure of the CAP. The milk surplus in the Community represented more than one fifth of milk production, and was continuing to grow. The Community budget was simply not in a position to absorb the cost involved in maintaining this milk regime.
At the price fixing in 1982, a threshold was set at the level of milk production in 1981, plus 0·5 per cent. At the price fixing in 1983, this threshold mechanism was implemented by scaling back the general level of price increase to contain the cost of the milk regime within the threshold. In July 1983, after the Stuttgart summit, the

161
Commission made proposals for changes to the common agricultural policy to respond to the need for the most efficient use of the Community's financial resources.
The Commission concluded that there was a need for radical action to correct the milk situation. World market prospects offered no possibility of further significant increases in the Community's exports, even with high levels of subsidisation. The grave market imbalance which had existed when the guarantee threshold for milk was first introduced in 1982 had deteriorated even further.
The Commission recorded that the price decisions over the past 10 years had not been sufficient to redress the market balance. It concluded that the guarantee threshold, if applied to offset fully the additional expenditure likely to arise from excess production in 1983, would require the milk price for 1984–85 to be abated by as much as 12 per cent.
The Commission thus came to the view that the only practical alternative to action on a drastic scale through the common price mechanism was the introduction of quotas. It announced last July that there would be a reference quantity established from each dairy based on 1981. All deliveries in excess of the quantity would be charged a levy which would, in turn, be passed on to producers.
We must recognise that the Commission made its proposals, having examined other possibilities, concluding that only a supplementary levy system would operate sufficiently quickly and effectively to stem the rising surplus and contain the cost of the milk regime, without at the same time creating unacceptable consequences for producers or member states.
The possibility of a much increased and graduated co-responsibility levy was an option which several member states believed to be highly attractive. Let there be no doubt that that would have been a disastrous response to the milk surplus for the United Kingdom. It would have entailed a high rate of levy on larger enterprises and a rather low rate for small enterprises. But the various thresholds would certainly have had to be set at levels which would have left us with a disproportionately high part of the burden of the levy.
We joined the Commission in strongly resisting that option during the autumn. We also forced the Commission and other member states to examine fully the possibility of cutting back prices as the primary mechanism for tackling the surplus. That route would have avoided the complex and difficult arrangements needed to operate quotas and would have given consumers an immediate advantage.
However, as I warned the House in the debate on 1 December, it became clear that price cuts on the scale needed to curtail production quickly and to make the necessary savings could not be agreed by the great majority of member states. We therefore pressed vigorously to ensure that the supplementary levy system was introduced in a way which, as far as possible, would meet our requirements.
The Commission had no intention, for example, of covering the substantial part of milk production which is used to make direct sales. In some member states, such sales are quite substantial. If such sales had not been covered by the super levy, producers would have taken advantage of the gap and switched sales away from dairies. There would have been a flood of sales direct on to the market, thus undermining the levy system itself and jeopardising the existing businesses, both of the dairy
162
sector and of those involved already in direct sales. As a result of our continued pressure to bring direct sales within the quota system, the proposals were amended in that way.
We also secured provisions so that the quotas would be set taking account of the special circumstances of individual producers who had suffered some setback in their base year or who were engaged in developing their milk production.
I should remind the House that in its proposals for the milk sector the Commission also included a highly discriminatory proposal to place a special tax on dairy farms where production was more intensive. This measure was highly attractive to several member states, including France, but we successfully resisted it, along with other suggestions to bias the supplementary levy in favour of small producers.
I cannot accept claims that the cutback in milk production faced by the United Kingdom is somehow much worse than that faced by other member states. The major milk producing countries in the Community are France, Germany, the Netherlands and ourselves. We all have quotas based on our production in 1981.
Since 1981, German and Dutch production has increased relatively more than ours and that of France. As a result, Germany and the Netherlands face bigger cuts by comparison with 1983 than do either we or France. However, French milk yields are significantly lower per cow than our own. Therefore the introduction of a quota system will prevent French producers from improving their yields unless, at the same time, there are considerable cuts in cow numbers.
I regret that the milk industry has to face the introduction of these elaborate controls to contain and reduce the milk surplus. It gives me no pleasure that I should be the Minister of Agriculture who, with his European colleagues, has had to face this important challenge and to implement the system which is being imposed on producers throughout the Community.
Mr. Gavin Strang: The Minister rightly referred to the position in France. He will be aware of the great anxiety in the industry that the French Government are not introducing and applying the quotas in the way that the British Government are attempting to do. May we have an assurance that there is no question of quotas being imposed upon our producers if they are not imposed with equal vigour on the French?
Mr. Jopling: I recognise that concern, which is reflected in all parts of the House and outside. I shall deal with the issue later in my speech.
I entirely reject suggestions that the arrangements that we have negotiated represent a poor deal for our industry. The measures will impinge on milk producers throughout Europe. There is no doubt that our producers have been contributing to the Community's surplus stocks and drawing on the massive funds needed to dispose of them.
I shall detail the action taken since the 31 March. settlement. I am acutely aware of the problems facing producers in changing over to a quota system. Difficult decisions have to be made, and it is important that they should be made in a logical way on the basis of sound information. We therefore sent out initial guidance to farmers as quickly as we possibly could; indeed, we were the first member state to do so. I wrote to all registered producers on 10 April explaining the arrangements for the

163
introduction of the milk supplementary levy. At the same time, a Ministry advisory service note "Coping with the Quota" was distributed to help producers decide how to adjust their enterprises.
On 25 May I announced that I intended to make quotas available as quickly as practicable to assist those small milk producers who wished to stay in milk production, and to provide funds to compensate those farmers who wished to give up milk production. I shall enlarge on the aims and details of this scheme later.
On 12 June a letter was sent to all registered milk producers in England and Wales giving guidance on the types of special case which can be considered under the rules of the scheme. At the same time a notice was sent about the arrangements being made to issue initial provisional allocations of wholesale quotas to producers who started deliveries after 1 January and to producers with mixed wholesale and direct sales businesses.
On 19 June a notice was issued to milk producers who sell direct to the public, giving guidance on how the quota system would be applied to them. It was not possible to issue guidance to direct sellers earlier, because a number of important points had to be taken up with the Commission and these were not resolved until 14 June.
I appreciate that milk producers want and need to know where they stand at the earliest opportunity. This is why the Secretaries of State and I sent out provisional guidance on as many points as possible as rapidly as we could.
I have all along been extremely concerned to finalise the details of the quota arrangements, but, following the agreement in Brussels, it was most important that their implementation was fully considered with all interested parties before draft regulations were presented to Parliament.
The draft regulations were laid before this House on Wednesday 27 June. When they have been approved by both Houses we shall send out forms and implement the detailed arrangements.
Mr. David Penhaligon: The Minister accurately summed up the fear in some milk circles when he said that farmers want to know where they were. The Minister has outlined the calendar of events since April. When does he expect the final appeal for the special hard cases to take place? If we had a target date, the farmers would really know where they are.
Mr. Jopling: It is not possible to give a target date, because one imponderable involves when the House decides that it wishes to give its assent. Much will depend on what is said in today's debate. I want to listen to hon. Members' views, and we can then decide how soon we can ask the House to respond to our request.
The other big imponderable is that we have no idea what proportion of milk producers will apply to be regarded as special cases. That is why it is extremely difficult. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) nodding. It is difficult to give a date.
I was about to refer to the draft dairy produce quota regulations. Any quota system is inevitably complex. That is one reason why I was in favour of tackling the surplus problem by the price mechanism. Opposition Members have always been suspicious of the price mechanism and have, when they have had the opportunity, tried to circumvent it. I understand why. When they have done so,
164
we have quickly seen the bureaucratic tangles into which one can get when one prevents market forces from operating. It is therefore ironic to hear that Opposition Members do not like the milk quota system.
I agreed reluctantly to introduce the quota system, accepting it as the only way of getting effective Community action to tackle the milk surplus. But I went into this with my eyes open, realising full well the problems and the complexities into which it would lead us, and so it has proved.
I shall be interested to hear any constructive suggestions, but I emphasise that a great deal of work and consultation has been done to produce rules which are fair and sensible within the framework of the Community's legal provisions.
The basic concept behind the draft dairy produce quota regulations is simple. A quota is calculated for each holding on which milk production was taking place on 2 April 1984. Normally, the quota will be the milk production in the calendar year 1983, less 9 per cent.
There are special rules for producers who were not in production throughout 1983, who have moved to a different holding or who have changed the area of land that they are using. There are also special rules for direct sellers —producers who do not sell their milk to a dairy. Because of the way in which the Community legislation is written, these producers will have a different base year —normally 1981.
Mr. David Crouch: I have just been talking to dairy farmers from Kent, who urged me to ask my right hon. Friend whether it is possible to interchange the wholesale quota with the retail quota. They say that they have a market for selling a certain amount of milk, but are denied the ability to do that even though people want to buy from them.
Mr. Jopling: I shall come to that shortly. One of the difficulties is that the Community's rules, despite our pleadings, do not permit quotas to be interchanged.
The draft regulations naturally also have to cover the position of somebody who is both a direct seller and a wholesale producer—who, for example, may sell some of his milk to the Milk Marketing Board and the rest on his own milk round. But the basic principle is the same in all cases. The primary quota is related to production in the appropriate base period, adjusted by a percentage to ensure that the total of all producers' quotas is contained within the national ceiling.
The Community legislation recognises that extra allocations of quota are appropriate in certain circumstances, and our draft regulations reflect this. They provide for two types of special case. First, there are the producers whose production in the base year was affected by exceptional events such as a natural disaster, illness of the producer or disease among the cattle. These producers are entitled to have their quota calculated from a different base year.
Many producers have said that in the base year their production was hit by bad weather and the Council regulation lists as a special case
"a serious natural disaster affecting the producer's farm to a significant extent".
The new tribunals, for which the regulations provide, will have to interpret that provision and give guidance to the

165
panels reviewing individual cases. When the tribunals are set up, we shall suggest some guidance for them to consider.
At this stage we are inclined to think that, as a rule of thumb, a serious natural disaster might be said to occur if a drop in production due solely to the weather were some 10 or 15 per cent. of the base year sales. I shall be interested to hear the views of the House.
It is clear that the six exceptional events listed in the Community regulations will not cover all hardship cases. Many hon. Members will have heard from individual constituents. I have had their letters and heard of the individual problems. We recognise the problems and are determined to do what we can to help, subject to the recognition that total milk production must be cut back and that we must abide by Community rules. We intend to tackle the problem as soon as it is clearer where the most serious hardship lies.
The second category of special cases is that of the producers who, before 1 March 1984, had made, or committed themselves to make, capital investments aimed at increasing their production. In that case, the amount of extra quota to be given is at the member state's discretion, and we have decided to set a limit on the amount allocated to this type of producer. The first 7·5 per cent. of expansion will be ignored, and only half the next 5 per cent. will be taken into account. Above 12·5 per cent., the full expansion will be counted.
However, that does not mean that producers who are expanding sharply will get extra quota equal to all their expansion beyond the first 12·5 per cent. We have made provision for an amount of extra quota to be allocated to special cases in the wholesale sector. This amount is around 2·5 per cent. of the national wholesale quota.
There is nothing magic about the figure of about 2·5 per cent. It is not the result of a precise estimate of the likely volume of claims for special case treatment; it is simply the remainder resulting from the 9 per cent. general deduction instead of the 6·5 per cent. cutback required. We could have decided by taking a figure higher than 9 per cent., but this would have been at the expense of the generality of producers.
Dame Judith Hart: Does the Minister include bank loans in commitments to capital investment?
Mr. Jopling: Such matters will be looked at by the panels and tribunals, and if a producer can demonstrate that he was committed they will be taken into account. I imagine that the panels and tribunals will take a great interest in correspondence that milk producers have had with their banks.
Mr. Charles Morrison: Given that, as my right hon. Friend has implied, there are so many uncertain and unknown factors, given that the quota is an annual quota, given that there is uncertainty about the ability of other member states of the Community to collect the levy, and given that the figures for production are unknown except that we all know that there has been a sharp cut in production in recent months, will my right hon. Friend consider postponing the actual collection of the levy until next spring? My right hon. Friend has already been helpful in terms of the cash flow of individual farmers by ensuring that the levy will not be collected until October, but no one will know what the individual quotas will add up to in
166
relation to the annual quota until next spring. It might be helpful if he could postpone the collection, while, so to speak, giving a warning to farmers in the meantime.
Mr. Jopling: I shall consider that, but my prime consideration is to ensure that other countries in the Community follow the rules and carry out the scheme as well as we intend to. It would not be a good thing at this stage to make it more easy for them to comply. However, let me bear that matter in mind.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: My right hon. Friend talks about enforcement in other countries, but, although the Court of Auditors often speaks about the non-compliance of other countries, there is no enforcement mechanism. How can our farmers ensure that there will be any sort of common enforcement?
Mr. Jopling: I have already brought that matter up with the Commissioner, the Commission and the Council on many occasions. My hon. Friend can be assured that I intend to persist in pressing the Commission to make sure that the rules are properly enforced.
The first call on the reserve will be for producers who have suffered from exceptional events. After those producers have been given the extra quota awarded to them, the rest of the reserve will be apportioned among those who are involved in expansion programmes.
I have been conscious, in planning the arrangements for the operation of the quotas, of the importance of ensuring that justice is done, and seen to be done, to individual producers. That is why the draft regulations provide for the setting up of three tribunals—one each for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Except in Scotland, each tribunal will consist of up to seven members, with, below them, a network of local panels.
Appeals for special case treatment will initially be sent to the appropriate agriculture Department which will examine the claims to establish whether they are prima facie eligible. If so, they will be forwarded to the local panel, which will reach a decision. If the producer is unhappy with the panel's decision, he will be able to appeal to the tribunal. Where an application is rejected by the agriculture Department in the initial sift, the producer will be able to appeal to the local panel against the rejection. Thus, every applicant will have the right to one appeal.
Dame Judith Hart: The Minister has explained the position for England and Wales. I do not see a Minister from the Scottish Office in the Chamber. What will be the position in Scotland?
Mr. Jopling: The right hon. Lady apparently does not come here often enough to recognise the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. If she cares to read the regulations, she will find that there is provision for a tribunal in Scotland, which, I think I am right in saying, will have 20 members, who will sit in panels of three. I hope that that answers the right hon. Lady's question.
The arrangements for direct sellers differ in a number of respects from those for wholesale producers. The Community legislation does not make provision for a specific amount of quota to be set aside as a reserve for special cases in the direct sales sector. The result of that is that, whereas for wholesale producers the calculation of quota is a two-stage operation, the total requirement of all direct sellers for special case allocations will have to be

167
known before the national direct sales quota can be apportioned between direct sellers. That unfortunately means that it will take rather longer to firm up direct sellers' quotas than those for wholesale producers.
The arrangements for direct sellers generally are less satisfactory, and in particular less flexible, than I should have wished. That is the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) earlier. I shall be continuing to press in Brussels for improvements to be made in this area. We have made a good deal of progress already, but there is more to be done.
Mr. Mark Hughes: We all accept that the problem of the direct seller is particularly difficult, but how long a delay is there likely to be?
Mr. Jopling: I have to give the hon. Gentleman much the same answer as I gave to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). At the moment we do not know how many people will apply for special case treatment and how much work will be involved for the panels and tribunals. For that reason, it is not possible to give any date. However, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) can be assured that we shall move as quickly as possible. I hope that he will accept that.
I move to land transfers and the ownership of quotas. I am frequently asked who owns the quotas. The simple answer is that no one does. A quota is allocated to a holding for the use of the occupier. If the holding passes to a new occupier, the quota goes with it. If the holding is divided into different parts, the draft regulations set out detailed rules for determining where the quota goes. Normally it will go with the part of the holding on which the dairy buildings are situated, but the parties concerned —buyer and seller or landlord and tenant—may agree on a different arrangement if they wish. If they fail to reach agreement, there is provision for arbitration.
As for freer transfers of quotas, about which I have been asked a question already, I have a great deal of sympathy with those who argue in favour of the greater freedom of movement of quotas between individuals. There are obvious attractions in a system of marketing. It would enable us to get back to something more like a free market. However, the Community legislation is restrictive and is based on the concept of quota being attached to the holding. These are difficult issues, but I shall be looking urgently at possible rules for easing transfers.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jopling: No; I shall not give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have been speaking for some time already, and this is a long and complicated issue.
I move to the outgoers' scheme and the position of small producers. In addition to the steps that we are taking to assist special cases, and as a major element in our efforts to help those who will be most deeply affected by the quota system, we are setting up a non-statutory outgoers' scheme.
We have been well aware from an early stage in the implementation of quotas in the United Kingdom that one group of dairy farmers will be particularly badly hit. I refer to the smaller specialist dairy farmer producing milk from a restricted acreage. I recognise that these producers often
168
have no economic possibility of alternative production. Therefore, to stay within the quota they will have to scale down output. They lack the possibilities open to larger dairy farmers who may have an opportunity of an alternative enterprise or of altering their methods of milk production.
A majority of these specialist dairy farmers quite naturally and understandably wish to continue in production. It is the reductions that they face in order to stay within their quotas that threaten to prevent them from doing so. The most important thing to do, and the best means of ensuring an economic future for them, is to rebuild their quota entitlement as quickly as possible. To do this we need to obtain spare quota very rapidly.
On the other hand, some specialist dairy farmers will wish to quit dairying altogether and could be direct beneficiaries of our outgoers' scheme. Payments will, if they wish, help to give them the means of establishing an alternative enterprise.
In our outgoers' scheme we are helping those who wish to leave. At the same time, their departure from milk production will release the spare quota that we need to help those who wish to stay.
To give an idea of the scale of the scheme, let me give some more precise details. We are aiming to buy up 2·25 per cent. of the total quota in Great Britain, which is almost as much as the initial reserve for special cases, and 5 per cent. in Northern Ireland because of the large proportion of small producers there. We shall be aiming specifically to make extra quota available to dairy farmers who produce less than 200,000 litres annually—broadly speaking, those with fewer than 40 cows. In England and Wales this means some 16,000 producers who, although they produce only 13 per cent. of the milk, constitute about 40 per cent. of all producers.
To restore their 1983 levels of production we need about 160 million litres of milk in England and Wales, or 1·25 per cent. of the total quota, so we expect to have something left over to help other deserving producers, and over the next few months we shall be thinking about how we can use this remaining quota most effectively. No doubt many hon. Members will tell us today where they think the priorities lie for the next stage after we have brought the small producers back to their 1983 production patterns.
In general, tenants will have to obtain their landlords' consent. I am discussing with the NFU and the CLA the circumstances in which consent might be waived. I have taken careful note of the debate in the House on Second Reading and on Report of the Agricultural Holdings Bill, and I have sought to find ways in which we can ease the problem. I have met both the NFU and the CLA to this end. Both have expressed their agreement with the principle that the tenant should discuss with his landlord the terms on which they could agree that the application should go ahead.
We are, of course, imposing certain conditions on producers who wish to take advantage of the outgoers' scheme. Producers who receive payments under the old non-marketing schemes but later resume milk production will not be eligible, and successful applicants will not be able to re-enter milk production, because the quotas on their holdings will be cancelled, so that no milk can be sold from those holdings without liability to levy. In general, tenants will have to obtain their landlords' consent, as I have said. As I am discussing the matter with the NFU and

169
the CLA, I hope that we can arrive at a position where it is not as difficult as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) suggested in our earlier debate.
As regards the cost of the scheme, we are devoting £50 million to it, at a rate of 13p per litre of quota surrendered or the equivalent of about £650 per cow for the average yield of 5,000 litres per cow. We believe that this is a reasonable incentive.
I wish to express some conclusions about the milk quota arrangements. I have described the quota system which is set out in detail in the draft regulations awaiting the approval of the House. We shall have an opportunity to debate the draft itself very shortly, but I welcome the opportunity of today's debate to go over the main issues raised by the introduction of the new system. I hope the House will agree that, although the problems in introducing a quota scheme are formidable, we have designed arrangements which are fair and practical.
A great deal of work lies ahead of us. All concerned — the agricultural Departments, the milk marketing boards, which will be undertaking much of the detailed work, the producer organisations, the tribunals and the local panels—will be fully occupied in the next few months.
I have made it clear throughout the Community that I attach great importance to the effective administration of the supplementary levy arrangements. At the Agriculture Council on 18 and 19 June in Luxembourg I stressed the need for all member states to implement the arrangements in accordance with the decisions of the Council. I said that it would not be acceptable if some producers were required to pay the levy while some member states were manifestly failing to apply the agreed rules. I am pleased to tell the House that the Agriculture Commissioner agreed with and supported my statement on that occasion.
There have been suggestions that these changes undermine agriculture. I am sure that this is quite untrue. It is necessary to deal with the frightening spiral of CAP costs by cutting common prices and taking other measures. There is no avoiding this, but, at the same time, we must be looking constructively to the future. I shall welcome dialogue with all sections of the industry on this in the immediate period ahead.
We are talking about an industry which has shown remarkable resilience and drive in the recent past. It has achieved notable increases in its productivity and improved our national self-sufficiency in temperate products by no less than 15 percentage points over the past 10 years. I am confident that the industry will adapt successfully to the new challenges of the present and of the future.
4.49 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: I welcome the general nature of the debate, and I am sure that I express the views of the whole House when I welcome the opportunity to discuss the draft regulations. That is without prejudice to a full debate on those regulations once a Minister has taken the views of the House into account.
In general, the Opposition's position is best expressed in early-day motion 850, which states:
"That this House, whilst accepting the need for a reduction in the production of milk within the European Economic Community, deplores the disproportionate share in that reduction which the United Kingdom is having to bear, the failure to
170
adequately protect small producers, the lack of time for producers to adjust, the confusion which has accompanied the introduction of the scheme, the inadequacy of the financial help which is being made available and the failure to accommodate many genuine cases of hardship; and asserts that the attempt to deal with the problems of the Common Agricultural Policy on a commodity by commodity basis and in terms purely of budgetary control without proper planning does not constitute that fundamental and comprehensive reform of the Policy both in its funding and methods of support without which such problems will, inevitably, continue and multiply to the disadvantage of producers and consumers alike."
Up to today that early-day motion has been signed by 126 hon. Members, and I know that many others in other parts of the House wish that they were free to sign it.
In our opinion, the Minister got a bad deal in Brussels, and, within the confines of that bad deal, the Government have mishandled the application of quotas. That opinion is not confined exclusively to the Opposition. I have with me two quotations, one from a farming organisation that does not want to be named. However, the more perspicacious of Conservative Members may have an inkling as to its source. It was sent to me on 29 June. It states:
"The Council of Ministers introduced the present system of quotas with under two days' notice. We have been engaged in discussion with the Minister and warned of the many problems now facing us, some of which are peculiarly difficult for our country. Despite every effort being made from then onwards to work out and to administer the new system in this country, a process in which we have, of necessity, co-operated in order to protect our members, the result has been chaos. The Minister and the Government must bear full responsibility for the result of their hasty and ill-judged actions."
The Farmers Guardian of 29 June stated:
"Without question, managing the milk industry's financial affairs at the moment is a task of fantastic difficulty. The other danger is that the board"—
the Milk Marketing Board—
"and the union should be blamed for mistakes made by the Government itself. So let us be clear about two things: first, that it was first and foremost the Government's responsibility to consult with those who would have to make quotas work before it agreed to them and this it manifestly failed to do; and, second, that our national interpretations of quota detail have been entirely in the hands of the Ministry and it is at that door that responsibility for the present confusion must be laid … There have been few administrative blunders of this dimension in agriculture's modern history."
It is clear that there is much apprehension about the way in which things have worked out. We have landed in this position because we got a bad deal in Brussels.
The deal was bad in general because the 1984 CAP guarantee fund is 7·8 per cent. higher than the 1983 revised budget. So much for the much vaunted claim about reform of the CAP. Secondly., the latest estimates are that the fund will be overspent by a further 12·9 per cent. That means that spending on agriculture support in 1984 will be 21·7 per cent. above the revised 1983 budget figure. In fact, agricultural spending continues to grow at an alarming rate.
In a written answer on 9 April, at column 78 of the Official Report, the Minister pointed out that half of the CAP expenditure in 1983 was devoted to disposal of surpluses, and, even more alarming, that this represented 34 per cent. of all EEC expenditure—much more than the social and regional funds put together. Furthermore, the milk quota scheme institutionalises surpluses for the next five years and does nothing whatever to eliminate them. The Minister might have proceeded more productively had he got a deal spread over two or three years, with larger overall cuts in EEC milk production to

171
give people time to adjust. That would have been a much better way of proceeding than simply arriving at the present deal.
Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman advances an interesting proposition. As he knows, the proposal this year is to reduce Community production from a projected 106 million tonnes to fractionally under 100 million tonnes. Where, within the next five years, does he think we ought to have taken it to below the projected figure of just under 99 million tonnes? Is he saying that we ought to have taken it right back to 86 million tonnes, which is the actual level of consumption within the Community?
Mr. Hughes: I would not go as far as cutting back to the level of self-sufficiency. There must always be some sort of reserve to deal with matters outwith our control. However, instead of arriving at a panic decision, it would have been much better had this been spread over a longer period so that people could have had more time to adjust.
The milk quota deal was particularly bad for the United Kingdom. No one can deny that, although today the Minister sought to put a gloss on it. We have accepted too high a reduction, given our position vis-a-vis other Community producers.
On self-sufficiency, I use the Minister's information. In a written answer on 4 June, at columns 71–72 of the Official Report, he pointed out that we were only 91 per cent. self-sufficient in butter fat compared with 122 per cent. in France, 126 per cent. in Germany, 206 per cent. in Ireland, 199 per cent. in Denmark and 121 per cent. in the Community as a whole. Even if one takes the figures for milk solids not fat, we are still only mid-table and fractionally above the Community average, yet our cut in production is to be greater than that of any other member state.
The French example is particularly bad, because it has been asked to take only a 2 per cent. cut this year and a 3 per cent. cut next year, although it is quite clear that the French are more self-sufficient than we are.
We are entitled to ask why the Minister conceded so much in Brussels. How did he land in that position? It is clear that he was under pressure from No. 10 Downing street to get a CAP settlement by a given deadline, otherwise the summit negotiations on our overall budget rebate could not continue. Indeed, all the other agriculture Ministers were well aware of that pressure, and used it to full advantage.
Sir Peter Mills: In order to have obtained a better deal, would the hon. Gentleman have conceded the sheepmeat and beef premiums, because that is what was at stake?
Mr. Hughes: That is not what was at stake. The hon. Gentleman ought to reflect on what he has just said. If I have misinterpreted his words, he will correct me; but he is almost saying that, in order to protect the sheepmeat and beef premiums, the Minister gave more in terms of milk. That may well be the case. In the event, despite the efforts to settle the common agricultural policy, the general budget discussion was not concluded. We had to wait until the meeting at Fontainebleau a few days ago before it was settled. Two things happened before the settlement was reached, although it was not to our advantage. First, the
172
Government had to concede an increase in own resources of 1 to 1·4 per cent. Hardly had the ink dried on the paper when Gaston Thorn said that 1·4 per cent. was not enough and that 1·8 per cent. was needed to keep the Community solvent.
The problem for the future of agriculture and of the CAP is that such a growth in own resources will take the pressure off the move for reform of the CAP. If we do not reform it this year, we must do so in the future. We may be forced to put off consideration of other commodities until, once again, the Community runs into financial crisis, and a panic decision will be taken.
The view that that should not be allowed to happen is well summed up in the editorial of the current issue of the Country Landowner. Hon. Members know that I am totally addicted to that publication. It says:
"Never again must the future of a major industry be left to compromises reached at midnight by exhausted politicians trying to meet an arbitrary deadline."
That is why the Minister has had trouble this year, and that is why, unless we examine the matter generally and on a long-term basis, we shall face difficulties in later years.
Coming to the draft regulations, the least uncomplimentary thing that can be said about them is that they will provide a feast for the lawyers and paradise for them in terms of interpretation. The other factor to bear in mind
is that they are enabling regulations. Regulation 5.2 states:
"The Minister shall, by advertisement published in the Gazette and farming press, announce … the regions into which the United Kingdom is divided for the purposes of article 1(2) of Council Regulation 857/84 (which deals with regions), and … any change, in respect of any quota year, of the regions into which the United Kingdom is divided."
Regulation 5(3) states:
"The Minister shall, in respect of each quota year, announce by advertisement published in the Gazette and the farming press — …the implementation of a formula, and … the allocation from the national wholesale quota of a regional wholesale quota."
It goes on for several pages.
The first major point is that, once the regulations return to the House and have been adopted, there will not be an opportunity for further parliamentary scrutiny of the decisions. Whatever complaints people have about the regions or the quotas, it simply remains for the Minister to publish those decisions in the Gazette and farming press. We really should have proper parliamentary scrutiny.
I understand why the Minister cannot produce in the regulations any details of the formula, of the regions, or of other matters. That would mean the whole lot being produced each year. I hope that the Minister will at least consider an amendment to the regulations, so that they will
state
"The Minister shall publish in the Gazette and fanning press details of the formula for consultation for 30 days and thereafter subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament",
or such form of words as the parliamentary draftsmen use to cover the point.
The point at issue is simple. The Secretary of State should publish his quota schemes, give 30 days' notice of consultation, and bring the final details to both Houses for approval. After that, they can be published in their final form.
The second major point that the Minister touched upon, although not satisfactorily, is that the regulations fail to cover the transfer of a producer's quota from retail or direct sales to wholesale sales, and vice versa. That issue has been raised with me in almost all representations,

173
whether from the Aberdeen and North-East of Scotland Milk Marketing Board, the Scottish NFU, the English NFU or farmers in Wales. They have all made the same point.
The NFU, for example, is particularly concerned at the position of direct sellers. It has pressed for reasonable terms for individual quotas. It believes that the regulations will permit that. I believe that the regulations do so, although they do not recognise problems facing direct sellers who wish to increase sales to satisfy market demand. As matters now stand, individual producers cannot reduce their deliveries to the Milk Marketing Board in order to increase sales without incurring levy charges on the over quota of direct sales at the end of the milk year. The NFU considers it vital that quotas should act only as production control and that direct sellers should be able freely to interchange direct sales and wholesale quotas, always within the fixed total.
The NFU says—and the Opposition will continue to press the point—that the Government should introduce sensible arrangements to interchange the two types of quota. The NFU goes on to say that if such an interchange is not allowed, both existing and potential direct sellers would be tempted to break what they regard as a totally unacceptable restriction.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: My right hon. Friend has said that the quota belongs to the land and the holding. That means that it does not belong to the individual farmer. If that is right, why is it not possible, as the hon. Gentleman is trying to illustrate, for someone with a direct or a wholesale quota to have that interchangeability? As the cow is producing a quota, which in turn is related to the land, why should it not be possible to have that necessary interchangeability, either for direct sales or wholesale to the Milk Marketing Board?
Mr. Hughes: That is exactly the point that I have put. I shall return to the question of where quotas should go, whether to the land or to the producer.
So that there is no doubt about the matter, I think that the best explanation has been given in a letter that I have received. I shall not quote from it in detail, as time is moving on rapidly. I do not wish to name the producer who wrote to me as that would be invidious. He says that he has already cut back his production by 8 to 10 per cent., so that he is within what he would expect to be his 1984 quota. He says:
"My real problem is I had a contract to supply local hospitals with 100 gallons daily, but I lost this contract to a big distributor on 1 April 1984. Now I am sending this milk to the Board. Therefore I am now well over my wholesale quota. The Aberdeen Milk Board informs me I cannot move milk from my retail quota to wholesale quota or vice versa. If we have to live within the confines of the MMB (which we support) we must have this crazy situation changed.
To sum up, I am not alone in this situation, and we must be able to move milk from one quota to another. After all, if a distributor needs more or less milk, he could just lift his phone and say so.
I do hope you can make some Civil Servant see common sense in this matter."
That producer has been outbid in a contract by a bigger producer. He has been beaten by a lower price and finds that his quota has been adversely affected. That cannot be allowed to happen. The Minister knows there are many similar producers up and down the country whose circumstances are changing for some reason. The Minister might well say, as he has said today, that he is tied by the
174
EEC regulations about the matter and that he is trying hard to resolve the problem. The Minister should have foreseen that this would happen. He should not have signed such an agreement. If he is tied to the extent that he says he is by the EEC regulations, he should get on his bike PDT) to Brussels and get it sorted out.
I turn to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). Incidentally, in view of the time, I shall not give way to other hon. Members as interventions will simply prolong my speech and make it more difficult for other hon. Members to speak. Thus, I turn to the vexed question of in whom the quota should be vested. Should it be vested in the producer or the land? The NFU says that it recognises the interest of the landlord. Of course, interests vary enormously over a wade spectrum, from the landlord who invests heavily and provides the capital equipment and buildings to the tenant who invests in the equipment, and so on. The NFU firmly says that the quota should be vested in the tenant and that, if there is a dispute between the tenant and the landlord, it should be referred to arbitration in the normal way.
Not unnaturally, the Country Landowners Association adopts a different stance and believes that the landowner should have an opportunity to determine the fate of the quota on his land. So far the Minister has not made it clear that the landlord will not have a veto in this matter. I hope that the Minister will do so as such a veto would not be right.
The producer should be defined in the regulations in definite terms that are not capable of different interpretations. I think that there are about five or six pages of definitions, and the Minister should add to them the definition that the producer should be
"a person or persons who carry out the business of milk production."
That would cover an individual farmer, a company farm, partners, or whatever.
As the Minister has pointed out, six hardship cases are set out. The first case involves a serious natural disaster affecting the producer's farm to a substantial extent. I shall not go through all the cases, because I could talk on each of them for a long time. But it is clear that the first case is the most significant. My understanding of the regulations is that that cannot possibly include weather variations. I am not talking about three months of snow. I know that the Minister said that he was looking at the matter, but, as the regulations stand, I do not see how they take care of normal, or even slightly abnormal, weather variations. A natural disaster i s quite capable of definition. As currently expressed, the provision is highly restrictive.
Farmers up and down the country, and particularly from my part of the country, say that production was down significantly in 1982, and more particularly in 1983, by 8, 9 or even 10 per cent. because of adverse weather conditions. The significance of the Minister's statement RS that he said he thought that the first case might be dealt with on the basis of a 10 or 15 per cent. reduction due to weather variations. However, that would not cover the majority of farmers who lost production in 1983. The Minister had better write 10 to 15 per cent., or some other figure, into the regulations; otherwise he will find himself in trouble in Brussels, although he will be in difficulty when someone says that he lost 9·5 or 10·5 per cent. Indeed, otherwise, the Minister will have to judge each

175
case on its merits. That might seem to be a good idea, but, in the interests of justice, we had better try to be as clear as possible.
I have received many representations over the hardship issue, especially on the reserve of 2·5 per cent. It has been quite frankly put to me that 2·5 per cent. cannot hope to compensate all the hardship cases. It has also been pointed out that it will take at least 12 months, and possibly longer, to work through all the hardship cases.
The Minister was quick to seize on the fact that I was earlier nodding my head. He is looking for agreement and allies wherever he can find them. If I nod my head, he thinks that that is a marvellous step forward. However, I was nodding my head in agreeing with him that he cannot know how many hardship cases will apply. Thus, when he is perfectly fairly asked when he is going to resolve the hardship issues, he is bound to say that he does not know. It is not unreasonable to suggest that it will take at least 12 months to sort out and process all the hardship applications, so the Minister must take some account of how things will work.
The Country Landowners Association may find it strange that I quote it with approval, but it says:
"No levy should be charged on any producer who has not received a definitive statement as to his entitlement to quota."
How does the Minister respond to that? Does he accept that? Will he state quite clearly that, if someone makes a hardship claim or seeks to get the quota altered, no levy will be charged until the matter is resolved?
I come to the outgoers scheme. Once again, I regret that the Minister has far too narrow a perspective in considering the problems faced by the milk industry. Nothing that the Minister has said, either inside or outside the House, takes any account of the fact that farm workers will lose their jobs as a result of the changes. Not a single word, nor penny of compensation, has been mentioned. I accept that he mentioned compensation to those whom he wants to buy out. The figure is £650 per cow per annum for as long as they stay out of the scheme — [HON.MEMBERS: "Five years".] I apologise to the House and accept the figure of five years. However, the earlier press release that the Minister sent out suggested that the compensation would go on for as long as the scheme existed. The figure of five years does not detract from the point that the Minister did not consult farm workers.
I am sure that the Minister has received a letter from Jack Boddy, the national secretary of the agricultural workers trade group of the Transport and General Workers Union, asking to meet him to discuss the problems that will face farm workers as a result of the cuts in dairy production. I hope that he is prepared to meet Jack Boddy and his colleagues and to hold a proper discussion.
One factor common to all our debates is that there has not been any mention of the problems of those who work in the creameries. Many are losing their jobs as a result of the cuts. Hardly a day goes by without a mention in the newspapers of redundancies. Indeed, today's edition of The Times mentions such redundancies. However, I am sure that one of my colleagues will dwell on that point. I have received letters and spoken to people from many creameries and they all tell me the same thing—that there will have to be staff cuts in order to cope. I do not want to be an alarmist, but the viability of some creameries will be threatened by the scheme's operation and whole
176
creameries may close. Again, there is nothing in the Minister's statement about compensation or assistance for them. I wish that he would interpret his mandate as Minister much more widely.
The Minister appears to be extremely proud of the £50 million over five years, or £10 million a year. The truth is that that compensation is paltry when compared with what the Germans and the French are providing. The Germans are providing £25 million per annum to those who give up production. The French are providing £200 million over the next three years. Compared with that, £50 million over five years is pretty mean. Furthermore, as an illustration of the way in which the whole thing is to be carried out, the Germans are implementing quotas on a sliding scale to help small producers. I wish that the Minister had adopted that course instead of his present one.
I have put a much better scheme to the Minister. According to figures published in the annual review—the Minister's own review —there are 57,700 dairy holdings, of which 35,600, or 61 per cent., have herds of fewer than 60 cows. However, the average size herd is 59, and 69·9per cent. of cows are in herds of 60 or more. Producers with herds under 60 account for 30 per cent. of total production. Above that herd production, the distribution is different. We propose that all holdings with an annual production below 300,000 litres should be exempt from the levy, provided their production does not exceed the 1983 level, because 300,000 litres is approximately the yield of an average-sized herd.
Sir Peter Mills: What about the French?
Mr. Hughes: We are considering how the Minister applies the scheme in the United Kingdom. There is no point in evading responsibility by asking about the French. The French can apply this scheme in their way, and, provided they do it within the rules, we cannot complain about it.
No one has told me that my proposed scheme is outwith EEC rules and regulations. We have acceded to an agreement which sets a total amount of production for us. If we do not produce more than that total, we do not pay a levy. If that is the case, we can adapt the scheme to our own advantage and to the best advantage of small producers. My proposed scheme would exempt about 60 per cent. of producers. Every succeeding 200,000 litres of production above that level would attract a levy at a successively higher rate—for example, 20 per cent., 25 per cent., 30 per cent., and so on.
My scheme is simple, straightforward and easy to understand. People would know where they stood. It could be said that the problem with such a scheme is its simplicity. If I had the same back-up as the Minister—the same number of public servants—I could have come up with a more sophisticated and complex scheme. Had I done so, I would have undoubtedly landed up in the same mess and chaos as he has.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): The hon. Gentleman said that small producers should be exempted from the super-levy. Is he aware that that would not be permitted within the regulations? If we had sought such a scheme, it would have given greater exemptions to the French.
Mr. Hughes: The Minister has persistently sought to misrepresent the point. We are proposing that small producers in Britain should be allowed to produce up to the 1983 quota, not beyond it. If they went beyond the 1983 production level, the levy would apply. If the Minister says that he failed during negotiations to grasp the fact that the application of the scheme in the United Kingdom is outwith the regulations, he should have got the regulations right. We are not proposing to base the national quota on small producers. We accept that we have a bad deal and have taken a big cut in production, but within the present quota allocation agreed by the Minister it is perfectly possible to adapt my scheme to better effect.
The Germans are adapting their quotas to suit smaller producers. Their scheme is more complicated than the one that I suggested. If the Germans can do that, why cannot we protect our small producers?
The Minister's scheme is uncertain. He rightly said that he did not know whether its aims would succeed, because he does not know how many people will apply. Our scheme would be more certain. The Minister will not succeed, although his objectives may be laudable. Furthermore, the outgoers scheme is non-statutory. Parliament will not scrutinise the scheme, nor will its approval be sought. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to convert the scheme into a statutory scheme so that hon. Members can decide such issues in Parliament.
The acute problems raised by the reductions in milk production will be repeated and multiplied as time goes on. There must be a fundamental, comprehensive reform of the common agricultural policy. However, that is as far away as ever, and even receding further into the distance because the Prime Minister gave ground on own resources. Many more people are coming to the views that we have consistently advocated. In considering the CAP, we need to have an examination of the environment, a plan to control production, to include consumers in the consultation and to encompass wider questions of rural development.
Support has come from surprising sources, which would disavow any connection with the Labour party and would object if it were hinted that they had a taint of Socialism about them. I refer to the Country Landowner. If this goes on, I shall have to apply for a commission! The editorial in the June edition states:
"There is no point in defending the indefensible. The CAP is in a mess and has to be extricated. It would be absurd, however, to go about the job blindfold. The whole question of land use in the countryside is at stake…
Matters of Government organisation are boring, but deficiencies in that organisation can have painful consequences. Better to put any weaknesses right before the faults claim their victims. Do the different departments with their separate responsibilities know what Government actions are going to do to the countryside and will they be ready and able to work together to handle the situation that Government itself has created? These questions require immediate consideration and urgent answers."
So say all of us.
The need for a widespread, fundamental and comprehensive reform of the CAP is now well understood in many quarters. We need to consider the consumers, the farmers and those who work in the industry. We need to change the method of support. We need to control the CAP budget and to consider the overall rural environment and land use.
The Government have palpably failed on those counts. They have failed to protect British interests, and they
178
bungled the application on the deal, to which they acceded. We shall therefore vote against the Government this evening.
5.28 pm
Mr. Edward du Cann: I apologise for the fact that other parliamentary engagements —long arranged—prevented my being present for all of the debate.
First, I shall follow the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills). The fact that the debate is chiefly concerned with the worrying problems of the dairy industry should not be allowed to obscure the appreciation which the agricultural industry feels for the several real successes which my right hon. Friend the Minister has achieved in his term of office. It is good that the green pound has not been revalued, that beef and sheep variable premiums have been retained, that the suckler cow premium has doubled and that support for less favoured areas has been extended. That is a substantial catalogue of successes at a time of economic difficulty, and it should be acknowleged. I am, however, at present corresponding with him about a matter of argument in Brendon hills in my constituency.
I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he has withstood the barrage of criticism, which has often been unfair and frequently ill informed, with dignity and humour. My answer to what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said at the beginning of his speech is that, in my view, and I believe that of many others, the industry is fortunate to have at its head at this difficult time Ministers who are unusually sympathetic to its aspirations and knowledgeable about it.
It is true, however, that one cannot deny or disguise the fact that the new quota arrangements are a matter of anxiety for our dairy industry. In some respects, it is for the United Kingdom an unsatisfactory system for dealing with an undoubted problem m the European Community. However one looks at it, the system is arbitrary, capricious in its effect, distorts the market, and will establish a new bureaucracy and control apparatus at a time when the general thrust of Government policy is in the opposite direction. It favours the larger producer at the expense of the smaller. On that subject, incidentally, United Kingdom milk producers declined in number from some 150,000 in 1960 to 53,000 in 1983—almost 100,000 fewer. That is a shocking statistic to those of us who believe in the ever-widening diffusion of ownership.
If the outgoers scheme attracts the smaller producers, as it is designed to do, it must accelerate that trend. How many producers will there be in 1985? There will certainty be under 50,000—one third of the number of a mere 25 years ago. It is pity to see more small producers quit the industry. I should rather see Government policy working in the opposite direction.
The quota arrangements will discourage new entrants to the industry and will undoubtedly give rise to bad feeling for a long time. My right hon. Friend was correct when he said that the scheme was bound to be painful for farmers, but it is bad for Great Britain also. The quota system will assuredly discourage Great Britain' s burgeoning export efforts in dairy produce to which so much energy has lately, and in my view rightly. been devoted. News that Dairy Crest is to cut exports by some 50 per cent. to maintain milk supplies for the home market is most discouraging. We shall lose exports.

179
There is another unpleasant side to this unattractive coin. According to the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, if the United Kingdom's self-sufficiency falls from 89 to 83 per cent, imports will rise by 6 per cent. To a simple chap like me, a proposal which discourages exports and encourages imports is economic madness.
Last, but by no means least, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said, the quota system will cause unemployment. We have had this morning's news, and in Somerset unemployment is already happening—one or two redundancies here and there, and 50 employees went from the feed compounders, Pauls of Radstock, last week. There will be others. The knock-on effect is inevitable, and what a depressing list it is.
I do not believe that the United Kingdom should have agreed to the quota system. I am aware, of course, of the desperate need for a consensus within the European Community with all the problems of surplus, the cost of agricultural support and the like, but the pressing need to reach agreement among Ministers in the European Community — whether we discuss this matter or any other — should never have a higher priority than agreement on sensible systems.
We have a system, and the question for us today is: what should we do now? First, in the long term, I am sure that my right hon. Friend should bend all his energies and his considerable talents to reaching an agreement to scrap it, and replace it, as he proposed earlier, with the price mechanism. I hope that he will discuss that seriously during the process of the reform of the common agricultural policy. Until that time, the worst effects of the present arrangements must be mitigated. That is the duty all of us in the House of Commons must discharge towards an industry whose only crime, it appears, is that it has been too efficient, and whose reasonable aspiration was to a better share of its home market and a developing export trade. It is not —I remark in parenthesis —the only British industry to be devastated by a combination of Community and domestic state regulations. The private sector steel producers, of which I had some unhappy experience, was another.
I shall make some specific proposals to mitigate the dreadful unhappiness and uncertainty with which we are living at present. I make five points, but in no special order. Some of them have already been made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. The first is that, surely, no super-levy should be collected from any farmer until all hardship and special cases have been sorted out and everyone has been given a quota; and until the Government can be certain that the system is being applied properly and fully in every other EEC country.
Secondly, I can think of a multitude of cases of hardship beyond the catalogue that my right hon. Friend described. I come to the specific point of disaster. I have made the point to my right hon. Friend and other Ministers on other occasions that for us in Somerset the weather pattern in the spring and summer of 1983 was a disaster. We had the wettest spring for over 100 years, followed immediately by the driest summer, barring one, for over a century. Such extraordinary conditions mean, as everyone knows, lower yields and lower feed production.
The production of at least 150 dairy farmers in Somerset was more than 5 per cent. down on the figure for 1981. National production increased by 8 per cent. during
180
those two years. Therefore, those Somerset farmers are 13·4 per cent. worse off than the national average. My right hon. Friend was good enough to quote figures to us this afternoon. Surely it is reasonable that any producer who can show that his production was more than 10 per cent. out of line with the national average should be allowed to choose a different base.
Mr. Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in the neighbouring county of Somerset exactly the same figures would apply for the west and other parts of Dorset?
Mr. du Cann: I accept that, and I dare say that it applies to other counties.
I hope that significant variations in weather conditions should be allowed as a criterion of treatment of hardship cases. Southern Ireland is regarded as a special case. Counties such as Somerset should also be so regarded. Milk production is every bit as economically important to us in Somerset and some other counties as it is to southern Ireland. In any case, I believe that charity begins at home.
Thirdly, direct sales quotas were mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. It seems extraordinary to me that the Government are seeking to impose a quota on the amount of milk which producer-retailers and processors are allowed to sell to their customers. I see no justification for that. Surely we want to encourage more sales. If we do not take care, some producer-retailer businesses will be forced to close. Some are at risk in Somerset. That will benefit no one.
Fourthly, to encourage new entrants, there should be some flexibility in the ownership and transfer of quotas. A completely free market would enable larger farmers to buy quotas at the expense of the small producer. I should not favour that. I hope that my right hon. Friend will arrange soon for quotas to be made saleable within a county or smaller area.
My fifth point is about timing. Today is 3 July. Proposals were agreed by European Community Ministers on 31 March. That is over three months ago. I regard it as intolerable that uncertainty remains. The guidance given to producers by our Ministers has been prompt and full, but the same urgency has been by no means shown by Community officials. Who do those people think they are? Who are those faceless Community bureaucrats who are responsible for the delays? What reprimands have been given to them for their dilatoriness? Has anyone been dismissed or demoted? Bearing in mind that we face other changes in the future, what have Ministers done to ensure that there will be no repetition of such delay? We must learn lessons from this unhappy experience and see that it is not repeated.
I leave my greatest anxiety until the end. I can best express it in two questions to my right hon. Friend. The first is: what will we do if the new system does not work properly? To put it another way, is my right hon. Friend certain that supply and demand will now for ever be in rough equilibrium in the European Community and, if there continues to be a surplus, what further action is proposed? I feel—I am sure that I carry right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House with me—that it would be unbearable if in a year or two this upheaval, all this agony, for whatever reason, proved to have been in vain. Let us never go through an experience like this again.

181
Secondly — perhaps not entirely relevant to the debate, but nonetheless much in everyone's mind—what other proposals does my right hon. Friend think will come out of the European Community — for example, for cereals? We all know what deputy director-general Mr. Pooley said the other day in this country. I thought that the threats he made to grain producers were intolerable. We know that we have to go through a period of reform. If there are other proposals to come for other commodities, the best service that my right hon. Friend can do agriculture is to make sure that we know about them as soon as possible. The sooner we know what they will be the better; the sooner we get rid of uncertainty the better, for uncertainty is bad for any business, and especially for farming.
I ask these questions not in any carping spirit, but out of a real anxiety for my friends and neighbours, for their standard of life and for their way of life in the county that is my home; and because I believe, and always have believed, that a thriving and prosperous countryside is an essential part of the United Kingdom's economic and social fabric. To provide it and to maintain it is a trust for us, and especially for my right hon. Friend. I hope that we shall all be worthy of it. If I may end as I began, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be, and that is the one factor that gives me confidence at this time.
5.41 pm
Dame Judith Hart: I follow the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) with some pleasure because I agree with a great deal that he has said, although I may put it a little less tactfully and with less discretion than he has done. He has spoken for Somerset, with the assistance of his hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer). I think we know what the Welsh farmers think about all this.
I represent a Scottish constituency in which there is a high concentration of small dairy farmers. I was approached first by my local branch of the National Farmers Union when the Minister made his arrangements within the Community, and since then I have been approached by individual small farmers.
I wish to begin by giving the picture as it effects one of the typical small dairy farmers in my constituency. I should say that in Lanarkshire—and a large part of the rural area of Lanarkshire, though not all, is in my constituency—there are 440 dairy farms. The average size, according to the local NFU, is between 150 and 200 acres. In my part of Scotland there are not many options, and farmers are growing grass. On grass, they can raise sheep and beef and dairy cattle. They cannot switch to wheat and other grains. They have a limited choice in what they can produce on what is essentially hill and marginal land. The reliance is on grass.
I should like the Minister to consider the following, as I think that it does not quite fit into his careful explanation of the outgoers' scheme. I have a constituent who farms 200 acres. He has 50 milk cows, 120 sheep and between 10 and 15 store cattle. He works the farm with his wife. They have no employed labour. He has gradually built up to the position of having 50 cows. Indeed, he did not have those when he began. At that time, he did not borrow. Now, however, he has an overdraft of £67,000, because he has been carrying out drainage and other improvements on the land. Last year he had a total income, after tax, for himself and his wife—his wife is a full-time worker on
182
the farm, and, indeed, his young daughter helps to raise the calves — of £10,600. As his wife is a full-time worker, that means that each of them is earning less than the average industrial wage. What is he to do? If he takes advantage of the outgoers' scheme, what does he do? Does he go out of farming altogether and into the ranks of the unemployed? He has no capital, he is unskilled, and he has no qualifications to do anything else. I think that he does not quite fit the right hon. Gentleman's definition.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The right hon. Lady says that he is unskilled.
Dame Judith Hart: Perhaps the hon. Lady was not present when the outgoers' scheme was outlined. I said that he was unskilled in any other occupation. He is a farmer. He does not have engineering or computer qualifications. He is not qualified to go into the sunrise industries that the Prime Minister proclaims so much in Scotland. He has qualifications only for farming, which he is doing well. The hon. Lady should give me more credit than to assume that I was saying that he was unskilled at farming. He farms well.
The Minister said that "difficult decisions have to be made." I do not envy him the difficult decisions that have to be made on "how to adjust." He has "no idea how many milk producers will apply for special case treatment." It is surely not so much that he does not know how many will apply as that he has set aside a certain amount and, until he knows how many will apply, he does not know how much he can give to each one. That is the fact of the matter. He then said, "Let us go back to a free market situation." This afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman said that "agriculture can look ahead with greater certainty," and he expressed his concern for the small producers.
There are certain expressions that we are not allowed to use in the House, but when I hear the Minister speak of his concern for the small producers, greater certainty for agriculture and a free market solution, I must ask him where he thinks he stands in relation to his own Conservative philosophy of protecting the small man. We have a Government apparently dedicated to encouraging small businesses. What about small farmers? What a contradiction there is between Government policy, as it is expressed, and what he has achieved for the small business people in his own industry.
The solution is to be found not in improvements in the regulations, improvements in the quota arrangements and amelioration of the conditions that will be provided for small farmers who find themselves in difficulty, but in going back to Brussels and fighting back, and there ate ways of doing that. I have been in Brussels at meetings next door to my right hon. colleagues who were in the Council of Ministers with Sir Henry Plumb, now MEP, and I know exactly what goes on in the Council. I know perfectly well just what the French would do. What do they come away with? They come away with a percentage adjustment of less than 3 per cent. compared with ours of over 7 per cent. If the French were in our position, they would not be playing cricket, as the right hon. Gentleman is doing, at a cost to our small farmers. The French would be going back to Brussels and saying "Look, we have to face difficulties all along the line in other areas, but this we cannot accept. This has to be changed because of the effect that we find it has on our milk production."
I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is part of a sacrifice that was made at Fontainebleau. In those

183
negotiations—which were supposed to be so tough, but which have turned out to be so fragile—we seem to have sacrificed the concept of total reform of the common agricultural policy to which apparently the Prime Minister was dedicated. The Minister may be part of that sacrifice. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland must surely be ashamed of themselves when they think of what will happen to small farmers as a result of their easy acceptance of things that they should not have accepted.
The big people can look after themselves. They have enormous acreages in the better parts of the country where it is possible to switch crops. The small dairy farmers on hill farms and marginal land cannot switch out of grass, and the Minister will bear a tremendous responsibility for their fate.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Can the right hon. Lady help the House by saying what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) did not attempt to say: what kind of reform of the CAP would the Labour party seek, which would at the same time secure farming incomes?
Dame Judith Hart: My personal opinion may go a shade beyond what is in the Labour party manifesto, as I am not certain whether the reforms that I would wish to see can be achieved within the context of the Community. However, within that context, I would wish to persuade the whole Community to adopt intervention and support schemes such as we had before we entered the Community. Those schemes were infinitely more satisfactory for farmers, producers and consumers.
Like other hon. Members, I have received a brief from the Worcestershire dairy farmers. The interest in this debate extends from Somerset, Dorset, Wales, Scotland and Worcestershire to Cornwall. I should like to quote from the brief:
"The quota imposed is completely unacceptable. In the U.K. we should be allowed to produce the milk to make us self sufficient in all milk products"—
the right hon. Gentleman's figures do not meet that point—
"and only when this point is reached should there be any restriction on U.K. output."
I have a recent document from the National Farmers Union of Scotland which points out the knock-on effects.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Dame Judith Hart: No, I am about to sit down.
The union points out the knock-on effects on the beef market. It states:
"It would be unrealistic to expect that a substantial cutback in milk production could take place without knock-on effects on the closely related beef market. We believe that the current weakness in beef prices is directly due to increased slaughterings in the dairy herd."
Mr. John MacKay: Would not the right hon. Lady accept that, unlike the NFU in England, the Scottish NFU urged the Government to try to have quotas set for milk production?
Dame Judith Hart: I am afraid that I have in my hand a copy of the brief from the Scottish NFU, which is headed
"Note for Meeting with Minister (copies to Milk Committee)".
184
Its contents do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
I apologise for taking up so much time, but I have had to deal with interventions. Does the Minister wish to intervene otherwise than from a sedentary position?
Mr. John MacKay: I am not interested in the recent document to which the right hon. Lady refers. If the right hon. Lady had been involved in Scottish farming in the period leading up to the time when decisions were taken about quotas, she would know that the Scottish NFU urged my right hon. Friends to aim for milk quotas.
Dame Judith Hart: This document is dated 11 April 1984. I will send the Minister a copy, and he may challenge me then. To the best of my knowledge, the Scottish NFU has opposed the scheme. I have written to the Minister of State in another place because my local branch of the Scottish NFU, in Biggar, is highly critical of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, which contradicts what was promised to the Scottish NFU.
We could have a long correspondence about this matter, but I will not take up the time of the House on it now. The right hon. Gentleman has done tremendous damage to people in the farming industry, upon which this country depends, and in particular to the smallest people. He has damaged his own philosophy of protecting small people, and deeply damaged the working class in farming.
5.55 pm
Sir Peter Mills: I welcome the chance to speak in this debate, which I believe—having taken part in most of them—is one of the most serious debates on agriculture that we have had for a long time.
These regulations clearly show how right my right hon. Friend was to try to achieve an end price reduction. There is no question about it. He was right, and the rest of the Community Ministers were wrong. The Community will regret the decision that has been taken.
This is a sad day for me. I heard today that 60 workers in the milk factory at Torrington have been laid off because of the reduction in the amount of butter being made. That is particularly sad because the factory is one of the largest and most modern in the country. I am very sorry for the men who have given long and devoted service there.
I do not often criticise the Milk Marketing Board, but I believe that it is highly dangerous to restrict a factory to butter production. When something like this happens, there is no other product that it can turn to. I have urged that a wide range of products should be produced at Torrington, but unfortunately that has not come about.
When we consider the regulations, we must admit that British farming is facing an entirely new situation. Farming has to adjust to being treated like other industries, and that is painful. There must be a reduction in milk production, but the method and the speed with which the Community has brought about the change is bound to result in unfairness and in many problems.
I do not blame the Ministry officials for the fact that the regulations are a jungle—they have had to conform to the legal requirements—but the Community should be condemned once more for taking action before giving any thought to what would happen as a result. It is very difficult for farmers to change and to adapt with the speed required. It is difficult for urban people to remember that

185
it takes nine months to produce a calf and two years or more to produce a milking cow. One cannot turn the tap on and off as in other industries, or in the home.
Much is at stake for each dairy farmer—the future of the farm, the profitability of the farm, the value of the assets. That is why the regulations are so important.
I am not in favour of hurrying through the regulations. At present, not a single farmer has suffered any penalty. I hope that that will continue. There should be no deductions. We should ensure that the regulations are right. That will take time. Some hon. Members cry that the arrangemens must be made soon, so that the farmers shall know where they are. I believe that the farmers will be better off if, when they know where they are, they are in a fair situation. If the Minister will take his time, the result will be better in the long run.
I have a joke to tell about the regulations. An American attending a European Community conference wore a lapel badge bearing the letters "BAIC". On being asked what they meant, he replied, "Boy, am I confused." I and many others are confused, too, by the difficulties and complications. I wonder how many other Community countries impose such regulations on their farmers. I doubt that many do.
I repeat what has been said time after time: there must not he a single deduction from British farmers until we ascertain whether the measure is working in the Community. I am told by the Milk Marketing Board that, if the regulations are implemented as proposed, there will be a great deal of unfairness. Individual cases have been put through the computer, showing that there will be massive reductions to some farmers and large unexpected increases to others. I am told that anomalies exist. I hope to have further meetings with the MMB so that I can give my right hon. Friend more examples of the difficulties caused by the regulations in their present unfair form.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will carefully consider my strong points. The regulations contain many unfairnesses, and there should be a general clause to cover the most difficult cases. It is necessary to go beyond the guidelines to deal with the hard cases. I know that it will not be easy to include such a clause and that Ministry officials will not like it. I know that such a measure will give the Minister great power, but he will need such a clause to deal with the special cases that are not covered by any of the other regulations.
The Minister of State should make a clear statement that no dairy farmer will be penalised by more than minus 9 per cent. of his 1983 production. I hope that, in the interests of fairness and increased milk production—we should not forget that we do not want milk production to drop by too much—that will be a reality.
Many of our troubles could be overcome, especially those affecting the producer-retailer, if we did not have two types of quota—direct and wholesale. In its brief to me, the MMB makes it clear that the provision of two types of quota is likely to cause more problems than any other issue. That is true, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will turn his attention to that matter to ascertain what can be done. He may have to return to the Commission and fight the cause again. That would be in the interests of the producer.
The producer-retailer who supplies bottled milk faces a grave problem. Although most farmers produce milk for manufacturing, and therefore for butter and skimmed milk powder, and store it, thereby incurring the cost of
186
intervention and of getting rid of the milk, the people dealing with the lakes of milk are those who are retailing it and putting it on doorsteps. On a Saturday, they may have to say, "I am sorry, but I have run out of my quota. I cannot deliver any more bottled farm milk." That is absurd, and it must be put right. There must be more flexibility. Admittedly, there is not a great deal of such milk. The way to get rid of surpluses is to encourage more people to drink milk. Some Opposition Members often ask for that to be done, and that is the solution.
The position of tenants has to be cleared up. The regulations will be a thorn in the flesh of many small farmers who are tenants of county councils. We must be clear about how the Treasury will tax farmers on the total income of £650 spread over five years which has been given to them to get out of the industry. Farmers should be able to choose. I hope that my right hon. Friend will examine that matter.
My right hon. Friend should look carefully at the proposals aimed at helping some farmers find an alternative means of production—for example. with a pure beef suckler herd as well as a dairy herd on a holding. There will be little cheating, especially now that there is a quota system. It should be possible for farmers to turn to a beef suckler system.
I doubt whether all the measures can be implemented in October. People in Europe will certainly not he ready for them. My message to my right hon. Friend is get all the groundwork done, but do nothing else until we see other countries doing something. Only then should we start to apply the penalties.
I must draw the attention of the House to the extraordinary difficulty facing the Minister and all who are concerned with the problem of surpluses. In south-west England there was a 14 per cent. drop in milk production in April, May and June, caused by a combination of dry weather and over-reaction by farmers. If the dry weather continues, a serious problem will arise.
Mr. David Harris: Does my hon. Friend accept that, on top of the cut in production that he mentioned, last month — this will be repeated next month—farmers experienced a serious reduction in their income because of the seasonally adjusted scheme of the Milk Marketing Board? For many, that means a drop of more than £1,000 in the milk cheque.
Sir Peter Mills: That is true. It imposed an added burden on farmers. The farmers knew that that would happen, because there was at least a year or two's warning. Nevertheless, that does not help when one is putting the milk cheque in the bank.
I am worried about the possibility of supplies drying up. My right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that a 9 per cent. quota really means an 18 per cent. cut in the use of milk for butter and cheese. Most milk goes, as a first priority, for bottling and, therefore, doorstep selling. If that scheme continues, we may have a lot of egg on our faces because of the lack of milk for manufacturing and so on.
This is a difficult problem, but my right hon. Friend is trying desperately hard to deal with the matter. I shall certainly support him tonight and I urge my hon. Friends to do the same. However, we clearly reserve our position on what will happen between now and when the regulations return, because there must be some changes.
6.8 pm
Mr. Geraint Howells: This morning I read in one of the Welsh national papers that the president of the National Farmers Union said yesterday to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the royal show that fanners were very angry about the quota system that was being imposed on them. He went on to say that he hoped the Minister during the debate today would bring forward constructive proposals to save the dairy industry from collapse. After listening to the Minister, I wonder whether he has impressed the president of the NFU and his team. I doubt very much whether he has impressed the Conservative Back Benchers. They have been very quiet. One or two Conservative Members have said that they oppose the quota system.
Like many other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have had the pleasure of representing a constituency for more than 10 years. I am sure that many hon. Members will recollect that the Tory Government of 1973 decided that the beef sector would survive without a guaranteed price system for the end product. In 1974 calves were being given away and best beef was being sold at extremely low prices. It was against that background that Members of all parties persuaded the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to introduce a variable premium scheme. I give due credit to the actions taken by the Labour Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food while the 1974–9 Labour Government were in office. Of course, Lord Pearl is now in another place.
We have learnt that the agriculture industry will not survive unless we have a guaranteed price system for the end product. I agree with the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) that the way forward for the industry is not by means of a quota system for milk or any other product that comes from the land. The sooner we do away with the quota system, the better it will be.
The Government have been guilty on many occasions of introducing hasty and ill-conceived measures, but the introduction of the milk quota system is the most blatant example yet of their appalling lack of sensitivity to the plight of entire sections of society. It is proof yet again of their ignorance of the way in which the rural economy works.
I represent a rural constituency in Wales in which nearly a quarter of the work force is involved in agricultural production. Nearly 70 per cent. of the farm holdings are run by dairy farmers, who are directly affected by the new quota system. Many more of my constituents are employed in industries related to agriculture.
As I am a Welshman representing part of Dyfed, I shall confine my remarks to Wales, especially to Dyfed, as other hon. Members will confine their remarks to their own constituencies and their own countries.
The majority of the holdings in south-west Wales are small family farms with an average herd of 50 to 60 milking cows. Given the nature of the land, the climate and the market conditions prevailing in other commodities, those who are forced out of milk production will have little hope of making the grade in any other sector. If we accept the principle of a quota system for milk, the Government of the day may be forced to accept quota systems for other commodities. Therefore, the milk quota system must be rejected.
188
The future for the majority of farmers in Dyfed is presently bleak. There is a heavy dependence in the area on the agricultural economy, and every man, woman and child in the region can be expected to feel the effects of production cuts. Such is the concern throughout the county that on 30 May the Dyfed county council called a meeting to discuss the crisis facing the entire community and the implications of the collapse of the industry. It invited members of the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales, the Country Landowners Association and members of the district councils. I cannot believe that the Government are aware of the real fears of the people of south-west Wales. If they are so aware, they are slow to respond.
Figures prepared by Dyfed County Council show that farmers in Dyfed will have to cut back, mainly because of the rapid expansion encouraged over recent years, up to nearly 15 per cent. on current production. This has led to a direct loss in farmers' incomes of £13 million. That loss will lead directly to job losses on farms and indirectly to job losses in related industries. We have heard only today of many redundancies in creameries throughout Wales and other parts of Britain. Other local businesses will similarly be affected as income and spending power decline severely. There will be a shedding of labour in an area in which there is already an unacceptably high level of unemployment.
We have been told today that more than 34 employees will be made redundant at the Felin-fach creamery. In Whitland, Carmarthen, another 24 will be made redundant. There will be 19 redundancies in Anglesey, and in the Maelor area of Wrexham there will be 49. About 125 full-time and part-time employees in creameries will be made redundant. The total will be 400 if we take the whole of England and Wales. It is a great pity that southwest Wales has such a high rate of unemployment.
The collapse of the economy in south-west Wales will have far-reaching effects, as the viability of many rural services is based on the farming families which populate the district. The rural shops, sub-post offices, village shops and policing and medical facilities will be under even more severe pressure. The future of the family farm is under threat, but so is the very fabric of society in the rural heart of Dyfed. This naturally includes its social and cultural traditions. Its very existence is at threat.
We are fighting for fair play, justice and a way of life. There is a sense of outrage among the farming community that they should have been so easily and complacently betrayed by the Tory Government. The sense of injustice is the stronger because of the concessions won by the Irish Government for their farmers. Our farmers have made strenuous efforts, with encouragement from the Ministry, to improve standards and increase production over the past few years. We see Governments in other parts of Europe making greater concessions to their farmers. The general background tells us that there was no need to impose quotas across the board with little or no warning. It seems that economic and social consequences were not considered.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman has criticised the Government for making concessions, but will he acknowledge that the package was one that had to be taken for agriculture as a whole? Good features such as the beef premium and the suckler premium were trade-offs which had to be made. Bearing

189
in mind the constituency which the hon. Gentleman represents, it is understandable that he wants to talk about dairy farmers, but if he wants to assist the House, the country and the farmers in his constituency he must talk about the consequences for agriculture as a whole.
Mr. Howells: If the medicine is too strong for the hon. Gentleman, the best thing is for him to leave the Chamber. What I have said is the truth and the hon. Gentleman knows it. He knows that the Government have let down the dairy farmers over the past few months.
It is imperative that action is now being considered by the Government to alleviate the effects of the quota system. It is essential from the Welsh point of view that the Secretary of State for Wales takes his responsibilities seriously and responds to the representations that have been made to him by farming unions and other interested parties. I say with regret that the Secretary of State for Wales, who represents Welsh agriculture, has not been to Brussels once on behalf of Welsh farmers to take part in discussions or negotiations during the price fixing of our commodities. It is a great shame that he has not lived up to his responsibilities and has failed to look after the interests of Welsh dairy farmers.
There must be a concerted effort by the Government and their agencies to improve employment prospects in rural areas, and to make due allowance for that in their overall policy. Rural Wales needs financial aid—and without delay. Confidence in the agriculture industry is now at its lowest ebb since the war. Land values have fallen drastically. Many of my constituents are in deep despair.
The fact that the Ministers responsible for the agriculture industry did so little in Brussels to protect our interests or to seek other solutions to the problems of surpluses has destroyed the credibility of the Government. The claim of the Tory party to be a friend of the farmers in rural areas is now greeted everywhere with hollow laughter.
Let us look at a few statistics—we have not had them today. Perhaps many people who are not interested in the agriculture industry are not aware that in 1983 the dairy farmer paid a levy of approximately £18 per cow on every cow that he kept. In 1984 that levy has been increased by £11 per head to approximately £29 per cow. It is almost unbelievable—very few people are aware of it—that under the quality payments scheme, introduced on 1 April this year, the levy paid is now equivalent to £50 per cow. Based on a 40-cow herd, that levy is £2,000. So the dairy farmer is paying an extra £61 per cow this year as compared with last year. How can the dairy farmers survive with all the pressures that are on them? Via quotas and levies a dairy farmer with a 100-cow herd—I have worked it out with other farmers and with the farmers union — will make a loss of over £10,000 this year. Therefore, the position is not very good.
We have been told that the Minister has a scheme to give £50 million in financial help to dairy producers over five years, but, according to my figures, the dairy farmers in my constituency will make a loss of between £7 million and £10 million. There will not be much left for the farmers of Devon, Cornwall and Scotland once I have taken the quota of £7 million to £10 million for my Cardiganshire farmers. The sooner the Minister goes back to Brussels for more money, the better it will be for everyone concerned.
190
I was told yesterday that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not be coming to the royal Welsh show this year. I wonder what is the reason for that decision. If he does not accept the figures that I have given, I advise and invite him to come to the royal Welsh show, and to bring with him the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland. If they were to go into the members' tent they would soon find out whether dairy farmers in Wales are willing to accept the present proposals.
Farmers are not very good at dealing with figures. I make the odd mistake now and again, and I am sure that many farmers do as well. If a farmer with a 100-cow herd were by mistake to send an extra 10 gallons of milk per cow to the Milk Marketing Board—it is easy to make that simple mistake—he would have sent 1,000 gallons to the MMB. But the board would not pay a penny for those 1,000 gallons, and the poor farmer would have had to pay more than £800 for the board to collect the milk. I wonder who would get the profit from the extra 1,000 gallons sent to the board.
Like others, I have received many complaints from the producer-retailers. Many of them in various parts of Britain are worried about the draft regulations. I hope that the Minister will ensure that their future interests and the consumers' interests will be protected under the scheme that he is to introduce. Further clarification is needed to ease their worries.
There is only one way out of the dilemma. Long ago the farmers unions and others pressed the Government to accept a quota system for a short period, on one condition — that the farmers would be given three years to put their house in order. It would not have been too bad if we had been given time to adjust our system of farming.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Farmers in the eastern counties will be interested in the hon. Gentleman's earlier comment that he is opposed to quotas in all sectors of agricultural produce. Would he care to tell the House, for the benefit of farmers in my constituency, how he would deal with over-production in cereals? Would it be by a massive cut in the intervention price? I think that they are entitled to an answer from the official spokesman of the Liberal party.
Mr. Howells: The best advice I can give the hon. Gentleman is to wait for four years, when my colleagues will be sitting on the Government Front Bench.
Looking ahead, I suggest that there is only one way out of the difficulty. I have consulted the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the Farmers Union of Wales, my colleagues on Dyfed county council and Ceredigion district council and others within Wales. We are all convinced that the Minister should not accept the present draft proposals. He should go back to Brussels once again—taking with him this time the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland—and propose a new scheme under which dairy farmers in Britain will be adequately compensated for loss of business for the next three years. That is the only way forward. The whole package should be put back in the melting pot. We should start all over again. This time, the Government have made a bad mistake; they have made a political blunder. They are well aware of it, and all their supporters in the country are aware of it.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I notice that the party that is so much in favour of devolved government has not taken into account the attitude of the Scottish Farmers Union, although the hon. Gentleman mentioned it briefly. We have been in favour of a quota system from the start.
Mr. Howells: I am not disputing the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement. If that is the fact, it is a fact. I have not said a word to the contrary.
Figures produced today show that we have 144 days supply of butter in intervention stores, and that we have 692 days supply of skimmed milk powder. We are all aware that it cannot go on. [Interruption.] Wait a while. You are in government and you should have done your homework before now. [Interruption.] We all knew that this would come and I say to whoever was in charge of the marketing division in Europe, if there is one, or of the marketing division in your Government, that you should have known——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not my Government.
Mr. Howells: Unfortunately not, Mr. Speaker. I apologise.
Had the Government looked properly at the problems facing the dairy industry, they could have forecast the marketing system that would prevail. Do not hon. Members on both sides of the House believe as Christians that we should do something about the surpluses by selling them or giving them to the Third world? [Interruption.] Many Conservative Members disagree with that. If we believe in what we preach—that we should look after those in need throughout the world—it is our duty to reconsider the marketing system. There may be a way to dispose of our surpluses in the Community. There may be no need to turn skimmed milk into skimmed milk powder.
What is happening at present can only be described as the result of bad management, and it is costing the British taxpayer large sums of money. The Government should be ashamed of themselves. I hope that the Minister will assure the British dairy farmers that the quotas now to be proposed will not be increased in the next two years. Who knows whether the Minister will make further cuts of 10 per cent. in two or three years' time?
We on these Benches will be voting against the regulations tonight. If Conservative Members spoke their minds, they would express the same views and vote with us.
6.32 pm
Sir Hector Monro: I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) will forgive me if I do not comment on his Welsh story, particularly as Scotland won a grand slam. Accordingly, I shall put Scotland first in my speech. I hope that he will also remember that we shall not be voting on any regulations tonight—this debate is taking place on the Adjournment—so he may decide to think twice about how he votes and leave any action of that sort until the regulations are published.
I congratulate the Minister and the Leader of the House on providing a whole day in which to debate this matter so that our views can be considered by the Government prior to the normal debate before the relevant provisions become law. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his achievement relative to a whole host of
192
matters that are vital to farming, such as the green pound, the beef regime, the increase in the price of wool, the increase in the suckler cow premium—which I hope will be considered for extension to beef projects within dairy herds—his work for the less favoured areas, the hill compensatory allowances and what he has done in respect of interest rates and the national insurance surcharge.
I hope that in his consideration of the sheepmeat regime, which is an important aspect of farming, my right hon. Friend will remember that the great fluctuations in price this year have made marketing extremely difficult. If we can find a better system next year, with a more even level of pricing, that will be welcomed by farmers, dealers and the general public.
The price review this year has disappointed the farming community. Incomes have fallen and, with lower prices, they must fall further. It was rash of the Minister of State, Scottish Office, to have said a few weeks ago, so early in the farming year, that there would be a substantial recovery in earnings this year. I hope that he is right, but, to achieve that, there will need to be a remarkable increase in farm gate prices.
I wish to speak mainly about milk. I represent the important dairy area of Dumfries, and my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) wishes to be associated with my comments. This whole issue is bound up with the manufacturing of milk products. Like all hon. Members, I am concerned to ensure that consumers have plenty of high quality milk at a reasonable cost. Consumers have been well served by the dairy industry, with milk prices rising by less than the rate of inflation. The dairy industry, with farming generally, has made an important contribution to the national economy.
I am concerned at the fall this spring in milk production, in the area of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, by about 7 per cent. Do we have ample supplies in reserve to keep the manufacturing processes in Scotland running this year? I am equally concerned, with other hon. Members, about any drop in employment which may occur in this important industry, remembering that dairy farming often takes place in areas of high unemployment. May we be assured that the fall in milk production, coupled with the serious news today about redundancies in south-west England, will not have a dramatic impact on exports?
Every thinking milk producer anticipated reductions in output, even though White Papers over the years encouraged more production. However, it would have been foolhardy of farmers to cut production voluntarily in a period of high costs and inflation—happily, much lower now—as output was the only way by which they could maintain their profitability.
The cuts have been severe, but I have no doubt that with good husbandry and wise advice from the colleges, and from ADAS in England, the majority will overcome the setback and find a profitable way forward. We must not panic during this period of uncertainty, even if the colleges have forecast that net margins will be down by about half this year, with perhaps worse to come in 1985.
Uncertainly lies at the heart of the lack of confidence in the dairying areas. Farmers want to know why, if restrictions by quota or price were inevitable, the EEC Governments had not made preparations for that well in advance of the administrative details that were introduced in April. Contingency plans for either system should have

193
been ready. Had they been ready, that would have helped to cushion the dramatic surprise that the announcement of the cuts had on most dairy farmers.
Meetings arranged by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board and the Scottish NFU have been of enormous help to farmers, as has been the advice of the colleges and the efforts of other boards in Scotland to provide information. Scotland has accepted that if there must be reductions in production, a quota system is the best, and the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame Judith Hart) should have known better than to say otherwise.
Dame Judith Hart: I have been outside the Chamber clarifying the information that I had been given. The NFU in Scotland, at its meeting with the Minister, accepted the quota system, provided that there was equality of treatment for all nations in the EEC. As there is blatantly not, it is now hesitant about the whole thing.
Sir Hector Monro: I am glad that the right hon. Lady has at least tried to clarify what she said, and I shall not delay the House by quoting from the brief which has been provided by the NFU. It is clear that if there must be restrictions the union favours quotas, and it was a pity that, in her original remarks, the right hon. Lady got it wrong.
If we are to have a quota system, we must look after those who have not expanded, because they will be hit hardest of all. The system must be fair, and be seen to be fair, and I am glad that the Minister went further in giving explanations about the issue of self-sufficiency, bearing in mind New Zealand imports. The problem that arises time and again is the unfair position into which Ireland has got itself as a result of the scheme. The Minister should do all that he can to bring home the exact relationship between this country and others in the EEC. We need to be reassured that we are being fairly treated. The Minister has been helpful, particularly when he said that we had reached 100 per cent. self-sufficiency.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Hector Monro: No, we must press on. The hon. Gentleman has his own party spokesman.
May we have an assurance that all the EEC countries will adopt similar schemes to ours and that no super levy will be paid until every EEC country is ready to do the same? I believe that no super levy should be paid until special cases are resolved, although I accept that that might take until the end of the year. The Minister must keep flexibility up his sleeve for exceptional cases of hardship that are not covered by the regulations as drafted.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), is on the Front Bench, because I wish to mention one or two Scottish matters. According to the letter from the Minister of State, Scottish Office, which I received on 28 June there are to be four panels of three members for the whole of Scotland. I wonder whether that is enough to get through all the paperwork quickly, because many farms will have to be visited.
The Minister's letter does not make it clear whether an appeals tribunal will be set up. It would be valuable to know whether such a tribunal is to be established. The impression is that the panels will make the decisions and that there will be no subsequent appeal. Farmers'
194
livelihoods are at stake and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) said, the value of farms and farmers' futures are also at stake.
The producer-retailers face the hardest future. On their own initiative they have built up good milk rounds, goodwill and prospects for further development. In 1983 the Scottish Office introduced compulsory pasteurisation. Producer-retailers had to buy expensive machinery to fulfil the new duty. It led to a reduction in producer-retailers to under 100. Yet that 100 in 1983 picked up all the milk sales handled by the previous 200. They need a substantially increased quota over the 1983 level if they are to remain in business and provide high quality liquid milk for consumption.
An astonishing anomaly exists in the two-quota system for producer-retailers. They have quotas for the board and quotas for direct sale. If a producer-retailer tries for a contract for 100 gallons with a hospital, or school, for instance, he may win it or lose it, but he cannot transfer from one quota to another. We are striving to increase liquid milk production, so I hope that we can find a way round the problem. It is one of the most important issues for the Minister to consider before he redrafts the regulations.
The regulations give the impression that the farming and horticulture development scheme is under discussion for 1984–85. I should like similar facilities to be available for 1985–86 and for further into the future. The matter needs clarification.
We also need clarification on the special issues relating to production on 2 April. Several tenant farmers whom I know negotiated freely with landlords last winter to take on farms at the Whit Sunday term—at the end of May. Their predecessors went out of production in February or March prior to handing over the farm. Technically there was no production on 1 April. Special regulations must be formulated so that such farmers come within the quota system at the end of May.
I advocated the outgoers' scheme when the quota system was announced. I have several matters about which I should like the Minister to think. Are farmers to be taxed on income over five years, or on capital on the original payment? Is the herd basis to be brought into operation, or will the farmer have the option between income and capital?
We must also deal with the outgoes between landlords and tenants. We must be fair to both. When a dairy farm is let and the landlord is involved in the capital provision of equipment, he has a right to know what the tenant is doing in relation to outgoes and he has a right of veto. When the farm is let on an open tenancy, for whatever type of production — arable, beef or dairy — the landlord should have no veto. I hope that arrangements can be made between the Scottish Landowners Federation and the NFU that are fair to both sides.
I support the Government motion, but I hope that note will be taken of my constructive criticisms and that better draft regulations will be presented as soon as possible. I should certainly find it difficult to support the regulations as drafted. Knowing my right hon. Friend's feeling about agriculture, I hope that he will meet the criticisms and that he will present us with better regulations in a fortnight's time.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House of the great pressure of time in this debate. Shorter speeches would be generally acceptable to most hon. Members.
6.47 pm
Mr. Thomas Torney: "Farmers have been led up the garden path by EEC policies." They are not my words. According to The Times this morning they are the words of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday at the royal agricultural show. It is ironic that the Minister should at last, after all these years, come round to the fact that EEC policies lead not only farmers up the garden path, but taxpayers and many other sectors in our society.
During the referendum campaign, the Minister and I stumped the country together, but on opposite sides of the fence. Even in those days I was trying to convince him of the inadequacies of the Common Market and in particular of the disadvantages for Britain of the common agricultural policy. Now we have a glint of hope. The Minister is beginning to see the light.
Successive Governments have exhorted the farmer to increase production. That was the right policy. We had to try to be self-sufficient in food. A year or so ago I went to the Barbican for the launching of the Food from Britain campaign. Farmers, food manufacturers and all connected with food, including shopkeepers, were exhorted to improve marketing and production techniques and to produce food competitively with nations inside and outside the EEC.
The milk quota scheme must put farming back where it was before the Government started exhorting it. It must at least put the industry back where it was when I first entered the House in 1970, when it was producing but a tiny proportion of the butter that Britain required. I cannot see how the farming industry can get out of the scheme. In such a position no farmer can have any confidence to plan ahead. [Interruption.] I am asked where my farmers are. I do not have a lot of farmers, but I do have a considerable interest in the food manufacturing industries, and they affect farming. I have a few farmers, some of whom will be the hardest hit by the quota system.
The farmers on the perimeter of my constituency are producer-retailers and right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House have said conclusively that the producer-retailer—the small man with a few cows and a small parcel of land that cannot be converted to something else — will be hardest hit. So I say yes to that interjection from a sedentary position. I do have a few farmers and they will be the worst hit. Because of my interest in agriculture and food I have also received representations against the scheme from the Yorkshire NFU. As a Yorkshire Member of Parliament, I have a perfect right to put its case.
It is all very well for the Minister to bring his little book out and to explain to us that we are self-sufficient in this, that and the other, but I am sure that he knows full well when he is talking about reducing milk consumption that we do not have huge surpluses. They are to be found in the other EEC countries, not in Britain. I am sure that farmers, when they gather on their farms, in their local pubs or at their NFU meetings, must be asking themselves why in heaven's name Britain, which does not produce a surplus, should be called upon to cut its production. Why should we be called upon to shoulder a greater burden than, for instance, France?
Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman said that we did not produce surpluses. I remind him, quoting figures of 28 June, that in the United Kingdom there were almost precisely 150,000 tonnes of butter in intervention stocks, constituting 177 days of consumption, and there were 170,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder, representing 621 days of consumption.
Mr. Torney: The Minister can quote such figures, but the surpluses that he is talking about still do not match the surpluses that we have been hearing about; not just the recent ones on the milk quota question, but those when butter and other commodities have had to be sold to east European countries at give-away prices, subsidised by the British taxpayer. We do not produce massive surpluses. If we are in surplus at the moment, it is only temporary and, with a quota system, it will not happen again.
It is well known in farming circles and everywhere else that the United Kingdom has the facilities to implement the quota scheme if the Minister so desires, as he does. We will play cricket as it is played at the Oval and Lords. We will play properly. We will not fiddle in any way. At a meeting of the NFU at Knightsbridge only last week, a responsible executive member told the assembled company that he had just returned from France and that the French farmer did not know anything about quotas or cuts in his milk production. If the French will not cut their production, the Minister should see to it that we do not cut ours. Over the years, France has had massive surpluses. It has sold butter cheap to Russia. If France will not cut —it would not surprise me in the least if it ignored the rules and played the game its way and did not cut—what will he do about it? I challenge him to tell us. Surely we are justified in saying to him that if France does not play to the rules neither shall we. We will not see our dairy industry destroyed while the French do nothing about the quota system despite the fact that they are supposed to be as much part of the bargain as we are.
There is no policing in the EEC, and I am sure that the Minister knows that well. In Brussels recently I asked the Commission representatives a specific question about policing. I was amazed to discover that they had no system of policing at all. That related not so much to milk production as to cereals and other things. They have no system for finding out what is happening. They read newspapers to find out what is going on. To digress for a moment, feelers are being put out by the people in Brussels to discover the reaction of the Governments of member states to a quota system for cereals. There will already be a slight reduction in the price charged for cereals, but that sort of reduction will not be enough—the EEC knows that it will not be enough—to offset the massive stocks of cereals within the EEC.
I am anxious about the knock-on effect. I must declare an interest in that I am sponsored by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. We organise people in the creameries that were referred to by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills). We also organise workers in the milk distribution and milk processing industries. The dairy quota system will hit our members. It will probably cause far more unemployment among our members in the milk processing and delivery industries, in the creameries and butter factories, than among the workers on the farms. That is not an attack on the farm workers. It will create some unemployment

197
among them, but at the moment more people are employed in milk manufacturing than on the farms. For that reason we shall be worst hit.
Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Such small courtesies seem more in evidence among Opposition Members than among Government supporters. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have lost 60 jobs in a creamery in my constituency only today. Does he not agree that the greatest contributing factor to the damage being done in the industry as a whole is the uncertainty surrounding the future? In the light of that, the Minister's comment that he does not even have a target in mind for when the matter shall be resolved and has not even announced when the review boards will sit will do even more damage and create even more job losses not just in farming but throughout the ancillary industries about which the hon. Gentleman spoke.
Mr. Torney: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), and I sympathise greatly with the position in which he finds himself. But that was my very point, and the hon. Gentleman's intervention is further evidence that what I say is true.
As the Minister knows, during agricultural Questions, I have attempted to question him about the knock-on effect not only on milk distributors, milk processors and butter manufacturers but also on the feed side of the industry. Considerable unemployment will result because farmers will cut down on artificial feeds to their cows. They will put them out to grass more to reduce the amount of milk given by their cows and this will affect the feed industry.
I appeal to the Minister to examine the position in these other industries and see whether the Government can come up with some aid to those industries. They must be maintained for the future. They were a vital part of the exhortation to farmers to produce more. They are a vital part of the Food from Britain campaign introduced only a short time ago. The Government should be prepared to assist them in some way to get over this very difficult period.
We have too much unemployment already. This package will, albeit in small measure, add to the terrible effect of unemployment in the United Kingdom. That alone is a good enough reason for the Government to attempt to deal with the knock-on effect on other industries tied up with farming. They are being affected already. We have heard evidence of that today, and there will be more in the weeks to come. I implore the Minister to do all that he can to help.
7.3 pm
Mr. Neil Hamilton: It is a great encouragement to me to know that the flagship of the Conservative Back Benches, my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), is steaming in the same direction as I am. I must tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that I agree entirely with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said, especially with his five or six prescriptions for making improvements in the scheme.
I have with some difficulty ploughed through the document that we are debating. I came to the debate as a simple tax lawyer, and I had certain difficulty with the Eurospeak and the rather turgid prose. It is one of the few documents where it is necessary to read the full text to understand the explanatory memorandum.
198
My major criticism of the package is that we have tried to reform one sector of the common agricultural policy in isolation from the rest. In my view, this is a recipe for disaster. I know the difficulties involved, but we should have dealt with a comprehensive reform package.
I regret that the increase in own resources granted by the Government will make matters more difficult in the months and years ahead. But it has made matters more difficult for the dairy sector, which is very important in my constituency, that this sector has been taken in isolation.
Milk accounts for about 30 per cent. of expenditure on the CAP. Therefore, 70 per cent. of CAP expenditure occurs in other areas of agriculture. That being so, it is unfair that we should have singled out this one sector, In particular, it is a shame that, as soon as one begins to compare the incomes of dairy farmers with those engaged in other forms of agriculture, it becomes clear that dairy farmers should not have been singled out for first treatment.
In a written answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 30 March the Minister gave the figures. Taking the position seven years ago and looking at what has happenend to farm incomes in the intervening period, we see that dairy farmers' incomes are down to 65 per cent. Those of cattle and sheep producers are down to 64 per cent. By comparison with those two livestock sectors, in the cereals sector incomes are up by two thirds and in other cropping incomes are up by 230 per cent., although pig and poultry producers are down to 25 per cent. If any sector of agriculture should have been singled out, the dairy part of the industry comes fairly low down the list.
It would have been much fairer to deal with the whole of agriculture rather than with one sector in isolation, because in that way, although we could have dealt with the surpluses in milk and its associated products—and they need to be reduced—we could have brought down the costs of the dairy farmer at the same time as we brought down his income. That would have equalised the position. I know that there is a 1 per cent. reduction in cereal prices this year, but I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) that that is nowhere near enough to produce any significant reduction in the amount of cereals that will be produced.
Surpluses must be cut throughout the CAP, and I applaud the desire of my right hon. Friend the Minister to rely upon the price mechanism to achieve that. However, I regret that we were about the only member state in the Community to pursue that seriously.
It may be of some comfort to my right hon. Friend to know that in my discussions with farmers, although he has been unfavourably compared with his predecessor, my righ hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), I have defended him strongly for his work over the last few months. The many benefits in other areas have been catalogued, and I shall not go into them now.
The main reason why farmers perhaps look at my right hon. Friend in a less favourable light than they did his predecessor is that the budgetary problems of the Community are much more acute than they were in previous years. He has to grasp the nettle, which his predecessors did not have to do. Therefore, I have some sympathy with him, but not too much.
The national quota that my right hon. Friend negotiated was probably the best figure that he could have got. I do not criticise him on that ground, because I know the

199
difficulties of persuading the other member states to agree with us. It is only in fairly tales that the frogs turn into Prince Charmings. Certainly it does not happen in the Community.
We are now self-sufficient in most dairy products and in many aspects more than self-sufficient. However, the great expansion in British dairy farming has occurred mainly in the last two or three years. We are in the process of catching up, which is inevitable as a result of our late entry into the Community. Dairy farmers have been increasing production with official encouragement, up to and including recent weeks. I have a great deal of sympathy with them, because they have relied on official advice, only to find the carpet being pulled from underneath them.
Through the dairy settlement, we are institutionalising the inefficient European farms. Three quarters of British herds have 50 or more cows. In France, only 10 per cent. have 50 cows or more, and in Germany only 7 per cent., and France and Germany together are responsible for half the total milk production in the Community. The figures which will apply to the Community in future years are institutionalising inefficiency, and that is regrettable.
The most valid criticism may fall on the application of the quota in this country. United Kingdom farmers—and there are many of them—whose production has not increased since 1981 are understandably aggrieved because they feel that they have not contributed to the surpluses in the Community, yet they must reduce their incomes to pay for profligacy elsewhere. What sympathy does the Minister have for them?
One suggestion is that, instead of going for 1983 minus 9 per cent., we should have taken an average of the years 1981 to 1983. What are the arguments against that?
We are all greatly concerned whether the quota will be policed properly in other Community countries. I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South that it cannot be policed properly because of the high proportion of direct sales to the consumer, whereas in the United Kingdom it goes through a monopoly purchase of the Milk Marketing Board.
It will also be impossible to police because I doubt whether we have accurate figures for current production levels for individual farmers. Therefore, how can we tell whether Community farmers are keeping within the new quotas? If, at the end of the day, we decide that there is cheating elsewhere in the Community, will the British Government take unilateral action to prevent the destruction of the British dairy sector? I hope that they will.
It was Austen Chamberlain, a former Conservative Minister, of whom it was said that he played the game and always lost. I hope that it will not be said of this Conservative Government that we played the game and lost. Conservative Members who represent strong dairy constituencies will not be prepared to allow their industries to go to the wall merely to allow other member states not to abide by the letter of the law.
On special cases, the 2·5 per cent. was insufficient to accommodate many of the hard cases that will arise. I hope that that figure can be revised upwards.
200
My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said that in order to qualify as a special case some attention must be given to weather conditions last year. I reiterate that point.
I was grateful when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said that he may be prepared to accept that anyone whose production was 10 to 15 per cent. below the average would be considered as a special case. That will not necessarily cover many of the hard cases that will arise among Cheshire farmers.
I have spoken today to a farmer constituent whose production was 9 per cent. down in 1983. As he must now reduce his quota by another 9 per cent., his production will be down by a total of 18 per cent. of what it was in a bad year. Consequently, it will be impossible for him to continue, and he will have to leave the industry.
The quota pays insufficient regard to farmers who cannot turn their land over to other forms of production —for example, those who have farms in wetter areas or where the soil is heavy and cannot be ploughed up. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) has made this point in earlier debates. It will be impossible for such farmers to stay in business. Therefore, there should be a bias in the quota in favour of wetter areas or areas where the soil is difficult to till.
The speed of transition was well covered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. We have had four months of uncertainty, which is intolerable for those who must make business decisions for many months ahead. Those people were told that they would have to adjust over a weekend. The original decision was made on a Friday and was to apply from the following Monday, yet four months later we still do not have the details of the scheme. That is disgraceful.
Farmers are now faced with assets that are unsaleable and debts which are unserviceable. Therefore, they will face great difficulty when the payment of the levy comes to be made in October. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the possibility of staggering those levy payments to help farmers with their cash-flow problems.
I have in previous months made all these points in correspondence with Ministers, and I shall not therefore detain the House for much longer. I ask the Government to listen carefully to what I and other hon. Members have said. I shall not be able to support these proposals. At present I am minded not to go into the Government Lobby, although I shall not vote against them tonight. However, when we debate the substantive proposals in a few weeks' time, and if there has been no significant improvement, I regret that, for the first time in this Parliament, I shall have to go into the Opposition Lobby.
7.15 pm
Dr. Roger Thomas: About two months before this quota agreement was clinched, the annual review showed that last year farm incomes fell by around 15 per cent. In the livestock sector the fall was even greater, so that livestock and arable farmers continued to exist in totally different economic worlds. This agreement has undermined the existence and the viability of the former even further.
Farmers, particularly those in my constituency —where there are 1,800 milk producers— feel that the changes now taking place are more complex and far reaching than any of the other changes which the industry has had to face in the last 50 years. Naturally, farmers are

201
extremely angered that there has been no sensible transition period. Had there been a three-year period to adapt and to adjust there would have been far more cooperation and far less opposition. Unfortunately, the opposite is the case. Farmers feel that these derogatory measures have been introduced by politicians and can be answered and ameliorated only by politicians.
The whole dairy industry in my county is extremely confused, and it is no exaggeration to say that it has been whipped into turmoil. I am sure that the Secretary of State saw that for himself when he visited the small county town of Llangadog.
The industry finds itself in this ridiculous situation because of ministerial failure to understand an essentially on-farm matter. Carmarthenshire milk producers are extremely aggrieved at the co-responsibility levy, because it is only a tax on production. They feel that it should be reduced forthwith to its original level of 0·5 per cent. to finance, marketing, development and promotional programmes.
Through lack of information and directive, the part of the scheme most confusing to farmers, their agents and advisers is the quota assessment and the transfer of quotas. It will be some time before we are able to arrive at a clear objective, if that will ever be possible. People committed to new farms have no idea where they really stand, and that is especially so of the smaller farmers of Carmarthen.
What about the creameries of Carmarthen and Dyfed? In the autumn of 1983 there was the closure of a creamery at Newcastle Emlyn—one of the six creameries in the constituency—with the loss of 250 jobs. In the four constituencies which make up the new county of Dyfed, 1,250 people are now employed in these creameries. Today we have heard of the loss of 10 per cent. of those jobs — 84 full-time and 46 part-time jobs. People are now extremely concerned, because in these areas of southwest Wales there is no alternative to farming. Farmers there are being coaxed and cajoled, through an ineffective and insufficient scheme of £50 million over five years, to leave the industry, which has been part of their heritage for decades.
Most farmers will, perhaps realistically, concede that the EEC decision cannot be changed fundamentally at this stage. Indeed, the priority is to ensure that British dairy farmers will be treated fairly within the quota system and that surveillance of how other countries apply their levies and quotas will be paramount and decisive. The aim must be to keep the maximum number of producers in the industry.
For farmers in my part of south-west Wales, adaptation and versatility are words that fall on stony ground. They are both impractical and financially impossible. Warnings that a reasonable transition period was imperative are still being waved aside. Our farming unions have pressed for all they are worth the economic damage of such cuts on the rural economy, which discriminate especially against the smaller, specialist producers.
Unless there are better safeguards and conditions than are envisaged at present in parts of south-west Wales, many farmers will not survive and will be forced to capitulate. That will be tragic. The dairy industry in that area will be shattered as a result of nothing less than a major agricultural retreat. As in any retreat, the fittest will probably survive, but only by trampling upon their weaker brethren. Even at this stage, when ameliorating measures
202
are probably flagging, measures should be introduced to help smaller producers in a practical manner, through quota reallocation and transitional compensation.
What were, and still are, needed are measures to help farmers to stay in milk production. They do not need to be given money to get out of milk production. Those measures should be coupled with special aids to assist the grassland livestock producers to keep going. There is already heavy pressure on the beef market, so what alternative is there for hard-pressed dairy specialists? Should they go in the direction of intervention stocks, which are likely to rise and which are at high levels already? No part of the agriculture industry is immune from the damaging effect of the milk quotas, which are applied so rigidly and implemented in such an arbitrary and discriminatory way.
In my opinion, the £50 million involved in the cessation scheme would have been better spent on compensating producers to continue in milk production. Let us remember that many milk producers in south-west Wales have been encouraged to expand in the past two years. Therefore, they must carry a disproportionate share of the quota burden. The Minister is probably adamant and insists upon the cessation payments, but the current scheme must be improved greatly and made comparable to those of other member states. It should not necessarily be used to prevent a producer from producing milk for ever.
It is very provocative for the Secretary of State for Wales to say that because of the success of dairy farming in Wales we are a prime cause of these restrictive measures because we are self-sufficient in butter fats and are a substantial contributor to intervention stores. Welsh farmers feel very aggrieved about that, and also about New Zealand quotas. Producers have been infuriated by the fact that the recent five-year access for New Zealand butter will be continuing at a high level. Farmers have expressed their distaste of the idea that New Zealand imports are included in the United Kingdom's figures to camouflage the real position.
We are not self-sufficient in the United Kingdom. We produce approximately 88 per cent. of our milk and milk products. That situation faces the farmers of south-west Wales. Some of the them have organised demonstrations. According to the papers, they have been rather a rowdy lot. Some of the farmers' wives have been very accurate, or inaccurate, in their use of farming missiles. But that is beside the point.
Hundreds of farmers in south-west Wales do not demonstrate or get themselves in incidents of that sort, but they have written me some passionate, sincere and very heartful letters, in which they say that unless the quota schemes are changed fundamentally they will be out of business in a comparatively short time. They will be out of business in an area which has had chronically high unemployment for many years. I appeal to the Minister, as I appeal to the Welsh Office Minister, to act and stand up for Wales in the agricultural corner. If they do not, I am sure that the farming sector in south-west Wales will remember that at the next general election.
7.27 pm
Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. I feel certain that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) will forgive me if I do not follow him closely, but, coming from the other side of Offa's Dyke, I have a

203
slightly different set of problems with which to deal. However, I must make it clear to my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers that there is no shortage of anguish and agony among the dairy producers on my side of Offa's Dyke, in the Marches.
I should like to dispense with rhetoric. I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend—I have written to him on these points—to the very sensitive and constructive contributions from Herefordshire farmers suggesting how the problem might be resolved. I know that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have given careful consideration to and answered some of those points. I have no doubt that other replies will be forthcoming.
I was impressed by the immense wealth of wisdom that exists in the Marches of Herefordshire, and in south Worcestershire. The farmers there have suggested how to examine the problems from another direction. I shall not go into that tonight, because the significance of tonight's debate is as a breathing space within which the Minister and his team can review what has been said tonight and decide how the draft regulations might be amended before they are laid before the House as a statutory instrument.
That was a wise move. To have laid draft regulations before the House as a statutory instrument without this consultative period would have been to invite deep distrust and disturbance among Conservative Members. I know that the Opposition have been totally prejudiced from the beginning—[Interruption.] I have yet to hear anything but prejudice from Opposition Members.
Mr. Ron Davies rose——
Mr. Shepherd: I shall not give way, because I do not want to detain the House if I can avoid it.
I must express some regret, because when, in November, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister about the self-sufficiency levels in the United Kingdom and urged him not to adopt any path that would lead to ossification or stultification of the industry, I was assured that that would not happen. At the time, I knew that my right hon. Friend the Minister and his hon. Friend the Minister of State were actively and vigorously pursuing the policy of trying to achieve a price-type settlement. However, since we now have an arrangement that will lead to ossification and stultification of the industry, we must concentrate on two things.
First, we must consider how we can make the present set of arrangements as fair and understandable as possible; and, secondly, we must consider the future. We must recognise that the Community is still 10 per cent. over production on present consumption levels, even after this reduction, and we must consider how to tackle the next stage. We can either increase sales or make a further reduction in production. The money will not flow ad infinitum. Indeed, Opposition Members and most of my hon. Friends agree that there should be control of agricultural expenditure.
I look forward to seeing how the regulations rate in the gobbledegook competition of the year. I should think that they are odds-on favourites to succeed. That is not necessarily a reflection on the parliamentary draftsman or the Minister. It is a pity that they had to be so complex. Anything with 80 definitions as well as a certain number of minor definitions beforehand is a masterpiece of the
204
first order. It would be interesting to see how they could be streamlined and made more comprehensible. The regulations raise as many questions as they answer. The aim of today's exercise must be in part to pull out the questions so that any further points can be incorporated into the amended regulations.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take seriously the question of amending the draft regulations in the light of this debate. During his opening remarks, I thought he indicated that that would be so. If that is his intention, I should be most grateful if he would nod his head at me, as that would be very reassuring. I see a half nod.
One of the particular problems facing the industry is the uncertainty and lack of confidence. That is reflected in a wide variety of ways. Bank managers must also be getting very bothered. It is important to do all that we can at this stage to ensure that the price of land is not undermined by any precipitate pulling out of rugs by bank managers. I hope that those bank managers who read the report of this debate will consider that point. Although times are already uncertain, anything that led to an increase in that uncertainty would not prove helpful to an industry that is having painfully to readjust itself.
Part of that lack of confidence is based on the track record of countries in the Community. It is feared that some countries might seek to circumvent the arrangements agreed in the Council of Ministers. In the past few months several cases have been quoted to me of arrangements under which national Governments have paid levies so that they did not fall on producers. I can understand producers in Britain being concerned. However, with their magnificent efficiency and effectiveness, the Ministry and the industry—which have worked very hard to produce these regulations—may be so far ahead of the game that the question of the levy comes up before other countries have got their own schemes into order. As has been said, it would be wrong to pay any levy before other countries are clear as to whether they are going to pay.
I should like to go a little further, and ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that no producer in this country parts with a penny of levy from his cash flow until such time as we can see that the other countries have got things organised. That would be a reasonable sanction. If we had to cut back production in the dairy industry because Community money had run out, the lack of levy money going back into the Community might help to concentrate the minds of the other countries and the Commission on the fact that action must be taken to maintain fairness.
There is a conflict of timing and interests. As has been said, producers are anxious about when the hardship cases and expanders will be dealt with. Indeed, the Minister has been asked to say when they will be dealt with. However, he cannot do that until the House has agreed to the statutory instrument and the necessary procedures. But, like my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), I urge my right hon. Friend not to be in too much of a hurry to get the regulations out. It is far better to get the regulations right and understood than to bounce into play a ball that is bent, crooked or otherwise imbalanced. My message to my right hon. Friend is to take a little time getting the balance of the regulations right, despite the fact that there will be a longer period of uncertainty. At the same time, I urge him to give dairy producers the concrete assurance that they will not be asked to take a bigger cut in production than that indicated

205
by their present provisional quota. That would enable them at least to know where they stand if they are already in production.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the regulations merely empower the Minister to prescribe regions and to prepare schemes, but that what we really need is parliamentary scrutiny of both the schemes and the regions?
Mr. Shepherd: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The value of this debate lies in the fact that such points can be made.
Given the uncertainty of the present year, may I have an assurance that, if a producer fails to make his provisional quota, he will not be penalised by anyone trying to clutch in quota from somewhere else? In the first year, no one yet knows where he stands. It is important that there should be some confidence that if, by accident, there is a fall below the level of provisional quota set, no penalty is indirectly incurred.
The producer-retailers have already been mentioned, and I shall not rehearse the arguments except to say that that important group deals with the consumption of liquid milk. It is vital that the regulations should be adjusted to enable a producer-retailer to buy from another producer with a wholesale quota on a properly accounted arrangement without necessarily going through the Milk Marketing Board, so that he can meet the sales that he has made. It would be ridiculous if a producer-retailer could not meet his milk round. It would surely be simple to make that small adjustment, which would be properly accounted for, so that nobody's quota was bent and so that the French did not drive a coach and horses through the exemptions for small producers, and so on. We could keep the provisions cast iron but make it possible for a producer-retailer to top up, and thereby encourage him to build on his success. To a certain extent, that would overcome the problem of stultification and ossification. As producer-retailers are also involved in the farmhouse cheese business, they are capable of encouraging additional consumption.
I would prefer to see no tax on the £50 million payment or £650 a cow. That would be reasonable compensation, especially in view of the small amounts in macro terms. If the Treasury is adamant——
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: No "If".
Mr. Shepherd: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend.
The scheme must make it more attractive for farmers of larger herds than for farmers of small herds to go out of production. I am anxious that the small man should not be caught in a cleft stick. We can help him best by ensuring that it is slightly more attractive for the bigger rather than for the smaller man to go out of business.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Why should the payment be taxed? The compensation is exceedingly small, and could be eroded by inflation.
Mr. Shepherd: My heart goes out to that argument. I agree with it. I hope that the Treasury will hear that we would prefer not to see the payment taxed. It is a straight compensation, which will enable justice to be done within the industry.
I do not understand why there are no dairy farmers on the panels. It is not too late to change that. I cannot see how the panels can understand the nature of the industry
206
if there are no dairy farmers on them. [Interruption.] If dairy farmers are on the panels, perhaps the Minister will put me right when he replies. I should like to see dairy farmers on the panels so that they can give their expertise to that specific provision.
In future we shall have the problem of deciding how to deal with the next 10 per cent. I make a plea to all interested organisations not to sit back and wait for the Government to do something only to complain that they have got it wrong. All sectors of the industry should put forward positive contributions and proposals, and that debate should be extended to the Community. It is not sufficient to be negative. We must make positive proposals about the way forward and bring wisdom to bear on the problem. The same problem. exists for all commodities in the temperate foodstuffs range. That is the problem facing agriculture.
I shall be delighted to support my right hon. Friend tonight. I understand that he is reviewing the draft regulations in the light of our debate. Because of my critical appraisal of the state of the industry, I shall have to consider carefully any consequences before deciding how I shall react at a later date when the regulations are again brought before the House.
7.43 pm
Miss Joan Maynard: It is clear that shock waves are going through our dairy industry. The shocks are even greater because a Tory Government have caused them, and farmers traditionally support the Tory party. The best teacher is always experience, and therefore I hope that farmers will learn from this experience.
The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) said how sad he was that certain people in his constituency had been made redundant. The Opposition appreciate his sadness, but that will not help them to find another job. He talked about the importance of planning to the agriculture industry. My father was a small farmer, so I know something about the importance of planning in agriculture and the need to have security and guarantees. That is why the Labour party introduced the 1947 legislation. We remembered the 1930s, when people were dependent on the end price, when there were more than 3 million unemployed, and when, despite the virtues of private enterprise, farmers were going bankrupt faster than anybody else. The legislation gave farmers the opportunity to plan and to know that they would sell their produce at guaranteed prices.
Britain's entry into the Common Market meant that control was taken out of Parliament's hands. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) said that farmers had been led up the garden path, and he was right.
Mr. Torney: The Minister said that.
Miss Maynard: Both of them are right. The impression was given that there was an open-ended commitment, but that was not the case. The Minister has had to face that. One of his problems in reaching a settlement was that many matters were outside his control. How many times did he say in his speech that the Common Market did not allow this or that? Hon. Members who were opposed to our joining the EC objected because we said that it would take control away from the House and the country, but that is exactly what has happened.

207
On all three aspects of the milk issue the Minister appears to favour the larger farmers at the expense of small dairy units, which often employ no labour, and farm workers. Many people share my view that the bigger farmers will be protected and the smaller farmers and the farm workers hardest hit. What plans does the Minister have to protect the jobs of farm workers, and what compensation does he propose to give to the unfortunate ones who will lose their jobs? I remind the Minister that farm workers have as great a stake in the industry as the farmers. They invest their labour, skill and commitment, and have as much right to consideration as anyone else in the industry. Therefore, I hope that in future the Minister will consult the union that represents farm workers as well as the union that represents farmers and landowners.
Under the outgoer scheme farmers will be given £650 per 5,000 litres over five years. It is clear that the option is unattractive for small dairy farmers, especially in areas where the scope for alternative crops is limited. Hill farmers and marginal farms will not be able to swop over to other crops and commodities. On the other hand, the larger farmers may be inclined to reduce their herds, get rid of stockmen and then claim the money. I have only one example of that, but it is an obvious loophole. It is most aggravating that money is being offered to farmers, but that no compensation will accrue to the stockmen, through whose skill the farmer qualifies in the first place.
For hardship cases, the six grounds on which a dispensation can be claimed are likely to be rigorously checked, especially when small dairy herds are involved. The fact that inclement weather was originally excluded but has now been tentatively accepted is a small sop to west country farmers, for whom 1983 was a bad year. Most of those affected were the medium-sized and small farmers.
On quotas, the 1981 level plus 1 per cent. would have helped the small dairy men more than the 1983 level minus 9 per cent., because of the allowances available within the agreement for those who have recently started production. In addition, the present confusion over the position of the producer-retailer is likely to hit the small operators hardest.
The United Kingdom Government have badly bungled what was not a brilliant agreement in the first place. It is also necessary to observe that the National Farmers Union elite are unlikely to suffer unduly. The Minister pointed out that grain quotas were unlikely to appear on the agenda next year, because of the problems of milk quotas. Milk producers who heard the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) when he was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food say, "Produce more," will doubtless smile wryly at that, because after milk products the costs of the grain regime are the next highest item in the CAP budget.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: The hon. Lady mentioned the effect of the regulations on west country fanners. Does she agree that if my right hon. Friend is considering including weather as a factor for special cases, he should carefully consider regions as they will be defined under the regulations? For example, Blackmore vale, which is part of Dorset, should be considered, rather than the whole of Dorset, which was not all affected by the weather in the way that she is describing.
Miss Maynard: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman knows more about the details of that county than I do, although I was there recently. It is a county that I like very much. I know that west country farmers would be likely to benefit most from help in relation to weather conditions. Clearly, the "barley barons", ably represented by the Minister, are unlikely to accept quotas in relation to grain as meekly as the NFU has allowed the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to interpret the new ground rules.
The United Kingdom is still not self-sufficient in liquid milk supplies. There are repeated stories of a rise in milk imports, particularly across the Six Counties' border. A large proportion of the surplus skimmed milk could be used as pigfeed. A great deal already is. The cardinal point is that it is nonsense and obscene to talk of "food mountains" when two thirds of the world is starving. Bad policy by the Ministry of Agriculture, endorsed by the NFU, coupled with the mean attitude of the United Kingdom Government, means that food stocks are likely to be "denatured" rather than given in emergency food aid. Vietnam is a good example. It has been asking for milk, yet we are talking about restricting output. Surely that is not the way to run our society.
There is NFU complicity and CLA duplicity in the way that the new milk regime is to be made to work. Tenant farmers will have to obtain the landlords' permission to discontinue milk production, but where is the requirement to consult farm workers whose livelihood is being destroyed? The NFU has opted for the path of least resistance, cynically noting that small dairy farmers do not count for much in NFU elections. There is an alliance of Tories, NFU and the CLA that treats consumers, workers and tenant farmers with disdain.
I thought that the Tory party was supposed to be the champion of the small business man. Why is it not helping the small dairy farmer? Does it feel that he does not count? If he is not a small business man, who is? The small farmer must be a small business man. I come from a family of small farmers. I know the long hours that they put in to make a living. If anyone should have had help, it should be the small farmers.
The people who will suffer most from this shabby deal are the farm workers, who will receive no compensation for losing their jobs as the wealth creators in our agriculture industry, and the small dairy farmers, because they are usually in areas where they cannot switch to other crops, and because they are more financially stretched.
This deal spells out the need to leave the Common Market as soon as possible, in the interests of most people in this country. I know that hon. Members have been saying today that we must work for reform. We have been working for reform for more than 13 years and have got nowhere. If I believed that we could reform the Common Market I should argue for that, but I cannot see any hope for that. I believe, therefore, that the best solution for the majority of our people is for Great Britain to leave the Common Market as soon as possible.
7.53 pm
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Last Wednesday, as soon as the draft regulations were laid, I obtained a copy and ploughed relentlessly through them. As the House will be aware, I have been a member of the European Parliament for nine years and I am not unaccustomed to reading EEC documents. When I reached

209
page 73 of these draft regulations, I found that they raised more questions than they answered. What, for example, will happen to the farmer who has developed since 1983 without a farm and horticultural development scheme or an agricultural or horticultural development scheme and who is now geared to producing more milk than he did in 1983?
We are all aware of cases where a man, often with family help, has worked all the hours that there are converting old buildings to modern requirements, but that effort is not reflected in any figures that an accountant or anyone else could certify. What will happen to him? He could face an enormous cut in his permitted production and be driven out of business. Although the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) that no producer should face a cut of more than 9 per cent. would not solve the problem of such a man, it would ease his position somewhat, and I hope that it will be accepted.
Hardship cases worry me most. There are many genuine cases of hardship that will not come remotely within the six rigid categories that have been outlined. I know of a case of two brothers who were running a small farm. It was too small to keep two families. One brother managed to obtain the tenancy of another farm and went off, with his brother's full agreement, to farm on his own. He took half the family herd with him. The brother who left home will be all right, because he will count as a "new starter". What of the brother left behind? Half his herd was not stolen. He can scarcely describe his brother as a natural disaster! Yet, at the crucial time for deciding quotas, his milk production will be down to half the normal production on that farm. What happens to him?
What happens to a man who wants to progress up the farming ladder—if such still exists—who finds another larger farm which has no quota? Can he take his quota with him and progress, or must he stay put for the rest of his life on a holding that he has outgrown? That brings us to the wholly unsatisfactory and unclear matter of who owns the quota, which the Minister discussed but did not clarify in his speech. I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will clarify the point a little further.
Three tenant farmers came to see me the other day and pointed out that they had put up buildings at their own expense. They felt that they were entitled to sell their quotas on the lines of the Canadian scheme, or to pass them on to their sons as "tenant's fixtures". Others have pointed out that if that were allowed, the farm could be sterilised in regard to milk production, which may be the only form of husbandry for which it is suited. Where does the balance lie? The draft regulations do not tell us. I support those hon. Members who say that speed is not of the essence. Getting it right is what counts. Much more discussion is needed if unfairness and hardship are to be minimised.
The Minister has properly tried to introduce a little flexibility into the scheme to help small farmers who can least afford a cut in income by introducing his outgoers' scheme. As many hon. Members have said, it is important that such payments should be treated as redundancy payments and not taxed. Other people receive £25,000 free of tax and up to £50,000 with a minimal tax payment. All the outgoers' payments should be free of tax.
What is the time scale for hearing appeals? How can farmers conceivably plan their autumn production if they do not know whether their quota appeals will be allowed?
210
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged that the most complicated issue is that of producer-retailers of whom a high proportion farm in the north-west. There are nearly 1,000 in Lancashire. That is roughly one third of the total. Many have gone to a great deal of effort to persuade housewives to buy more milk. Their efforts over the past three years will be brought to nought with their frozen quota. That could spell the end of doorstep deliveries. The big five, who in the past have hesitated to withdraw deliveries from an area because, if they did, a producer-retailer might step in, may now decide that it would pay them to sell entirely through supermarkets because the housewife with no alternative source of supply would be obliged to buy there. Producer-retailers must be allowed to expand genuine sales without penalty. Moreover, if a producer-retailer loses one of his contracts to a hospital or to another retailer, as the regulations stand, he cannot put that milk in his bulk tank, although overall he is producing no more milk. This ridiculous situation must be changed.
Many farmers agreed that quotas were becoming inevitable. Whatever they felt about that, however, all are agreed on two things. The first is that in no circumstances must British farmers be asked to pay levies until machinery has been set up in the other nine member states to ensure that their farmers also pay levies. The second is that our scheme must be fair and take proper account of exceptional conditions which go well beyond the limited hardship categories so far offered.
I shall be supporting the Government on this take-note debate, but, like many of my hon. Friends who have a deep and abiding interest in agriculture, I shall expect substantial changes and much greater clarity if I am to vote for the regulations when they are laid before the House.
8 pm
Mr. James Nicholson: We have travelled far through the United Kingdom in the debate. We have been to Wales, to Scotland and to nearly every county and shire in England. I propose to take the House across the Irish sea to Northern Ireland, and to bring to its attention the serious problems that face Northern Ireland producers.
I have listened with interest to the speeches of hon. Members. Every hon. Member seems to have the same problem. Each hon. Member's area is more important and faces greater hardships than those of other hon. Members who have spoken. I, too, am in that position. I believe that I can prove that Northern Ireland has been treated worse than any other part of the United Kingdom.
Milk quotas in Northern Ireland for our farmers and for those involved in ancillary industries will have far-reaching consequences for the agriculture industry. Indeed, on many occasions those involved in ancillary industries have been forgotten about in this discussion, which has been going on since the early days of April. Quotas are objectionable. It seems that we shall have to learn to live with the problem for some years to come, but it is important that the rules and regulations laid before Parliament are capable of controlling and correcting the problems as they arise.
The Minister will doubtless be aware of the feelings of anger, resentment and deep frustration of the dairy farmers in Northern Ireland since the Brussels agreement, the subsequent decision on how that agreement would be

211
implemented and the quota divided, and whether we received in full the 65,000 tonnes which we were supposed to receive.
The dairy sector of agriculture in Northern Ireland is most important. Our dependence on grass-based farming is paramount. I should like to bring to the attention of the House, as I did in the Adjournment debate on 7 June this year, the role played by the small family farms in Northern Ireland. The average herd size in Northern Ireland is 38. Sixty five per cent. of dairy herds in Northern Ireland contain fewer than 40 cows. Alternatives to dairy farming in Northern Ireland are nil. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), told the Northern Ireland Assembly that
"eventually there are no alternatives for grass-based production for 90 per cent. of Northern Ireland farmers."
Since the entry of the United Kingdom into the EEC we have watched the collapse of our pig and poultry sectors, and many farmers were advised at that time to develop and expand their dairy enterprises by building new silos and milking parlours. This they did effectively and efficiently, and now they find all this hard work and dedication disintegrating round them. The situation in which many farmers have been placed because of the Department's encouragement angers me most. They were encouraged to produce more and more, and to invest more and more, and many now find themselves in serious financial difficulties.
The Minister spoke yesterday about farmers being led up the garden path by the EEC. They were led up more than the European garden path; they were led up garden paths back at home as well, I hasten to add. Many young farmers who are tryng to make a start in agriculture are the hardest hit by quotas. I ask the Minister what advice I can give to such young farmers in my constituency. Northern Ireland is littered with many instances of hard cases, just as I am sure are other areas throughout the United Kingdom.
One young man, after completing his college studies, came home to the family farm. After considering the options available to him, and in consultation with Department officials, he decided to enter into a five-year programme. He entered into a scheme, built a silo and milking parlour and graduated progressively over five years to owning 40 cows. That seems a sensible course for any young man to take, as I am sure most hon. Members will agree. Having taken that responsible attitude, the young man finds himself with buildings erected, money invested and both tanks sitting in his farmyard, which the Milk Marketing Board will not install because he has no quota. The Department of Agriculture will not give him a licence because he has no bulk tank installed. He is currently milking 10 cows and disposing of the milk. Young men such as that must be given consideration. They are the future of the agriculture industry, and some hope must be held out to them if agriculture is to survive.
The information—or should I say lack of information —available to farmers since April has been deplorable. The Minister must realise that farmers cannot change their pattern of farming month by month and, at a stroke, cut back 9 per cent. or, indeed, in the case of Northern Ireland, from 2 April cut back 13 or 14 per cent.
In Northern Ireland, our reliance on milk production, our investment in the industry, our ability to conserve and utilise grass to the maximum and our inability to diversify
212
add up to our being the hardest hit. In the long term, of course, the Minister's buy-out scheme will be of some assistance, but we must wait and see what response it receives. However, it adds no extra quota; it means only the redividing of two other farms or existing amounts available.
I am concerned that there will be further erosion of our small farms and small producers. This will be seriously detrimental to Northern Ireland and, indeed, to any region where more and more farms are being gobbled up by the larger ones.
I deal next with the draft regulations, and in particular, regulation 5(b). I welcome this regulation. It makes it clear for the first time that the quota will apply to wholesale deliveries made during the 1983 calendar year. Some hon. Members may wonder why I welcome the regulation. From Northern Ireland's point of view, it is particularly important. I find it interesting, because I have been told continuously that 1981 was the base year. Indeed, in a reply to me the right hon. Member for Bosworth stated:
"The allocation between the regions of the United Kingdom was initially based on 1981 levels of production, to which was added the special quota of 65,000 tonnes agreed between the EEC Agriculture Ministers. A further addition of almost the same amount was then agreed between the Ministers responsible for agriculture in the various regions of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 26 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 875.]
Therein lies the answer. It is that Northern Ireland received the extra quota negotiated by the Minister for us plus — with the generosity of the other parts of the United Kingdom—an extra bonus. If we had received what we should have received— the 1983 production plus 65,000 tonnes—Northern Ireland would not have needed any extra amount to be added. On 2 April the Minister said:
"I have obtained for Northern Ireland an additional quota of 65,000 tonnes."— [Official Report, 2 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 661.]"
The Minister has not said how the distribution of quota within the regions was carried out or what method of calculation was used. We have a right to know what happened to the 65,000 tonnes obtained by him in Brussels for Northern Ireland.
The 1,321 million litres which Northern Ireland has been awarded should, on the basis of the draft regulations based on 1983, be 1,315·7 million litres, plus the special allocation of 63·1 million litres, giving Northern Ireland a total of 1,378 million litres. That figure is some 57·7 million litres greater than the figure announced by the Minister. That is the amount that Northern Ireland should have received because of the special circumstances which I outlined to the House in the Adjournment debate on 7 June.
I believe that the special quota negotiated for Northern Ireland has been hijacked from us and that we have not received the full benefit of it. I ask the Minister to clarify, once and for all, the situation of that special quota. It is not believed in Northern Ireland that it has been received. The onus is on the Minister to make the position clear.
There is no mention in the draft regulations on dairy produce quotas of the 65,000 tonnes awarded to Northern Ireland, of how that amount should be used and how it should be treated if the quantity is adjusted in future years. The situation is very unsatisfactory. I believe that the method of calculation of the regional quotas should not be left to Ministers. The allocation of Northern Ireland's special allowances and the method of allocation of those

213
allowances within Northern Ireland, and any subsequent adjustment of the quantity, are also matters that should be covered by the legislation.
Regulation 5(9) states that
"if the regional wholesale quota … is increased in relation to the preceding quota year, the quantity of dairy produce so added shall create, or be added to, the running regional wholesale reserve".
There are inherent contradictions between the two paragraphs involved. Paragraph 10 of the regulations states that where regional quotas is reduced reductions shall apply equally to all producers. If there is an increase in regional quota, that increased quantity should be allocated to the body of producers as an increase in their basic quota amounts.
Other hon. Members wish to speak. There are many other matters that I should have liked to deal with. The beef sector in Northern Ireland is facing difficult times because of the variable premium. Perhaps I shall have a chance at another time to discuss that and other matters. In the beef sector, clawback is having a serious effect.
To use a Northern Ireland expression, there is one matter that needles me very much. If one reads the Republic of Ireland press, one finds that farmers in the Republic are constantly told by the farming press and by Ministers to produce more milk because the Republic cannot meet the 4·5 per cent. that it has been given by Europe. Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom have been told to cut back, cut back and cut back again. It is ridiculous that the Minister should be telling farmers in the United Kingdom to cut production when farmers in the Republic are being told to produce more and more.
I hope that in the light of what has been said tonight—and I appeal to him on behalf of the dairy farmers in Northern Ireland and all the agriculture interests there—the Minister will reconsider the allocation. We do not believe that we received it. In future, the Minister must make sure that farming interests are paramount and are given the highest possible priority in negotiations.
8.17 pm
Mr. Charles Wardle: I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate, because it has a direct bearing on the livelihood of many of my constituents who farm in east Sussex and are predominantly dairy farmers.
Two or three weeks ago I hoped to speak in the debate on the arts and the heritage. I had hoped to mention the "1066 Country" initiative launched with a great spirit of enterprise in east Sussex. Because there was a long queue of senior Members who wished to participate, I did not get a hearing. That is a part of life that new Members accept and understand. Sometimes, like Gracie Fields, we take our harp to the party but nobody asks us to play. I am doubly pleased to be able to speak now on behalf of the farming community which I represent.
For some dairy farmers of east Sussex, the notion of enterprise has been pushed into the background over the past three months. The immediate preoccupation has become breaking even and survival. That preoccupation has arisen not only because of the scheduled cuts in milk production but also because of the difficulties involved in switching the basis of a business to different forms of agricultural production.
In complex negotiations at the meeting of the Council of Ministers late in March, my right hon. Friend the
214
Minister of Agriculture played a shrewd hand on behalf of British farmers and won many advantages which were listed earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). Inevitably, however, the initial reaction to the long overdue decision to tackle the problems of the CAP has been confusion and uncertainty. What is in no doubt is that a remedy must be found for the worst excesses of CAP spending on unwanted food surpluses. We need a system of reducing production in an orderly fashion without making casualties out of thoroughly efficient specialist dairy farmers. I am sure that my right hon. Friend and most farmers would agree about that, and that is why the Government have rightly placed the emphasis on the outgoers scheme and on the room for manoeuvre in special cases.
In Sussex and parts of Kent, however, both those measures should be carefully considered in the context of local farming conditions. In a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) in an Adjournment debate on 18 May, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary referred to a report by the agricultural development and advisory service of January 1983 entitled
"The Weald—Problems and Opportunities".
That report makes it clear that alternatives to dairy production in the Weald are not promising. On page 1 we read:
"Dairy … performance appears as good as in other areas. This is not the case with cereals, beef and sheep. All farm types show much higher financing charges. This reduces dairy profit and gives low profits from other enterprises."
The report continues:
"Cereal yields are generally lower than the regional average due mainly to soil structure and drainage problems."
The report took a pessimistic view of horticulture. It stated that only about 10 per cent. of full-time holdings rely on beef cattle and sheep. The report stated emphatically that dairying is still the best option for many Weald and grass farmers.
What happens to the farmer in the Weald. who, nevertheless, opts for the outgoers' scheme? I shall use a hypothetical, but typical, example of a tenant farmer who purchases 40 Friesian cows with the aid of a bank loan to build up his herd. Let us assume that he purchases those cows at £600 each. He will owe the bank £24,000. It is a fair assumption that he will have spent money on his milking parlour, dairying equipment and so on, bringing his total loan from the bank to £40,000 or considerably more. Like everyone else, that farmer will be paid £650 over five years per 5,000 litres. Let us assume a yield of 5,300 litres per cow, so that his compensation will be roughly £5,500 each year for five years.
If that farmer sells his cows as part of this scheme, they are likely to fetch on the present market no more than £400 each, and if he postpones the sale until after September, when consideration of feed content over grass comes into play, he will receive less. He might receive £16,000 lo repay his loan. The tenant farmer has a high rent to pay for his highly desirable Sussex property, has to find working capital for his new, non-daily farming venture and still has £24,000 outstanding on a capital loan in respect of a business he has dropped and for which he can offer no security to the bank manager.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend is using a tenant farmer as an example, but he has forgotten to say

215
that that farmer cannot receive even a halfpenny of that compensation if his landlord does not agree with him going into the scheme.
Mr. Wardle: I was going to make that point later. I simply wanted to illustrate the arithmetic and get rid of it, and I have nearly done that.
I have also left out taxation for the purposes of this illustration. Let us assume that that tenant farmer receives £5,500 gross, whatever his status as a fanner. In the first year under that scheme he will be paying £3,000 in interest alone. One solution to his problem would be to allow more of the outgoers' compensation to be paid at the outset, instead of in equal instalments over five years, on condition that it is applied to the repayment of the certified bank loan that had been raised to finance the original dairy business
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider the merits of such a change in the regulations. I hope also that, if a farmer decides to continue in dairy production instead of taking the outgoers' route, my right hon. Friend will interpret the rules for the special case arrangements as constructively as possible—or should I say, as flexibly as possible with particular regard to the main category of cases comprising those producers committed to significant capital investment, leading to increased milk output on their holding. I hope that, even when the farmer is not the beneficiary of an approved development grant but has the use of a bank loan to allow expansion of his home, his loan will be taken into account, as my right hon. Friend implied might be the case.
Whether farmers concentrate on the outgoers' scheme or on an application for consideration as special cases, the central and pressing consideration is one that is basic to any business—cash flow. Nowhere is cash flow more crucial than in the proposed timing of the super-levy collection. That point has been made by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. I cannot see much sense in collecting a levy based on total annual production quotas on a quarterly or half-yearly basis. I am worried that somehow we shall adopt a PAYE approach to the regulations while our European partners are looking at it on the basis of the never-never. It stands to reason that I share the view expressed on both sides of the House that control of the scheme in other countries is vital to the morale and long-term well-being of our farmers.
Dairy production may well account for 3·5 per cent. of gross domestic product in the Republic of Ireland, but the proportion of GDP taken up by dairy farming in farming villages — there are many in my constituency — is virtually 100 per cent. That means that there simply is nothing else.
There is a need for a long-term plan. Although there will be substantial savings in 1984 from the introduction of milk quotas, the supplementary levy and the reduction in common prices, the full savings from those measures will be seen only from 1985. That fact, together with the carry-over of a large proportion 1983 capital expenditure into 1984, means that, at the end of this year, either the CAP budget of 16·5 billion ecu will be overrun or member countries will resort to buying into intervention with their own money with the aim of collecting compensation from CAP next year, which will, of course, cause an imbalance to the 1985 budget. It is a safe bet, therefore, that further
216
cuts in other forms of agricultural production will be needed sooner rather than later. Following that will be the question of how to deal with the £2 billion per year still being spent on surplus milk production.
Those factors give urgency to the need for an overall policy directive, outlining the scale of the changes that are probably still to come and inviting farmers to consider the ways in which they can adapt competitively to tomorrow's market place. I hope that that is a point that my right hon. Friend will consider, with the object of reducing the present inevitable confusion and strengthening the resolve for overhauling the CAP.
8.27 pm
Mr. D. E. Thomas: I shall follow only one point made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle). He issued an important warning to the Government about the operation of the quota system. Already a number of agricultural economists are saying that the present volume of 99 million tonnes of milk on quota is substantially greater than the 87 million tonnes produced in the Community. I am worried that we are introducing a quota system which will prove ineffective in its overall objective of curtailing milk production but prove super-effective in the way in which it undermines the livelihood of farmers and of farm, agricultural and manufacturing industry workers who are involved with milk production in many regions, especially in Wales.
I agree with the statements made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas). The Government must face up to a serious problem. The Minister of State told the House that he preferred a price reduction. Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously saying that the 12 per cent. reduction demanded by the Commission or the 20 per cent. reduction that was proposed by some agricultural economists would have been acceptable to milk producers?
The quota system, whether operated according to production or to a substantial reduction in the pricing system, is a direct result of the CAP system. Our system encourages high institutional pricing for farmers, which is passed on to the consumers, and unlimited intervention. That system still applies, because the quota scheme is not a reform of CAP. It means a limitation in production within which the CAP system remains intact. That leads to the type of over-production and quota system at the European level which the Government have accepted. The EEC has told us that it looked at the Canadian system, which is more flexible and provides for compensation through a pricing and direct subsidy system. Clearly that is not possible in the EEC context.
The Minister of State cannot get away with telling the House that he favours a price reduction system unless he realises that that price system might have the same disastrous consequences as the CAP system is having.
It has already been stressed that the dairy industry is the largest sector of Welsh agriculture. It represents 65 per cent. of Welsh farm output and production worth £200 million a year. Given the present agitation in Wales, it is important to stress that our debates in this place do not reflect the extent of feeling and concern about the interests of dairy farmers. That is normally so, unless an hon. Member has experienced the personal anger of farmers in Dyfed. The Secretary of State for Wales has made visits

217
to the area and he has made the same speeches when talking about the miners as he has when talking about farmers. He uses exactly the same words and it is not surprising that Dyfed farmers are sending their milk to striking miners. That shows the depth of feeling on the issue throughout the agricultural areas of Wales.
We have heard this morning's news that the quota system is already operating. The amount of milk going into the creameries has already been reduced. It has fallen by 15 per cent. already in the Welsh creameries and it seems that there will be a reduction of up to 20 per cent. by March 1985. We have heard that there will be 125 redundancies at Felin-fach, Maelor and Whitland. Further redundancies are likely among transport drivers. That is the direct result of the way in which the quota system is operating.
Some Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey), have been quoted in the press as viewing the announcement of redundancies with deep concern. We shall read the Division lists with interest to learn whether the hon. Gentleman voted with the Government tonight. In agricultural debates there is often cross-party agreement between Opposition Members and Conservatives Members who are critical of the Government, but there is now an unwillingness on the part of Conservative critics to stand up and be counted. I urge Conservative Members to take seriously the criticisms that have been levelled at them by the farming community, who allege that they are trying to have their milk and drink it. They tell us that they are critical of the Government's policy but they are not prepared to abstain or to vote against the Government following debates of this sort.
Dyfed is a good example of the regional effect—I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for Wales has joined us — of the quota imposition. It has had an especially harsh effect in Dyfed. I agree with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson), who stressed the differential between the support available in the Republic of Ireland and the lack of support in the United Kingdom. The dairy farmers in the Republic will be able to increase their output by 4 to 5 per cent. but there will be a decrease in production of between 4 and 5 per cent. in Northern Ireland and Dyfed. The arguments that were deployed effectively in the ministerial negotiations by the Republic of Ireland about the essential role played in its economy by the dairy industry apply with equal force to areas of Northern Ireland and areas such as Dyfed.
The situation is so serious in Dyfed that there could be a contraction of the milk manufacturing industry, which is so crucial to the area, leading to the loss of 1,200 jobs. A contraction of that order could lead to the Republic of Ireland and its manufacturers taking advantage of Dyfed. They could well set up manufacturing plants in Dyfed as they have in the beef industry in the north of Ireland.
I warn the Minister of that likely consequence, not because I am jealous of the enterprise of the Republic of Ireland or the ability of its ministerial team to get various concessions but because I am concerned about the differential in the treatment of the republic when contrasted with that of Wales. Dyfed county council has produced a major report on the effects of the milk quota scheme on Dyfed. The cut in production in Dyfed will be between 12 per cent. and 17 per cent. because of the rapid expansion in previous years. That will produce a direct loss to the local economy of about £30 million. The
218
capacity of Dyfed's five creameries is rising to 4·42 million litres with the upgrading of Whitland. There will be an excess capacity for production of 1 million litres a day in the use of milk in Dyfed and this will have major implications for the creameries.
The Secretary of State is aware that I know the area fairly well and that I am aware also of the consequences of the closure of the Newcastle Emlyn Creamery. That knowledge forces me to say that there will be severe economic consequences for the rest of Dyfed's economy. If farm workers are caused to be unemployed and if farmers go out of business, there will be severe consequences for the 1,200 who are employed in creameries and for the 250 or so who are employed in the agricultural feed business. The consequences of the scheme will have a multiplier effect in Dyfed.
The Secretary of State should have been well aware of the consequences for Wales of operating a scheme that would bring about reduced production of milk. I have argued that the scheme will not be effective overall, but the Secretary of State for Wales should have secured a deal to ensure that the regional consequences of sectoral decisions would be reduced in their impact on the economy of areas such as Dyfed. As long as we remain in a common agricultural policy which operates in an open-ended way towards the reduction of production, there will be moves further to reduce production levels and to introduce further quotas. In France, for example, there are differential quota systems within the less favoured areas. We should have considered ways in which a United Kingdom quota system could have been introduced more fairly to ensure that local economies that are dependent on the dairy sector, such as that of Dyfed, do not face such appalling consequences. The manufacturing industry and those who use milk as a raw material could have been protected far more effectively. There is anger that the Secretary of State for Wales, a Dyfed Member, who is responsible for agriculture in Wales, was not able to obtain that protection for the region. I am certain that that anger will be reflected in the forthcoming Carmarthen by-election.
8.37 pm
Mr. Gerrard Neale: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to contribute to the debate. I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak and I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. I shall address myself mainly to milk, but I wish to be associated with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who listed the benefits that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been able to obtain for the agriculture industry in the recent negotiations in Brussels.
It is tempting, even at this stage of the debate, to rehearse in detail the arguments that have been advanced by others. However, I shall resist doing so.
I wish to be associated with many of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills). Many in the farming community of Cornwall, North are grateful to him for the enormous amount of work that he undertakes on behalf of the west country's farming community. He outlined ably the producer-retailer argument and the desperate need to ensure that there is a minimum cut in production in all cases. He touched on the deep concern that is felt in my

219
area about retaining every form of dairy production that goes straight to the consumer. I have redundancy problems in my constituency similar to those that he addressed to my right hon. Friend. I also share my hon. Friend's concern about the drop in milk production that we have seen recently in the west country. There is real concern in Cornwall about the differential between Ireland and the United Kingdom. It is strongly felt that we have not safeguarded our own position sufficiently and that it could give rise to considerable anomalies.
It is tempting to limit one's remarks to one's own area, but in an area such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West we find more or less every possible example of farms which could be affected by the regulations. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) could speak of similar instances.
In the formative stage of the negotiations, the farmers were waiting for the change. They knew that there must be change and they were ready to accept it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) said. They were coming forward with all sorts of constructive suggestions. The two main things for which they were asking were clarity as to what the Government expected of them in the future, and to be given a little time in which to put the changes into effect. They said that if those two conditions were met they would co-operate with the change.
In his opening speech my right hon. Friend clarified several points. He said that at various stages detailed letters had been sent to milk producers. There is no doubt about that. I have also no doubt that in that respect my right hon. Friend has done more than his colleagues in the other Community countries. However, there is one aspect that I have found depressing. My right hon. Friend has been to my constituency and helped me on several occasions. I know his commitment to farming and the amount of energy that he has applied—and continues to apply—to resolving its problems. But, unfortunately, there is a considerable lack of awareness in the dairy community of how much my right hon. Friend does and cares, and of his determination to do something about the problem. I have to tell my right hon. Friend that it arises in no small measure from the fact that when individual cases have been put to his Department—where farmers have been petrified by the threats to their livelihood as they imagine them to be—there has been no clear indication as to how they as individuals stand.
In a situation in which there are so many different cases and different sets of circumstances affecting different farmers, large and small, there has been no proper access to the sort of advice that should have been forthcoming. Dairy farmers have not been able to get the necessary details from local offices of MAFF, where they are usually told that the matter is still being sorted out centrally.
I should like to mention the case of a Mr. Rackham from a village called Lanivet. He purchased a farm at an auction prior to the announcement of any quotas. There was a Milk Marketing Board guarantee that he would get his certification, and he duly obtained it. Obviously, there was no stock on the farm, because he had only just purchased it. In addition, the previous owner, who had been ill, had run down the herd to about nine cows. When the new owner had his certification guaranteed and
220
confirmed, he was then told by the MMB that he was unlikely to obtain any quota whatever. Having bought the farm and incurred a considerable overdraft, he has had no indication whatever from the local office of MAFF as to where he stands. I have to tell my right hon. Friend that I have still not yet had a detailed reply from the Ministry.
I feel very strongly that my right hon. Friend should consider setting up an advice centre within the Ministry so that people can telephone and get advice or comment on their cases. My right hon. Friend may say, "How can I face that sort of prospect with the number of dairy farmers that there are?" It is interesting to note that similar arrangements have been made by the National Coal Board in the present difficulties.
I submit to my right hon. Friend that when people understand the truth, when they know how much he is doing, and understand something of the complexities of the argument, they are remarkably understanding. It is because they cannot get the feeling that their own problems are being addressed that they lose patience and tolerance.
With regard to timing, from hon. Members on each side of the House we have had questions concerning the payment of compensation for going out of milk production. There have been doubts about eligibility to claim compensation and with regard to tax. There have been doubts as to who is the owner of the quota. I think my right hon. Friend's words were that the ownership would attach to the holding for the use of the occupier. I can envisage all sorts of questions arising from that definition.
Doubts have also been expressed as to the definition of hardship cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West mentioned several points in that connection with which I should like to be associated.
Several right and hon. Members have expressed grave concern about the fact that other EC countries so far appear to be well behind us in the detailed application of the regulations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West said, it is essential that we should not rush the regulations, but should make sure first that we get them absolutely right. At the same time, I urge my right hon. Friend to give the House an undertaking that he will not enforce any of the penalties until all the detailed and highly complex points have been resolved. As several hon. Members have said, as long as doubts prevail within the industry it is utterly impossible for anybody to plan. It is also impossible for bank managers and others to advise farmers on how to cope with the situation.
Therefore, with regard to timing, I ask my right hon. Friend to wait until he has all the details clarified before enforcing any of the penalties. He should also wait until he is certain that other EC countries are ready to apply equal measures of restraint.
8.48 pm
Mr. Gavin Strang: The House has listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale). No matter how energetic and active the Minister is in dealing with the issues before him, ultimately he will be judged, as he should be judged —and as previous Ministers have been judged—on the results of his policies. The reality is that the results of his policies are serious and depressing for the dairy industry.
In listening to the debate I could not help think of the occasions when I had the privilege, as Parliamentary

221
Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the last Labour Government, to represent Britain in the Council of Agriculture Ministers, often with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin). I remember, year in and year out, drawing attention to the huge surpluses and to the grotesque cost, particularly of the milk sector of the CAP. I recall that regularly the agricultural price fixing was settled in the early hours of the morning. During breaks in the meetings one would hear the words, "Yes, we must do something about this," but nothing was done. The Labour Government, and the Conservative Government who followed them, were basically committed to the reform of the CAP, but I do not think that we can regard ourselves as blameless.
In a sense, the then Labour Government were committed to the reform of the CAP. Indeed, they achieved some modest changes, such as the introduction of the variable premium, but unfortunately we were prepared to be fobbed off with concessions, such as the butter subsidy. Perhaps if we had stuck to our guns we might have got there in the end, but we never really dug in for decisive changes in the CAP.
The same applies, though with even greater strength, to the present Conservative Government, because, rightly or wrongly — time does not permit me to argue the merits of the case—they have focused their whole effort of late in the EEC on reducing Britain's net budget contribution. The situation has gone on and on, year after year, and we have a grotesque waste of resources with a huge and costly surplus policy of reduction, particularly in the milk sector.
We must not kid ourselves into believing that what is now being implemented has anything to do with the reform of the CAP. In no way can the quotas be described as reforms. Indeed, they are a negation of a common policy because they impose a straitjacket on producers. Successive Governments, particularly the last Labour Government, of which I had the honour to be a member, have been firmly committed to the expansion of the British dairy industry. We in the then Labour Government did not see that as being inconsistent with the need to tackle the CAP. We argued, I believe rightly, that if we could win a greater share of total Community milk production, that would be good for Britain and our dairy industry, consistent with reforming the CAP, with freezing prices, reducing production and the rest.
This morning I was re-reading the second of the White Papers which the last Labour Government published on their agricultural policy. Entitled, "Farming and the Nation", it said—we believed that it was in the national interest to expand the milk sector — in the section dealing with milk:
"The Government will maintain their pressure for sensible Community milk production. An effective common agricultural policy should encourage specialisation of production in the areas best fitted for it. In view of its natural advantages, better industrial structure, and marketing arrangements designed to sustain a high level of demand, the home industry should be in a position to produce a greater proportion of Community milk supplies and so to provide a bigger share of the United Kingdom demand for milk and milk products from home production."
That was written in February 1979, just before the end of the last Labour Government. That policy was continued by the incoming Conservative Government, and it has been our policy to encourage British producers to produce more milk. That is what we should have been doing,
222
because that policy has been in the national interest. After all, by producing more milk, we are providing employment in important areas and at the same time meeting the needs of the people.
It is tragic to think that in this debate we are discussing the reversal of that policy without achieving any reform of or improvement in the CAP. It is already clear that Britain's dairy industry will suffer disproportionately as a consequence of these policies. I am not suggesting that they do not hit the German and Dutch industries hard, but the British industry will suffer disproportionately. Compared with France and Ireland, our two most immediate competitors, our industry will really be screwed down.
Proof of that is already becoming available. A report in today's Financial Times quotes statistics from the Commission in Brussels and statistics collected by German farmers showing the disproportionate cuts in United Kingdom milk production. Also in the Financial Times this morning is news of 400 jobs at the Dairycrest company being destroyed. We are talking about the destruction, not of hundreds, but of thousands of jobs taking into account the farmers, farm workers, dairy men, transport workers and the general decline in the level of demand as a result of the cuts and consequent unemployment.
The Minister was wrong to agree to a policy of quotas. We should have gone down the road of holding prices and having cuts in prices. We could have argued about what level of cuts there should have been, or what freeze might have taken place on prices. The worst of all worlds is a policy which screws our industry but which does not achieve any real improvements in the CAP. Unfortunately, that is the road down which we are going.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop rose——
Mr. Strang: I shall not give way, because other hon. Members wish to speak and I am about to conclude my remarks.
If we find that not only does the quota system hit our dairy farmers more than others in the EEC but that those others, such as the French, hardly apply the system, the whole thing will not be on, and the sooner the Government recognise that the better.
I do not doubt the Minister's good faith. I am sure that, as he said, he raised the matter with the Agriculture Commissioner in no uncertain terms, but we have been here before. We have seen how some other member Governments manage to avoid implementing measures such as this, even though they are good at talking about them in Brussels. The Minister must accept that he is on trial, as it were, and that we are not prepared to accept the implementation of quotas if to do so means Britain making disproportionate cuts in its dairy industry.
8.56 pm
Mr. George Walden: There can be no doubt that Britain's dairy farmers have been badly bruised by what is taking place. Indeed, they have been so badly bruised that I am amazed that they are as objective and realistic as they are when one argues with them the points of view of the taxpayer and the need for budget discipline in the Community.
They are responsive to those arguments. In return, the Government should be responsive to the plight of

223
individual farmers, and I was glad that the Minister expressed sympathy on a whole series of detailed points concerning the problems of British dairymen.
One of the best things to have come out of this whole episode is the realisation that British farmers do not consist of fat cats sitting on broad acres, but that they come in all shapes and sizes and that their problems, as a result of the milk levy, come in various shapes and sizes, too. It is important, therefore, to consider the detail of the issues. That detail is complicated, but it must be considered thoroughly if we are to achieve justice and fair play.
Priority must be given to erecting a safety net for small farmers, those with 40 cows or fewer. It would be wrong, however, to deduce from that that those with a few more cows or acres are sitting pretty. They are not. For example, a number of medium size dairymen do not have the flexibility that some believe they possess simply because they have a few more acres. There are those with 70 cows and 100 acres, but because their acreage is split they cannot go in for other forms of production. County council smallholders moving to other county council smallholdings can find themselves in trouble. They may have a quota where they are, but no quota in the area to which they are going. They find themselves trapped in the middle of the new legislation.
While I enjoin my right hon. Friend to continue to examine the detail of each dairyman, I urge him to keep one eye on the broad picture too, because I am worried about the implications for the whole structure of dairy farming in Britain.
Britain's proportion of small producers is one of the lowest in the Community. We have heard some interesting figures tonight. From the structural and social view it is important to maintain a broad balance between small, medium and large producers. We cannot approach the problem from an accountancy view alone.
The Government are right to allow small producers to get out of milk if they wish, but they must also try to encourage small and medium producers to stay in the business. I recognise the difficult judgment and the importance of getting the balance right involved in that. Squaring the circle is difficult.
A friend of mine, who is expert in the subject, says that the larger producers are not always as efficient as everyone supposes them to be. When my right hon. Friend considers the detailed application of measures for encouraging farmers to move out of dairy farming he should bear in mind ways of encouraging some of the larger producers to move out. I know that the problem is difficult, and that the implications are costly, but we must remember that if the larger producers can be persuaded to reduce their herds the extra quota could help maintain the essential balance of the dairy industry in Britain.
I associate myself with the remarks by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the need for more time. We are in a period of dark uncertainty. We do not know the details or the future structure of the industry. Postponing the collection of the levy until spring next year would give a lot of comfort to a lot of people who are in great need of comfort.
I know from experience that farmers are among the best people in the country. They work damned hard. They are not fat cats. They form an integral part of our social structure.
224
The rather fashionable question of the conservation of the countryside has not been much discussed tonight. Let us not lose sight of the implications for conservation of what is happening. We need to maintain small and medium farms because they are part of the conservative pattern—in both senses of the word "conservative"—of the countryside. We must keep them there. The poorer farmers are, the less attention they will be able to give to conservation. It costs money to plant trees. They do not grow from nothing. We must bear that in mind too.
9.2 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate, not least because the top half of my constituency is a mining valley and the bottom half is rural and many dairy farmers operate there. I have the difficult task of trying to defend the miners against the ravages of Mr. MacGregor and the farmers in the bottom half of the valley against the ravages of the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I agree with what the hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) said about the problems in Dyfed. We are all aware of the work done by the farmers' action group there to publicise their case.
The problem is not restricted to Dyfed. The problem exists in Powys and the south Wales counties of mid-Glamorgan, west Glamorgan, south Glamorgan and the county of Gwent, which in part is represented by the Minister of State, Welsh Office. The anger expressed in Dyfed is felt in my county of mid-Glamorgan. It is not synthetic anger. It is not part of a politically motivated campaign whipped up by those who are anxious to defend privilege or to improve their standards of living. It is a very real anger which stems from people whose livelihood is directly threatened. That anger is made worse because they understand that the agreement to which the Minister has referred this afternoon will impose penalties on British farmers, particularly those with smallholdings such as we have in south Wales, penalties which are not being applied equally or consistently throughout the EEC.
Reference has been made to Ireland and its deal. That will prove offensive to the people of Wales. They will see about 2,000 people put out of the dairy industry in Wales and at the same time imports will come into the ports of north and west Wales from Ireland. It will be hard for them to accept that they should be out of work to allow imports from Ireland. It will be hard for them to accept the payment of the additional super-levy when they know that at the moment in France only some 25 per cent. of French farmers are paying the existing co-responsibility levy. It will be difficult for them to accept those penalties when they know that the dairy producers in the Low Countries, particularly in the Netherlands, are some 200 per cent. self-sufficient at the moment. Britain is not self-sufficient, yet our farmers are being forced out of their jobs.
The position will also be difficult to accept because the cut—it is a cut—will be an across-the-board cut. There is no suggestion from the Minister or the Secretary of State for Wales that any defensive action will be taken in support of those least able to bear the burden. I accept that Conservative Members have vested interests to defend and, quite properly, they are doing their job in defending those interests. But I must point out the problems that

225
small farmers will face when they are asked to cope with the 9 per cent. cut. It will not be a 9 per cent. cut in their profits. It will not be a 9 per cent. reduction in their standard of living. In many cases the 9 per cent. quota cut that they are being asked to accept will be the difference between existence in the dairy industry and bankruptcy.
I ask the Minister to appreciate the situation of small dairy farmers. They are dairy farmers because the land that they are farming is capable of supporting nothing else. Those farmers have no option to go out of dairy into beef or sheep production. First, for physical reasons such as climate, the land is not suitable for such alternative agriculture. Secondly, who in their right mind in the agriculture industry at the moment would be prepared to embark on a programme of capital expenditure in the beef or sheep industry when they have seen the dairy industry betrayed in the manner that we have seen in the past couple of weeks? There is no prospect of diversifying.
I want to draw the attention of the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales to the special case arrangements. I have written to the Minister and I am sure that in his normal way he will reply politely and in full detail. I want to take this opportunity of mentioning a case which faces one of my constituents at the moment. Some six years ago he entered into the FHDS with the Government's active encouragement and assistance. Over the past six years he has committed himself to about £80,000-worth of capital investment in land reclamation, fencing, a new silage pit, a new dairy, new barns and new feeding areas. The purpose of that investment was to ensure that by the autumn of 1984 he would have about 60 dairy cows in full production.
That man's quota is being assessed now on the basis of his production last year. He has committed himself to £80,000-worth of expenditure. He finds himself facing not a 9 per cent. quota cut but a 30 per cent. cut. He cannot tell his bank that he is unable to pay his bank charges. Individuals who rent their farms have those standing charges which have to be met, be they bank overdrafts or rent charges. Unless the Secretary of State takes action, they will have no alternative but to sell, and they will be selling in a depressed market which means that they will lose money. The alternative is to go into bankruptcy.
That is what faces small dairy farmers in south and west Wales. I ask the Secretary of State to heed the arguments advanced during the debate. I ask him to fight his corner for Wales and for the regional dimension. I ask him to recognise that we have communities which are dependent on the dairy industry, in the primary sense with farmers and in the secondary sense with the ancillary industries. I ask the right hon. Gentleman please to look at the regional dimension and to take into account personal circumstances. I urge him to recognise the crisis facing dairy farmers in Wales.
9.10 pm
Mr. Mark Hughes: I apologise to the hon. Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who have been present throughout the debate and, because of the pressure of time, have not been called. There are many other hon. Members in the same position.
It is quite clear that the longer the debate went on, the less comfort there was for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench. They were desperately short of friends. This set of
226
proposals, both on the generality of price fixing and on the more detailed elements of the milk arrangements, is unacceptable to a very large number of right hon. and hon. Members of all parties.
The Minister and his colleagues are bereft of friends. Yet I open my remarks with a sense of sympathy for the Minister. It is very rare that one's colleagues in the Council of Ministers pass a poisoned chalice, but that: is the reality of the decisions of the Council of Ministers over the last few years. Against the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), the Council passed that poisoned chalice to the present Minister. The level of milk production had been upgraded to a point that could not be supported by taxpayers' money whether within the Community or on a national basis. The present Minister, poor soul, has had to reap that harvest. If I may mix the metaphor even further, his Cabinet colleagues have now stabbed him in the back. To achieve a budgetary settlement they said, "Sell out our dairy farmers."
That is the suspicion in the dairy industry and in farming throughout the country. The Minister was encouraged to find a settlement to the milk problem which made a subsequent settlement of the budgetary difficulty more easy. We settled for a bad deal for the milk quota arrangements to achieve a worse deal on the budgetary arrangements. That does not seem to be a very sensible way in which to conduct negotiations.
On this price package in general, and on the milk quotas in particular, a British Minister of Agriculture has betrayed the interests of the British consumer. When the Minister of State replies, will he say in which way, if any, the settlement on milk quotas lowers the price of milk products to the British consumer? In addition, is there any evidence to show that this settlement lowers the quantum of money which the British taxpayer must transfer to the dairy sector of the CAP? There is no evidence that in relation to the milk sector either the consumer or the taxpayer has gained, and there is palpable evidence that this deal is a disaster for the diary farmers.
We have upset the dairy farmers and not aided the consumer, and the totality of budget spending on agricultural support within the Community has increased.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: The hon. Gentleman seems to imply that had he been in office today he would have felt that the taxpayer could no longer support this level of expansion of agricultural production. How would he have checked it? Would he have been able to resist the imposition of quotas?
Mr. Hughes: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech that I made as Rapporteur on the 1978 price proposals which I made in the European Assembly on 24 February 1979. At that time, I set out the proposals precisely when we had to control the production of more and more milk because it could not be supported.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: I missed that speech.
Mr. Hughes: And how lucky the hon. Gentleman was.
Some hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) say that we should do this by price. Over the years various commissioners from Mr. Gundelach onwards have said that we should control milk production by lowering the price. Even elements within

227
the NFU have said that most of the time. The difficulty is that the moment a politician suggested that the farmers said, "Watch it, if you lower the price we will increase our production to maintain our incomes to offset the price loss." They have always said that, and politicians have always pulled back from that course.
An alternative strategy was to screw the price down hard enough for long enough, but that was not available to the Government when the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) became Minister of Agriculture, because by then it was too late. By then the Community had gone too far down the road of using price as an ineffectual method of controlling quantity to be able to retrench via price control to an acceptable level of quantity and budgetary financing.
Had they gone for what Mr. Gundelach always called a prudent price policy four or five years ago, that might have been possible, but it was not possible by 1982, never mind this year. Therefore, it is unfair for the farming community to blame the right hon. Gentleman. It is not easy for the Opposition Front Bench to forgive somebody for that. What is clear is that by that time that master Houdini of escapology, his right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, had got away with everything he had left before the price had to be paid. He came to the House year after year proclaiming a great victory for the consumer and for the farmer alike, while he left the unpaid cheque to be picked up. I find it unacceptable in the present package that there is no evidence of remorse within the Government for what they have done in the past four to five years.
When we turn to the details, they show clearly that neither the producer-retailer nor the wholesale supplier can be satisfied with the administrative arrangements. Nobody —no intelligible and intelligent man—can be satisfied with the arrangements. I should like to read a paragraph in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who asked what a producer is. The regulation on page 9 says that a producer is what a producer is in article 12 of the Council regulation, and so on, plonk, plonk.
A producer is
"a natural or legal person or group of natural or legal persons farming a holding located within the geographical territory of the Community"—
colon—
"selling milk or other milk products directly to the consumer, and/or supplying the purchaser".
That is what is in the Commission regulation. That is crystal clear.
I trust that, later this week, the new bishop of Durham will not have such a difficult theological problem to deal with as paragraph 5(a) of the draft regulations. The virgin birth and walking on water are as nothing. I quote:
"in the case of an applicant to whom the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of the Commission Regulation"—
bracket—
"which deals with direct sellers in operation for less than 12 months"—
end bracket—
"applies, a quantity calculated by multiplying his base quantity"—
bracket—
"that is to say the quantity of dairy produce sold by direct sale from that holding in the period starting on the first day of the first calendar month"—
228
bracket—we are still in the first bracket—
"or, where the quantities so sold before the first calendar month"—
bracket — this is the third set of brackets in the paragraph—
"not being April 1984"—
end third set of brackets, or first set, whichever—
"is less than one third of the quantity so sold in the first calendar month, the second calendar month"—
end bracket—
"beginning after commencement of direct sale of dairy produce from that holding and finishing on 30th April 1984"—
bracket—
"where that first day is 1st March or 1st April 1984"—
end bracket—
"and otherwise on 31st March 1984"—
end bracket—
"by a fraction"—
here one could only become a precentor to do it properly:
"by a fraction the numerator of which is 12 and the denominator of which is the number of months in that period and"—
bracket—
"except in respect of a holding in a remote area"—
end bracket—
"reducing the result by 6 per cent."—
close quotes, amen.
When the House is involved in the nonsense of supporting and voting for, for example, page 25 of the regulations, we have got things wrong. If that is what those skilled people in the Box and Ministers are on about——
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The regulations read better than they sound.
Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Lady were to read them out they would sound better than they read.
That brings me to the fundamental problem at the root of the Opposition's early-day motion. The proposals have given rise to more discouragement, anguish, anger and genuine fear in the agricultural community than anything else in the past 40 years. Nothing done by Government to the agricultural communities in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England has done as much damage as these proposals have done to the agricultural community's sense of security. They have undermined the consensus advocated by successive Governments, including the Government to whom I gave support from 1974 to 1979. Indeed, I take all the blame for saying then that we should increase production.
It has been said that what happens to the dairy sector this year will happen ere long to the cereal sector, and that if the quotas for one product follow seriatim they will come to another before long. This scheme is ill-advised and ill-considered, and the financial help made available to the outgoer is inadequate. If there is an outgoer scheme, there must be an incomer scheme. The farming industry wants the details of that.
We foresee grave difficulties. We have not been given adequate details about genuine hardship cases, and we do not really know on what terms the tribunals can deal with them. If my last quotation is any indication of the clarity of those terms, they will, as has been said, prove to be a lawyer's paradise and a milk farmer's disaster.
As we say in our early-day motion, any attempt to deal with the CAP's problems commodity by commodity is doomed to failure. It always means that one farmer will be set against another and that one country will be set against another, and the whole process will not work. It

229
is clear that very few British dairy farmers believe that the quota system will be fairly administered as between this country and other countries in the Community. We faced the same problem with fisheries. No fisherman believed that the other side would exercise policing adequately. It is clear that the provision for small farmers and farmers in the predominantly pastoral parts of Wales, the south-west, Cumbria and the west country do not have the opportunities to diversify. The same applies in Cheshire and Staffordshire, where farmers cannot diversify, and personal arrangements for relief are inadequate. Therefore, I commiserate with the Minister and would be reluctant to offer a word of criticism against him personally, beyond saying that the instructions which he received and honourably obeyed were the wrong ones. If they were not, I blame him because few farmers can accept the deal.
Even allowing for the retention of the beef premium and the concessions on sheep levies, the Minister has not done the job properly on the outgoers' scheme. For most tenant farmers, the outgoers' scheme is a snare and a delusion, which they cannot take up, and they cannot enter any other area. The anger that the Minister has created in the dairy sector is not confined to what has happened in parts of my constituency, about which the Minister knows, from having met the few Conservatives that there are there. The Government's policy is crucifying the dairy industry. I hope that Conservative Members will realise that we object to these proposals, not merely because of their longterm inadequacy in dealing with the CAP but because they do a major mischief to the dairy industry which the Government appear not to comprehend.
9.32 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): The debate has naturally and understandably concentrated on milk quotas. It is also a debate about CAP reforms and the price review in general. I shall begin by making one or two quick comments about that.
We should remind ourselves that many items in the package are very good for Britain. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food spelt them out, and my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) welcomed them. This is the first time that agricultural reforms of the CAP have been properly faced. I do not complain that the House did not concentrate on those gains, because hon. Members naturally wished to focus on problems. However, it is as well to remind ourselves that the package includes many good things.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries asked about the problem of the new seasonal payment scale for sheepmeat. The Government were unhappy about that. We expressed many misgivings and criticisms about it. The Commission promised to review the new scale, and we shall return to the charge at an appropriate point.
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said that they were interested in the cereals issue. We believe that cereals surpluses and the costs of disposing of them should be dealt with through price restraint. My right hon. Friend the Minister argued strongly in the Council for a three-year agreement on price restraints so that cereal farmers would have a better basis on which to plan for the long term and for planting. I agree
230
with my right hon. and hon. Friends who have talked about the need for long-term planning in the Community. The difficulty about the price review system is that it militates against the chances of achieving long-term planning. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend and I have taken that point on board.
Mr. Leigh rose——
Mr. MacGregor: As many hon. Members have asked questions to which I wish to reply, it would be better if I did not give way. My hon. Friend asked about cereals and quotas, to which I am coming.
We believe that the cereals problem should be tackled by prices. My right hon. Friend tried to obtain a three-year agreement this year, but no other member state would go along with us on this occasion. There is no sign within the Commission that quotas are being planned for cereals, and it is hard to see how a quota system could apply for cereals as we are now applying it for milk. I hope that that will deal with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle had in mind.
I come now to the subject of milk, on which I wish to concentrate the rest of my remarks. I am grateful for the welcome which several of my hon. Friends have given to the fact that by this debate we have given the House an opportunity to comment on the milk regulations, without the need for decisions to be taken today. My right hon. Friend and I felt that it was right that the House should do so. I assure my hon. Friends that we have been listening carefully to all that has been said. I shall not be able to respond to all the points tonight, and we shall probably not be able to respond to all the points in the revised regulations, but I assure my hon. Friends and Opposition Members that we shall be studying closely everything that has been said.
One of the acute difficulties that we faced has been highlighted in a number of the conflicting comments made by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friends the Members for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), for Dumfries and for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) urged that we should take time to get the regulations right and said that a little delay would be desirable in the interests of getting them right and not going too far ahead of the rest of the Community. I believe that that is correct, but we are being criticised for not having given dairy farmers precise guidance as to where they stand. That is a difficult conflict, and one cannot square that circle.
We have tried to give provisional guidance to dairy farmers. We have done so way ahead of other member states, so as to give our dairy farmers at least some provisional idea of how they can plan. We cannot, of course, give final guidance, nor issue the application forms until the House has approved the regulations. My hon. Friends have made it clear that they want us to consider the comments that have been made today. It will take some while to do so and to lay the further regulations before the House. I hope that dairy farmers will realise that we are trying to achieve a correct balance by giving proper consideration to the regulations, while giving provisional guidance as quickly as we can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West asked about provisional guidance for wholesale producers and whether the 1983 minus 9 per cent. was the final figure. As my right hon. Friend said, normally dairy producers can plan on the assumption that that figure is the

231
ceiling — the biggest reduction for which they would have to plan. I say "normally" because some producers will be able to have an allocation that is less than 9 per cent. I can give my hon. Friends the Member for Torridge and Devon, West and for Cornwall, North the assurance that no wholesale producer will have to accept a reduction of more than 1983 minus 9 per cent. I hope that that guidance is helpful.
That brings me to the crucial issue that we faced in the negotiations. Many hon. Members have stressed the difficulties faced by dairy producers. I understand them fully, because I have been meeting dairy producers all over the country. I hope that it is understood—I believe that it is by more of them—that my right hon. Friend faced extremely difficult choices — as the hon. Member for City of Durham was kind enough to acknowledge—in the decisions that had to be taken this year.
I believe that it is known throughout the country and in the House that we did not want quotas. We should have much preferred to act on price restraint, for many of the reasons that have emerged today and because of all the difficulties that we are having in drawing up an acceptable quota system.
Mr. Ralph Howell rose——
Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry, but I must not give way because I have so much to deal with. Many hon. Members have spoken in the debate and want answers to their questions.
When we faced this issue in the Council, we had the choice of dealing with milk in the only way in which it was possible to get agreement in the Council, namely, quotas, or letting the matter slide with the same kind of increases in costs and the surpluses continuing to escalate in the coming year. If we had not tackled the problem of the surpluses and the costs, we would have faced a situation in which there would have been no pay cheque for any farmer—let alone dairy farmers—in the country from approximately September onwards this year. I think that we would have been criticised much more by the farming community if we had allowed that to happen. In the world we are often faced with a choice between two different courses when neither is ideal. That is what happened here.
I deal next with a number of detailed points that were made in the debate. I direct my remarks first to small producers. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) suggested a different scheme for helping the small producers. He was attempting to help the small producer with a herd of under 60, I think he said, but, for the moment, let us consider a herd of under 40 cows. Through the outgoers' scheme, we are finding the quickest way to get the small dairy producer with a herd of under 40 back to the 1983 production level which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That is the best way to approach the matter. By that means, we are going down the route by which other producers are giving up voluntarily.
If we had followed the hon. Gentleman's course—and I now understand his scheme and apologise for having misunderstood it in my intervention—I hope he realises that this would have meant that all other producers, particularly the large ones, would have faced a bigger cut in their production from 1983, whereas this way we
232
achieve the same objective of putting the small producer back to his 1983 quota level, and doing it in a voluntary way that is more acceptable.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the German scheme. I am sure he will acknowledge that the highest cut in Germany directed at the big producers, because of the way they are doing things, is 12 per cent. less than the 1983 production level. I believe that we have a better balance in the way that we are tackling it. It is much better for Scotland. In England and Wales, 37 per cent. of small producers have herds of under 40, but in Scotland the figure is only 11 per cent. Under the hon. Gentleman's scheme, he would be hitting hard a larger number of Scottish milk producers than we are.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) completely misunderstood the point of the outgoers' scheme. She complained that we were not helping the small producers. We certainly are. As a former Minister with responsibility for small businesses, I am very keen on this. She should recognise that, under the outgoers' scheme, we will get the quota released that will enable us most quickly to help the small milk producer.
I deal next with direct sales. The hon. Member for City of Durham intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend to ask about the timing of direct sales, and was concerned about the fact that, because of the way the Community regulations work out, we have a more complicated system of giving the overall quota allocation to the direct sales producers. If all goes according to plan, and depending on when we can get the regulations approved by both Houses, we hope that somewhere around late November, after consideration of all cases and appeals, definitive quotas can be sent to direct sellers. The assessment of the quota level for direct sellers will not take place until the end of the 1984–85 marketing year, so they will not have to face the problem at the end of September. Equally, the levy will not be assessed on them until after the end of this marketing year. Thus, we will be giving them their quotas well before the point at which they have to bring their overall allocations into line.
Many hon. Members have referred to a situation which is certainly not ideal. I refer to the possibility of transferability between direct sellers and wholesale producers, and the associated problems. The Community regulations provide for only limited flexibility, but we shall aim to make the greatest possible use of that flexibility. Producers who reduce or cease wholesale delivery may obtain direct sales quotas, provided that there is sufficient quota available within the overall member states direct sales quota. There are similar provisions for cases in which direct sales are reduced.
We have been asked to press hard on this point about direct sales and wholesale producers. In fact, we fought hard in Brussels for that limited flexibility. We did so because throughout the negotiations on the supplementary levy regulations we have been conscious of the problems that could face direct sellers, under a quota system, in meeting local market requirements. The situation is still not ideal, and we will wish to return to the matter later.
That is the answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who also asked about the possibility of better quota transfer and flexibility. My right hon. Friend also asked for quotas to be saleable. That is not permitted under the present regulations, but we may be able to discuss the matter later in Brussels when we have overcome the preliminary difficulties.

233
On the question of flexibility in the exchange of wholesale and direct sale quotas, it is planned that the United Kingdom regulations implementing the proposals will he made when we deal with the allocation of quota surrendered by the outgoers. The precise mechanism has yet to be decided. We are alive to the problem and will do all that we can to deal with it.
In a delightful passage in his speech the hon. Member for City of Durham drew attention to some of the drafting difficulties in the current regulations and called for greater clarity, especially in relation to special cases. I share his view. We will be issuing notes of guidance to producers and to all concerned when the regulations have been passed, and I hope that those notes will be much clearer than the regulations. In drawing up the regulations, we are constrained by drafting requirements.
A number of hon. Members referred to the special cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) felt that the allocation of 2·5 per cent. for special cases would not be enough to deal with all the hardship cases. However, he also said that he was greatly concerned about the non-expanders. Several of my other hon. Friends drew attention to the problems of the non-expanders, who have rightly pointed out that they have not contributed to increased production in the United Kingdom and to the resulting problems, and do not see why they should suffer from the cuts. My hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. He cannot help the non-expanders and still increase the 2·5 per cent. I believe that the percentage is about right.
My hon. Friends the Members for Torridge and Devon, West and for Dumfries want us to have flexibility up our sleeve. They would like to see a regulation giving my right hon. Friend discretion in certain hardship cases which are not covered by the special case regulation. We shall certainly consider that point, although it will present difficulties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and several other hon. Members referred to the hardship cases not included among the special cases. We are very conscious that there are people who are not included in the special case categories in the Community legislation, but who would suffer genuine hardship if it was not possible to allocate them some quota beyond their entitlement—or, in some cases, any quota at all.
We must try to find some means of helping such people. At this early stage in the operation of the quota system we cannot identify all the deserving cases—although we are accumulating a sizeable list—or define rules to cover them. The position will become wholly clear only when we have had some experience of operating the arrangements. We will watch the situation carefully with a view to making provision for special hardship cases in the autumn. At the moment we have no quota to allocate to them, because the 2·5 per cent. will be allocated to the hardship cases covered in the regulations. The quota which we hope to be able to allocate to other cases will be that which is released by outgoers and which remains after we have dealt with the small producers with herds of fewer than 40 cows.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) referred to the effect of the weather. It would be difficult to designate particular regions as special cases because of the weather, because producers vary even within those regions. We are endeavouring, as my right hon. Friend the
234
Minister said, to have a form of filter—to show a 10 or 15 per cent. production cut compared to the previous year — to ensure that not every producer applies to be considered as a special case for weather reasons, otherwise the tribunals will be inundated. A form of filter will establish whether there has been a serious natural setback because of the weather. Once producers have gone through that hoop and have proved their case, they can be considered under the appeals system for special weather reasons. That is probably the way in which we shall proceed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford referred to the clawback on the first year. He asked whether I could say clearly that producers who had not used their full quota at the end of the current year would not find that their production would be cut back in the next year. I agree with him that it would be inappropriate to take the quota from people who produce less than their quota in the current year. We want the quota to be put to good use, for all the reasons that I have just discussed. At some point we must be able to reallocate that type of quota. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we must give producers time to get used to the new arrangments. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's point. My hon. Friend referred also to dairy farmers on the panels. I assure him that dairy farmers can and will be on the panels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster asked about the time scale of the appeal. I had hoped that more hon. Members would contribute to the debate on this, so that we could obtain feedback. As we envisage the regulations, producers will have four weeks in which to apply under the special cases categories, and so on. If their case i s turned down, they will have 21 days in which to appeal. Some of my hon. Friends may feel that that period is too short. If they feel that way, they should let us know quickly so that we can consider that aspect. That is the present plan.
My hon. Friends raised several matters about taxation. Obviously, I cannot make any announcement about that tonight. I have listened carefully, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister, to all the points that have been made. We shall discuss them with our colleagues in the Treasury, but that is all that I can say at this time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries asked about Scottish appeals. The first sift of applications in Scotland will be undertaken by the milk marketing boards, unlike in England. They will check the forms for information and will take decisions on exceptional event criteria. The boards, and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland for the areas outside the boards, will act on clear guidelines. All acceptable development claims will be passed to a panel of three members drawn from the pool of 20, who will act as the tribunal. The tribunal will determine the amount of additional quota for which a producer would be eligible if there were sufficient reserves to be put around. An appeal against a decision by the boards or by the DAFS in that minority of cases will be put to the tribunal. Where: comments are sought by the tribunal from outside bodies, the producer concerned will have the opportunity to comment on the representations. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson) referred to the situation in Northern Ireland. The allocation of quota between the regions of the United Kingdom is based on deliveries in 1983, but in the calculations we have taken account of the trend of

235
deliveries since 1981, and that includes the rapid growth in deliveries in Northern Ireland as compared to the other territories. The regulations permit us to do so, because those who were expanding much faster were contributing more to the problem. At the same time, we have given Northern Ireland the full benefit of the additional 65,000 tonnes. The overall effect is that Northern Ireland producers face a slightly smaller percentage cut than the rest of Great Britain compared with 1983 deliveries.
In addition, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noted that we have selected Northern Ireland for special treatment under the outgoers' scheme. As a result of buying out 5 per cent. of Northern Ireland in the outgoers' scheme, as opposed to 2¼ per cent. in Great Britain, we shall be spending £4·073 million more in Northern Ireland than if we had applied the same percentage as in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have adopted this approach because we recognise the special problems of Northern Ireland, which include an especially high number of small producers. That is why we have given it favourable terms under the outgoers' scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North talked about Mr. Rackham. There are many difficult cases, and his is one of them. I shall be writing to him shortly, but perhaps the following guidance will be helpful. This is a case of no production taking place on the holding on 2 April 1984, and in theory there is no entitlement to a quota arrangement. However, we shall consider such cases sympathetically on an individual basis where the producers can provide documentary evidence that they were firmly committed to milk production prior to 2 April. I should make it clear that the draft regulations before the House do not make provision for these cases, and our intention is to make provision for them in the further statutory instrument, which we shall have to introduce under the outgoers' scheme in the autumn. We hope that some of the quotas surrendered by outgoers can be made available for such cases.
Mr. Mark Hughes: The Minister said that there would be a statutory scheme for outgoers in the autumn.
Mr. MacGregor: We wish to get the outgoers' scheme off the ground quickly, and that is why it is not being introduced as a statutory scheme. Provision will be made for it in the Appropriation Acts. We shall wish at a certain stage to legitimise it, as it were. Our purpose is to get it in place as quickly as possible so that we can release the quotas as soon as possible to help small producers and cases of special hardship.
Mr. Ralph Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way at last to a Conservative Member. Is he aware that I have never heard such nonsense talked in years in this place? We have made a most appalling mistake in providing for special cases. We shall be setting farmer against farmer in village upon village. No tribunal will ever be able properly to sort out the various claims. Much more serious thought should be given to this issue. The only sensible approach is to have a uniform quota system for all dairy farmers.
Mr. MacGregor: If my hon. Friend had been present throughout the debate he would have heard many of my
236
hon. Friends say that we were right to provide for special cases, for a host of reasons. We have endeavoured to achieve the right balance.
No one pretends that quota decisions are easy, and that has been obvious throughout the debate. We are endeavouring to get as near to the right answers in every case as we possibly can and we shall reflect on everything that has been said. I recognise the strong feeling in the House that we cannot implement the regulations in Britain by applying the super-levy if it is clear that other member states are not doing so. That argument was advanced firmly throughout the debate.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has said on many occasions, we have made it clear to the Agriculture Council that we attach the highest importance to all member states applying the supplementary levy according to the agreed rules. It might be for the interest of the House if I read out one or two of the passages of my right hon. Friend's speech to the Council of Ministers on 19 June at Luxembourg. He said:
"I must say therefore it will be impossible to justify collecting the levy in the autumn if the system is not being applied effectively throughout the Community.
In particular my Government could not accept a situation where individual producers in some member states were being required to pay supplementary levy in accordance with the agreement reached on 31 March while those in other member states were manifestly falling short in applying the agreed rules."
If it becomes clear that some member states are not meeting their obligations within the time scale laid down, we will immediately press the Commission to take appropriate action. We would certainly insist that producers in some member states should not be penalised when, because of administrative or other failures in other member states, the arrangements are not being applied. I hope that that will make our position clear.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North referred to his favourite reading, the Country Landowner. While thinking about his speech I was reminded of a paragraph in the leader of one of my favourite pieces of reading, Farmers Weekly, on 8 June. The paragraph says that
"their spokesmen have been the severest critics"—
that is a reference to the Opposition—
"of EEC overspending; they would have attacked the absence of a dairy surplus control policy with the same gleeful venom that they display against its implementation. They are not suggesting an alternative; they are offering no lifeline to dairy farmers. But by arguing loudly—and often incoherently—
Mr. James Hamilton rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put,put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That this House do now adjourn:
The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 313.

Division No. 389]

[10 pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Beggs, Roy

Anderson, Donald

Beith, A. J.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Bell, Stuart

Ashdown, Paddy

Benn, Tony

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Bermingham, Gerald

Ashton, Joe

Bidwell, Sydney

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Blair, Anthony

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Boyes, Roland

Barnett, Guy

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Barron, Kevin

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

237

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

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

Janner, Hon Greville

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

John, Brynmor

Bruce, Malcolm

Johnston, Russell

Buchan, Norman

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Caborn, Richard

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Kennedy, Charles

Campbell, Ian

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Canavan, Dennis

Kirkwood, Archy

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Lambie, David

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Lamond, James

Clarke, Thomas

Leadbitter, Ted

Clay, Robert

Leighton, Ronald

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Cohen, Harry

Litherland, Robert

Coleman, Donald

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Loyden, Edward

Corbett, Robin

McCartney, Hugh

Corbyn, Jeremy

McCrea, Rev William

Cowans, Harry

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

McGuire, Michael

Craigen, J. M.

McKelvey, William

Crowther, Stan

Maclennan, Robert

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McTaggart, Robert

Cunningham, Dr John

Madden, Max

Dalyell, Tam

Maginnis, Ken

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Martin, Michael

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

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

Maxton, John

Deakins, Eric

Maynard, Miss Joan

Dewar, Donald

Meacher, Michael

Dixon, Donald

Meadowcroft, Michael

Dobson, Frank

Michie, William

Dormand, Jack

Mikardo, Ian

Douglas, Dick

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Dubs, Alfred

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Eadie, Alex

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Eastham, Ken

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Ellis, Raymond

Nellist, David

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Nicholson, J.

Ewing, Harry

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Fatchett, Derek

O'Brien, William

Faulds, Andrew

O'Neill, Martin

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Fisher, Mark

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Flannery, Martin

Paisley, Rev Ian

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Park, George

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Parry, Robert

Foster, Derek

Patchett, Terry

Foulkes, George

Pavitt, Laurie

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Pendry, Tom

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Penhaligon, David

Freud, Clement

Pike, Peter

Garrett, W. E.

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

Godman, Dr Norman

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Golding, John

Prescott, John

Gould, Bryan

Radice, Giles

Gourlay, Harry

Redmond, M.

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Hardy, Peter

Richardson, Ms Jo

Harman, Ms Harriet

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Robertson, George

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Rooker, J. W.

Haynes, Frank

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Heffer, Eric S.

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Rowlands, Ted

Home Robertson, John

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, Sean (Knowsley S)

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

238

Skinner, Dennis

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

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

Wallace, James

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Snape, Peter

Wareing, Robert

Spearing, Nigel

Weetch, Ken

Steel, Rt Hon David

Welsh, Michael

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

White, James

Strang, Gavin

Wigley, Dafydd

Straw, Jack

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Taylor, Rt Hon John David

Wilson, Gordon

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Winnick, David

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Woodall, Alec

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Torney, Tom

Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Allen McKay.

Wainwright, R.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Cockeram, Eric

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Colvin, Michael

Amess, David

Cope, John

Ancram, Michael

Cormack, Patrick

Arnold, Tom

Corrie, John

Ashby, David

Cranborne, Viscount

Aspinwall, Jack

Crouch, David

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Dicks, Terry

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Dorrell, Stephen

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

Dover, Den

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Baldry, Anthony

Dunn, Robert

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Durant, Tony

Batiste, Spencer

Dykes, Hugh

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Bellingham, Henry

Eggar, Tim

Bendall, Vivian

Emery, Sir Peter

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Evennett, David

Benyon, William

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Berry, Sir Anthony

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Best, Keith

Fallon, Michael

Bevan, David Gilroy

Farr, Sir John

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Favell, Anthony

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Blackburn, John

Fletcher, Alexander

Body, Richard

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Forman, Nigel

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bottomley, Peter

Forth, Eric

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

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

Fox, Marcus

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Franks, Cecil

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Freeman, Roger

Bright, Graham

Gale, Roger

Brinton, Tim

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Browne, John

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Bruinvels, Peter

Goodlad, Alastair

Bryan, Sir Paul

Gow, Ian

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Grant, Sir Anthony

Buck, Sir Antony

Greenway, Harry

Budgen, Nick

Gregory, Conal

Burt, Alistair

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

Butcher, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Butterfill, John

Grist, Ian

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Ground, Patrick

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Grylls, Michael

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

Gummer, John Selwyn

Carttiss, Michael

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Cash, William

Hampson, Dr Keith

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Hanley, Jeremy

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hannam, John

Chope, Christopher

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Churchill, W. S.

Harris, David

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

Haselhurst, Alan

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Hawksley, Warren

239

Hayes, J.

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hayhoe, Barney

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Hayward, Robert

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Moate, Roger

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Heddle, John

Montgomery, Fergus

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Moore, John

Hickmet, Richard

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Hicks, Robert

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Moynihan, Hon C.

Hill, James

Murphy, Christopher

Hind, Kenneth

Neale, Gerrard

Hirst, Michael

Needham, Richard

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Nelson, Anthony

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Neubert, Michael

Holt, Richard

Newton, Tony

Hooson, Tom

Nicholls, Patrick

Hordern, Peter

Normanton, Tom

Howard, Michael

Norris, Steven

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

Onslow, Cranley

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Osborn, Sir John

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Ottaway, Richard

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Hunter, Andrew

Parris, Matthew

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Patten, John (Oxford)

Irving, Charles

Pattie, Geoffrey

Jackson, Robert

Pawsey, James

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Jessel, Toby

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Porter, Barry

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Powell, William (Corby)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Powley, John

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Price, Sir David

Key, Robert

Prior, Rt Hon James

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Proctor, K. Harvey

King, Rt Hon Tom

Raffan, Keith

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Rathbone, Tim

Knowles, Michael

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Knox, David

Renton, Tim

Lamont, Norman

Rhodes James, Robert

Latham, Michael

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Lawler, Geoffrey

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lawrence, Ivan

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Rifkind, Malcolm

Lee, John (Pendle)

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Lester, Jim

Roe, Mrs Marion

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Rost, Peter

Lightbown, David

Rowe, Andrew

Lilley, Peter

Ryder, Richard

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Lord, Michael

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Lyell, Nicholas

Sayeed, Jonathan

McCrindle, Robert

Scott, Nicholas

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Macfarlane, Neil

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

MacGregor, John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Maclean, David John

Shersby, Michael

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

Silvester, Fred

McQuarrie, Albert

Sims, Roger

Madel, David

Skeet, T. H. H.

Major, John

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Malins, Humfrey

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Malone, Gerald

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Maples, John

Speller, Tony

Marland, Paul

Spence, John

Marlow, Antony

Spencer, Derek

Mather, Carol

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Maude, Hon Francis

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Squire, Robin

Mellor, David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Merchant, Piers

Stanley, John

240

Steen, Anthony

Waddington, David

Stern, Michael

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Walden, George

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Stokes, John

Ward, John

Stradling Thomas, J.

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Sumberg, David

Warren, Kenneth

Tapsell, Peter

Watson, John

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Watts, John

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Terlezki, Stefan

Wheeler, John

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Whitfield, John

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Whitney, Raymond

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Wiggin, Jerry

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Wilkinson, John

Thornton, Malcolm

Wolfson, Mark

Thurnham, Peter

Wood, Timothy

Tracey, Richard

Woodcock, Michael

Trippier, David

Yeo, Tim

Trotter, Neville

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Twinn, Dr Ian

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Tellers for the Noes:

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Ashdown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just had a debate on milk quotas. May I draw your attention to the problem of speaking quotas? I ask you to recognise that we all understand that you have a difficult job in finding a balance in these debates and that that must be done politically, and, I suppose, geographically as well. No fewer than three hon. Members from the 31 county seats of the south-west of England have spoken from the Conservative Benches, but not one Opposition Member. That is notwithstanding the fact that the southwest of England has been among the most affected by this disastrous move by the Government, which will cause major bankruptcies and unemployment.
May I draw your attention to the fact that the Labour party has had a considerable amount of speaking time, but the Labour party is completely unable to represent the south-west of England, where it lost its deposit in every seat? When we come to further debates on this issue, will you, Mr. Speaker, take into account the fact that I and many in the House and outside feel that the voice of the Opposition in those areas of England which have been most affected by the Government's actions have not been heard at all?
Mr. Tim Yeo rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need any more points of order.
If the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is saying that he has not been called, I am sorry. I should tell him that he has spoken 19 times in this Parliament which is not bad going. As he correctly told me, it is difficult to achieve a balance. He must take into account the fact that from the Opposition Benches today I had to call Members of the Liberal party, the Ulster Unionists and the Welsh Nationalists. I have done my best to balance the regions. Those hon. Members who did not manage to catch my eye in this debate will be given priority in the next debate.
Mr. Penhaligon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognise your problems. I have been in the House for several years and recognise that Mr. Speaker does not always have an easy task when selecting people to speak.

241
For all that, this has been an important debate for the rural areas of Britain. Constitutionally, we have had a debate when the real opposition in the rural areas of Britain has not had an opportunity to express its views. I cannot recall that having happened before in a debate in the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Et is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman to challenge my selection. I have heard plenty of opposition from both sides of the House tonight.

Fisheries
10.17 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 11209/83, 11209/83 Amdt. 1, 5390/84, 7248/84 and 7286/84 on total allowable catches and quotas for 1984, European Community Document No. 4969/84 on interim arrangements for Norwegian fishing for herring in the North Sea, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 24th January 1984 on interim arrangements for Member States' fishing for herring in the North Sea and European Community Document No. 7250/84 on technical conservation measures; welcomes the timely adoption of the total allowable catches and quotas for 1984 with the improvements secured for the benefits of the United Kingdom fishing industry, and the subsequent amendments to total allowable catches and quotas, including the quotas for North Sea herring; and urges the Government to ensure that any further decisions on total allowable catches and quotas for 1984 and on technical conservation measures also meet the needs of the United Kingdom industry.
This evening's debate covers a variety of European fisheries documents, spanning the period between now and our last such debate in December and dealing with two important aspects of the common fisheries policy—first, the total allowable catches and quotas for 1984, including the question of North sea herring, and, secondly, proposals for changes in technical conservation measures. I have a lot to cover and report to the House.
A number of the documents have already been adopted by the council as matters of some urgency, but they have all been recommended for the further consideration of the House by the Select Committee on European Legislation. We are as always grateful to the Select Committee for the careful and vigilant scrutiny of these matters which it carries out on behalf of the House.
I should just remind the House that it had been the Government's intention to hold this debate on 23 May, immediately before the Fisheries Council the following day. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and I would have liked to have that debate in good time, but that was rendered impossible by the actions of certain Labour Members. As a result, certain matters have advanced further without the House having had an opportunity to consider them. I regret that.
I propose, if I may, to speak only briefly on the documents on TACs and quotas adopted prior to the 24 May council so that I can devote more time to the position reached on North sea herring and to the outstanding issues on technical conservation, both of which I know will be of considerable concern to the House.
I deal first with the unnumbered memorandum of 24 January concerning interim arrangements for herring fishing by member states in the North sea. The arrangements were that such fishing should be prohibited in the northern and central sectors of the North sea but that the winter fishery already under way in the southern sector should continue, subject to an overall catch limit. The prohibition was later ended when, on 31 January, the Council agreed interim quotas for the period 1 January to 31 July, as part of the 1984 provisional TACs and quotas regulation. The southern winter fishery was allowed to run its course, followed by new interim quotas.
244
Next, I deal with documents 11209/83 and 11209/83, amendment 1. These concern the Commission's proposals for provisional 1984 TACs and quotas; the first one reflects the Commission's thinking before, and the second one after, its discussions with Norway in December. At the Fisheries Council on 31 January we pressed for various improvements and were successful. The result was overall a very acceptable set of provisional quotas, agreement on which so early in the year was an important achievement since it gave fishermen a more secure basis on which to plan. I believe that the House generally welcomed the timely settlement of the 1984 TACs and quotas although concern was expressed on a number of points, particularly concerning herring, cod and haddock. I shall come back to these stocks later in my remarks. But the fact that it was possible to make that settlement so early in the year after the earlier difficulties demonstrates that the common fisheries policy can be made to work.
Document 5390/84 concerns certain amendments made to the TACs and quotas regulation following the agreement in March between the Community and Spain on Spanish fishing opportunities in member states' waters. As a consequence of this agreement, quotas for monk fish and megrim in particular were reviewed and increased; that for monk fish being particularly important for the United Kingdom.
Document 4969/84, which was agreed in principle by the Council on 31 January, concerns interim arrangements for fishing by Norway of 15,000 tonnes of North sea herring before 31 July. This arrangement, which was agreed in parallel with the interim quotas for the Community totalling 54,300 tonnes, was without prejudice to the definitive allocation to Norway for 1984 or subsequent years.
The final adopted document is document 7248/84 concerning the extension of the earlier interim quotas for the member states for North sea herring. This proposal was agreed at the May Council. I will if I may say a little about the background to this decision and about subsequent developments.
Following the original interim agreement to which I referred a moment ago, talks with Norway on the definitive level of the North sea herring TAC for 1984 could not be held until the scientists' advice became known early in May. Two rounds of consultations ensued between Norway and the Community, but no agreement was reached on the definitive arrangements for 1984.
The difficulty in reaching agreement stemmed largely from a difference of opinion between the Community and Norway on the percentage share of North sea herring to which Norway should be entitled this year. A scientific working group held this spring confirmed that Norway should be entitled to only a very small proportion of the total allowable catch for the northern and central North sea, the southern North sea being entirely in the Community zone. However, in the recent consultations Norway rejected these findings on technical grounds and asked for a further scientific review of the data. Instead, she sought to concentrate the discussions on scientists' estimates of Community catches of juvenile herring in 1983 in order to establish a compensatory right to a significant share of herring in 1984. The Commission on the other hand maintained that Norway had no claim to compensation for these alleged catches bearing in mind in particular her very small share of the stock.

245
In the absence of any prospect of early agreement with Norway, there was strong pressure from herring fishermen throughout the Community, but particularly in the Netherlands, for a unilateral increase in the existing interim allocations to allow the main summer fisheries to be opened without fear of a premature closure. The Dutch in particular attach great importance, as some hon. Members may be aware, to their traditional fishery for maatjes herring which needs to begin at the end of May. The Commission accordingly put to the Council on 24 May this proposal to extend the earlier interim quotas for the member states up to a total of 155,000 tonnes to be taken in the Community's own zone. This left ample room, given the scientific advice on the recovery of the stocks, for subsequent negotiation of a reasonable quota for Norway.
The technical details of the proposal were broadly satisfactory. The allocation between member states reflected the key agreed last December and consequently gave the United Kingdom a quota of 35,720 tonnes, 85 per cent. of which could be taken in areas IVa and IVb, where the main interest of our pelagic fleet lies. The proposal also incorporated revised arrangements for the seasonal closure of the spawning grounds in the central North sea. These closures, which were narrowed down considerably from the blanket closure of last year, were considered appropriate and acceptable, as were the other details of the proposals, by the representatives of our industry with whom I was in close contact throughout the Council meeting.
The question faced at the Council was the broad one whether or not it was sensible to take the proposed decision at this stage. On the one hand, there was the possibility that unilateral action by the Community would cause difficulties in relations with Norway, which if extreme could damage the interests of our middle water and distant water whitefish fleets. On the other hand, there was the desire to provide a secure basis for the summer herring fishery, to which our own fishermen also attached importance. On balance I judged it right to let the proposal go through as part of a package.
I stress "as part of a package" because I am happy to say that I was able to secure Council agreement on other decisions of particular interest to the United Kingdom. In particular, I secured a further increase in our monkfish quota in western waters, which was welcome given the increase in our catching figures. This increase has been adopted as part of the same regulation as the increased herring quotas. I also secured a promise of proposals from the Commission to increase the TACs, and with them our quotas, for two other stocks: the so-called Manx stock of herring in the Irish sea; and plaice in area VII f and g—the Bristol channel and Celtic sea. The Commission has now proposed a Manx herring TAC of 3,400 tonnes, meaning an increase in the United Kingdom quota from 1,800 to 2,550 tonnes; and an increase in the TAC for plaice in VII f and g to 1,400 tonnes. This is higher than any of the catches in the last 10 years and would increase the estimated amount of the United Kingdom quota left for the rest of the year by about 45 per cent. Documents on these latest proposals will be deposited in the Library as soon as they are available.
The House will, I know, be concerned to know what the consequences of the main decision on herring have been in terms of relations with Norway and where we go from here. As I reported in a written reply to my hon.
246
Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 29 June, the Norwegian Government have expressed regret at the Council's unilateral decision and have asked it to be reconsidered. The Commission in reply has pointed cut that the Council's decision was a prudent one, in view of the scientific advice on the recovery of the stocks, and was designed not to prejudice in any way the eventual agreement on the share-out between Norway and the Community. The Commission has confirmed its desire to pursue consultations without delay. Meanwhile, we understand that Norway has followed the Council's example by authorising her own fishermen to fish far herring in the Norwegian sector of the North sea.
Unconfirmed reports indicate that they are landing higher catches than might have been foreseen given the scientists' previous advice on the distribution of the stocks, but we shall need to know more—for example, about the age composition of these catches—before any judgment can be made of the implications for Norway's eventual ownership share of the stocks. I should emphasise that Norway has continued to abide fully by the agreement reached earlier on access for Community fishermen lo Norwegian waters to fish the agreed quantities of species other than herring. We are, of course, anxious to see a resumption on consultations with Norway on herring as soon as possible so as to get back on to a basis of full agreement on the management of the North sea stocks, but the ball is at present in Norway's court.
There the matter stands for the moment. Obviously, the Community will ultimately need to allow Norway an appropriate share of the 1984 herring TAC consistent with her economic interest in the human consumption fishery'. Equally, Norway for her part must be prepared to make up a balanced package with further transfers to the Community, as appropriate, of species of interest to us.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. MacGregor: I am anxious to proceed, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will catch the eye of the Chair. It is important that I get through my speech quickly.
I have every hope that such a package can still be agreed with Norway which will include further quantities of important whitefish stocks for the Community. In particular, we will be seeking a further transfer of North sea cod from Norway and more haddock either from an increase in the TAC or a further transfer or a combination of the two. This is, of course, a further reason why we would like to see an early resumption of consultations between Norway and the Commission, and I understand Grimsby's interest in this matter.
Before leaving the question of TACs and quotas, I must mention one final document, document 7286/84, which deals with North sea sprat. The Commission has proposed reducing the TAC for North sea sprat from 175,000 to 130,000 tonnes and introducing for the first time an allocation of quotas between member states based on the normal method of calculation within the total available to the Community of 100,000 tonnes. That proposal takes account of the latest scientific recommendation to reduce the TAC in view of the sharp decline in the sprat stock and the risk of excessive by-catches of juvenile herring.
I supported that proposal at the Council on 24 May, but Denmark expressed concern at the difficulty that it would cause in her industrial fishing sector, and made a link with

247
another Commission proposal on the by-catch rules for the Norway pout fishery, which I shall come to shortly. It was agreed that both those matters should be studied further with a view to a decision by 15 September, taking account of the difficulties encountered by Danish fishermen. I should add that I took the opportunity at the Council to make clear our very strong criticism of excessive catches of juvenile herring by Danish vessels.
This brings me to document 7250/84, containing the Commission's proposals for amending the technical conservation rules. The proposals are complex and detailed, covering a number of aspects of the existing conservation regulation. The one aspect on which a decision was considered necessary at the Council in view of the need for adequate notice to the fishing industry was the question of the increase in the minimum mesh size for whitefish in the North sea from 80 to 90 mm.
The House will recall that in October of last year the Council decided to postpone the increase until 1 January 1985 and to consider before 31 May 1984 the possibility of exemptions for sole, plaice and whiting. The latest scientific findings are that, while the increase to 90 mm would have long-term benefits in terms of increased yields of haddock and, to a lesser extent, cod, there would be sharp losses in the short term especially in catches of whiting and sole.
Faced with that dilemma, the Commission proposed what may seem to be at first sight a logical way out, namely to draw a line across the North sea separating the northerly areas where haddock is mainly caught from the more southerly areas were it is not caught, but where sole is more plentiful. From a practical fisherman's point of view, as our industry made clear to us, such an approach would have been nonsense. Fishermen at North Shields would have been subject to one rule and those at Scarborough to another, while a fisherman going out from Whitby would have had to decide which sized net to use, depending on whether he turned to port or starboard on leaving harbour.
The increase to 90 mm involves a balance of advantages and disadvantages, which cannot be ducked, namely, the idea of derogations for individual species, such as whiting, or for particular areas, raises practical difficulties that we can at present see no obvious way of overcoming. On balance, our industry is content with the 80 mm mesh size and the quantity and quality of catches associated with it. It therefore seemed sensible to me, as to others around the Council table, to recognise reality and to put off the increase once again, this time to 1 January 1987, which will give time for a further thorough review of the scientific position and the whole question of derogations on which decisons are to be taken by the end of 1985.
Some hon. Members may feel that that was a retrograde decision from the conservation point of view, but I believe that it was a realistic and sensible one taking all considerations into account. The Council agreed that other aspects of the technical conservation rules should be discussed further at official level. Those discussions are continuing.
I should like to mention the Commission's proposals for changes in the rules on by-catches in the Norway pout fishery in the northern and central divisions of the North sea where small-meshed nets are used. The proposal is that for two periods in each year, from January to May and
248
from October to December, the by-catch of human-consumption whitefish, presently limited to 10 per cent. may be increased to 20 per cent., provided that, with the exception of whiting, the human consumption fish do not exceed 8 per cent.
We are very alive to the dangers that excessive by-catches of juvenile whitefish in these small-mesh fisheries pose for valuable human consumption stocks. We are also very much aware of the feelings of our own fishermen, who are obliged to conform to successive increases in mesh sizes for the conservation of whitefish stocks but who find themselves fishing alongside vessels pursuing industrial species, but taking valuable by-catches of whitefish in nets of a very much smaller mesh than they are able to use. We strongly share their concern.
At the Council on 24 May, Denmark pressed very strongly for the adoption of the proposal on by-catches, arguing that it was a balanced one involving a reduction in by-catches of other species in return for an increase in by-catches of whiting. The Danish Minister emphasised the political difficulty he would face in trying to tighten up controls on the activities of his industrial fishermen in relation to sprat and juvenile herring, if he could not take home what he regarded as a reasonable adjustment of the rules on Norway pout. He did not take it home on 24 May. No other Minister raised any objection, and it was left to the United Kingdom single-handed to put the case against the proposal, which I did as forcefully as I was able. As a result, no decision was taken and the matter was left for further examination and for decision, along with the proposal to reduce the sprat TAC by 15 September. I am well aware of the strength of feeling in the United Kingdom fishing industry on this proposal, and we will continue to muster every scientific argument against it, but I have to tell the House that so far at least our position has not received any support within the Council meeting from other member states. However, I believe that our objections are powerful, and we are doing all that we can to persuade other member states of their validity.
I come now to the third main issue raised in the Commission's proposals, namely beam trawling. Many hon. Members will be aware of the difficulties that have been experienced over the criteria used for defining the size of vessels which could beam-trawl for sole and plaice within 12 miles of coastlines. The Commission's Scientific and Technical Committee has given a great deal of consideration to this problem but because of the varying practices for registering vessels in the different member states it has not been able to come forward with any conclusive and generally acceptable guidelines.
The proposals now put forward simplify the criteria by deleting any reference to registered tonnage, in view of the widely varying systems of tonnage measurement within the Community, and limiting size only by the engine capacity which is now quoted in kilowatts, the normal international unit of measurement of power, but remains equivalent to 300 bhp — the existing size limit. The proposal provides for the detailed criteria for determining engine power to be drawn up by the Commission under management committee procedure: this should allow a detailed interpretation of the engine power restriction to be worked out which would prove easier to enforce and would, in particular, overcome the problems caused by the practice of derating. It is also proposed to extend the ban on beam trawling by large vessels within 12 miles to all

249
species and not simply sole and plaice, which would strengthen some aspects of the enforcement procedures which have caused difficulty in the past.
Although, therefore, the Commission's proposals on beam trawling within 12 miles offer the possibility of some improvement in the enforceability of the restrictions, they would not in our view resolve all the difficulties. In the light of experience, we now see considerable advantage in a return to a restriction based on the length of beam, which provides a clearer measure of the fishing power of a beam trawler. This would, I think, be welcomed by our industry as a whole. A number of other member states share this view, although the Netherlands in particular does not. In the light of the views expressed at the Council, it was agreed that further consideration should be given to the possibility of additional restrictions such as beam length or vessel length, and we shall continue to press the advantages of the beam length approach.
Finally, I should like to say something about the proposals for amending the rules relating to the south-west mackerel box. The House will be aware that in November 1983, on the basis of scientific advice, an extended box was introduced in the south-west in which mackerel fishing was restricted in order to protect the juvenile stock which congregate in those waters. The scientists' advice had been that, because the juvenile stock congregated in this area, fishing should be restricted to gill netting and hand-lining. However, in order to accommodate those fishermen who took by-catches of mackerel in demersal and nephrops fisheries in the area, a derogation was agreed from the rules of the box for bottom trawling provided nets with meshes of at least 60 mm were used.
In the event, that derogation permitted a sizeable directed mackerel fishery to be prosecuted last winter. The Commission's Scientific and Technical Committee recommended that the derogation should be removed. The Commission is now accordingly proposing a modification to the derogation by restricting the percentage of mackerel which may be retained on board to 25 per cent. when bottom trawling with large nets.
The Government attach considerable importance to the conservation of the western mackerel stock which is the basis of one of the United Kingdom's most important fisheries. We clearly must take very seriously the scientific recommendation that the important nursery areas in the south-west require protection. I cannot at this stage be categorical as to the outcome of the Council's further deliberations. But I can assure the House that we shall explore the implications of the Commission's proposal and of any alternative approaches that emerge with a view to reaching as well-balanced a solution as we can, taking fully into account the need to conserve the stock.
I apologise for taking up so much time, but I have tried to cover the many issues involved as quickly as possible.
Progress in the last few months, not least in reaching an early agreement on the 1984 TACs and quotas, shows that the common fisheries policy is being made to work in the long-term interests of the industry. Obviously, it will take time to get it right. The evidence shows that we are listening to the industry and showing flexibility and a willingness to work closely with it within the regulations.
We also have in place the restructuring schemes which, with generous European and national funding, will help the industry to modernise and adapt the fleet to take full advantage of the quotas available to it. As I announced on 22 May, the Government are to provide £7·9 million over
250
three years to help the Sea Fish Industry Authority with its plans for improving the marketing of fish. That is another key part of our strategy for the industry. All of those mean that the industry has at last a secure base on which to plan its future.
10.41 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: I shall be extremely brief, because many hon. Members wish to speak, some of whom sat through the earlier debate without being called to speak.
I am pleased that, apart from cod, our quota for this year for each of the seven main species is more than cur 1983 catch. It would be pointless not to welcome that. Cod is a valuable species, however, and our reduced quota for cod is not welcome. We must have a scheme for the common fisheries policy, which is settled to the extent that fishermen know what they can catch, where they can catch it and when they can catch it. From time to time there are restrictions or changes, either in the vessel quota or in the quota per crew member, which bring instability to the industry.
Many issues need to be resolved. The main issue is over-fishing. The Minister gave me the figures for the seven major species in an answer on 25 June. In the case of Denmark the facts speak for themselves. The Danish catch, as a percentage of their quota for 1983, for haddock was 163 per cent., for saithe 159 per cent., and for mackerel 162 per cent. That cannot continue. In some respects the Netherlands are bad, but they are not nearly as bad as Denmark. If I had time, I could quote the figures country by country, but suffice it to say that the United Kingdom catches come exceedingly close to the mark. Our fishermen are playing the game.
A great deal is said about policing, but it does not take place. According to the latest information, the logbooks, which were supposed to be available in April, are still unavailable. No one knows when they will become available. When inquiries are made about when they will be available, the answer is either, "We do not know," or" "As soon as possible."
The Minister must recognise, as Opposition Members have always argued, that that sort of monitoring is inadequate. Let us agree to put up with it for the moment, but if logbooks are not available, there can be no monitoring or reporting to the commission, and over-fishing will continue and nothing can be done about it.
There are three further matters of particular concern. First, I hope that the impasse in the negotiations between the Community and Norway will be ended. It cannot continue. Everyone is anxious about it. I hope that the Minister will not allow the Norwegians a higher share o f herring than they are logically entitled to because they complained about the catching of juvenile herring. I have heard of as much as 150,000 tonnes being caught. I do not know the precise figure, but over-fishing is going on and should be stopped. Norway should not be allowed a bigger catch because of Denmark.
Secondly, the Minister expressed great anxiety about the proposition coming before the Council on 15 September to double from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. the demersal bycatches for human consumption in the pout box. However, he must do more than express concern. He must say that he will not allow that to happen. If that

251
proposal goes through we shall see the marauding of stocks and many years of conservation efforts will be set back. I hope that he will resist that proposal.
The Minister may argue that my third point is special pleading and in a sense it is, and if the scientific evidence goes against us—although it is not always popular to say so—I understand that we must accept it. However, I have received strong pleas that a limited number of vessels be allowed into the south-west mackerel box, even if they are strictly controlled. That is of great importance to fishermen in north-east Scotland at particular times of the year.
I welcome the Government's announcement of £7·9 million for the Sea Fish Authority for marketing. I do not believe that it goes far enough, and one could discuss the matter in greater detail, but I am glad that at least the Government have moved on that. If we intend to ensure a high consumption of fish we must do something about marketing.
I should like to say a great deal about the plea for aid made by the North-East Scotland Fish Merchants Federation. Its representatives received short shrift when they went to see Lord Gray of Contin. They have said publicly and privately that they felt insulted by the abruptness of his manner. I hope that, now he has gone to another place, he has not forgotten that he had constituents and that we have constituents whose needs must be remembered.
I believe that that organisation has a good claim for aid, but one of the problems is that we cannot find out what is happening in the Community. The Minister will be aware that we had an exchange of letters. When I was in Brussels I raised the subject of aid for fish processors. The officials said, "We cannot give you the information; try and get it from your Minister." I raised the point with the Minister and he replied that he had received the figures confidentially, but that even if he could make them available to me they would not do me any good because the figures for 1979 were the last that he had. That is no way to run a common fisheries policy or an industry.
I believe that the North-East Scotland Fish Merchants Federation has a strong case, but I do not believe that its case is helped when it complains bitterly when Grampian regional council rescues Clipper Seafoods and saves 270 jobs. As hon. Members representing the north-east of Scotland will be aware, I have had my quarrels with Grampian regional council, but I pay credit to it for caring for the industry and rescuing the company. It was not done on a party basis. I hope that the North-East Scotland Fish Merchants Federation will think again and withdraw its criticism of the council for helping.
I hope that the Government will not come to the conclusion that because Grampian regional council have helped in this case, they do not have a responsibility to step in and help with continuing aid. I hope that when the Minister replies he will say something about this point.
I should have liked to raise an issue with which so far the Council of Ministers has shown no inclination to deal. It is safety at sea. Without going into the figures —I have them with me — fishing is the most dangerous industry in the country, more dangerous than mining or construction work. The figures are becoming worse despite the fact that fewer vessels are now going to sea.
252
The casualties, per thousand at risk, or number of vessels, are increasing, whereas in mining and construction work the risk is decreasing.
I should have liked to spend a great deal of time discussing that subject because we do not want to go through a period similar to the one which led to the Holland Martin committee being set up, when in three weeks three trawlers from Hull were lost. We certainly do not want that.
There are many things that we need to discuss. Although I will not say that I have given a generous welcome to what the Minister has done, I give it a general welcome, but I hope that he does not assume from that that we are satisfied that he is doing all he might do, and that the industry is in a healthy state. We are not satisfied. Many problems remain to be resolved. At another date, I hope that we will have an opportunity for a longer and more detailed discussion.
10.49 pm
Sir Walter Clegg: I trust that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will forgive me if I do not go down the road that he has, because I want to make a constituency speech, and I am not ashamed of that fact, because that is what we are in the House to do.
One of the great virtues of fish as a food is that it is easily digestible. I wish that the same could be said about the fisheries documents produced by the EEC and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am grateful to the Select Committee on European Legislation for taking out these orders for discussion by the House, and for its explanatory notes. The Minister referred to that, and we are indebted to the Select Committee.
I am afraid that I must tell my hon. Friend that I approach fisheries debates in the House these days in a melancholy mood, and how could it be otherwise, when I have seen the port of Fleetwood virtually lose its deep sea fleet, and the inshore fleet reducing in size and beset with problems on all sides?
The documents are complex and based on scientific advice given to the Commission and to the Ministry. Over the years, there seems to have been clashes between what the scientists believe to be happening and what the fishermen know to be happening on the fishing grounds. To take one example on the documents that are under discussion, it is stated in document No. 11209/83 that the proposed TACs and quotas for the number of sole and plaice stocks in the Irish sea appear to be unduly restrictive in regard to United Kingdom fishermen. This does not square up with the picture that I am getting from my own fishermen.
Recently, the Fleetwood inshore fishermen's association, of which I am president—but in which, I may add, I have no financial interest — commissioned a report by Mr. Roy Wallis of the Preston polytechnic, a copy of which has been sent to the Ministry. The document portrays vividly the position in Fleetwood and in the Irish sea. In the report, Mr. Wallis refers to the Boyd and Brandon report published in the Fishing News in March. The report provides evidence of the declining resources in the Irish sea of the main fish species of cod, plaice, sole and whiting. Preliminary figures of landings for 1983 compared with 1982 show the decline in landings of sole and plaice as 15 per cent. Boyd and Brandon conclude that the level of fishing in the Irish sea is too high on most stocks, and the quotas agreed for 1984 will not help to

253
bring the level down. There seems to be a conflict of view, therefore, about the Irish sea stocks. From what I have been told by local fishermen, the position this season has shown no improvement and fish have been difficult to find, and not always of good quality.
The House is also considering the re-definition of the size of vessel allowed to use beam trawls for sole and plaice within 12 miles of the United Kingdom coast. I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend had to say about that. At present, the 300 brake horsepower is being replaced with 200 kW, and anything that makes it simpler to deal with the problem is to the good. I was interested to hear what the Minister said about restricting the length of beams. Over the years, Fleetwood fishermen have said that heavy beam trawling has disturbed the breeding grounds of the sole and plaice. The scientists have said time and again that this did no harm. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Following heavy beam trawling in the Irish sea, the fish are not there.
The documents that we are discussing are the results of the settlement of the common fisheries policy. They are —perhaps of necessity—infinitely complex. However, the common fisheries policy has not solved the problems of all the fishing ports in the United Kingdom. The report to which I have referred, commissioned by the inshore fishermen of Fleetwood, shows that the port is under serious threat.
In the United Kingdom as a whole, certain fishing ports — especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland — are viable and are doing well. It is the main English ports that are suffering. England does not have a body similar to the Highlands and Island Development board, the Scottish Development Agency or the Northern Ireland development board. We are therefore at a disadvantage. We do not get the help that other fishermen get.
Unless some financial provision is made for ports such as Fleetwood, and other ports in England—especially on the west coast—we shall be in grievous difficulties. The report on Fleetwood by Mr. Wallis states clearly that financial help is necessary if the collapse of the inshore fleet is to be avoided.
The problem will not be easy to solve. We are comparing one part of the country with another. In the past, financial help for the fishing industry has been given for the whole country right across the board. Once one makes exceptions for this port or that, one runs into problems. However, unless some special help is given, several English ports, including Fleetwood, will be in grave difficulty.
Over the years, a sense of bitterness has crept in. The share fishermen, for example, who have been made redundant, have seen men in other industries receive considerable sums. This is, of course, a matter not for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but for the Department of Employment, but when they compare themselves with redundant miners, steel workers and other industrial workers, the fishermen feel bitter. They feel that they have been cast on one side. I hope that the Department of Employment will reconsider the situation.
The amount of financial aid provided by the EEC is not sufficient for a port such as Fleetwood. Unless some help is given, our inshore fleet will diminish, and with it the number of associated jobs on shore.
I am having to make pleas. So do the fishermen. They want to be able to stand on their own two feet again as soon as possible. However, the Irish sea is in a very poor state
254
of conservation. The fishing grounds take longer to recover than those on the east coast, because of the climatic conditions and the shelving of the sea bed.
I know that all the problems cannot be solved at once, but I feel deeply about this matter. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to look carefully at the report, which I find very disturbing. I hope that he will be able to convince the Government that they must do something to help the ports that are in special difficulties.
10.59 pm
Mr. James Wallace: Like the hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) I shall endeavour to be brief. I shall make some points on the copious documents that we are considering. As did the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), I give a general, although not overgenerous, welcome to the documents. Most Opposition Members recognise that there have been increased quotas, except of cod. There is general agreement that this debate should occur in July rather than in the middle of December, as it did last year. The fact that the total allowable catches have been agreed this early in the year is an advantage. It must be recognised that steps have been taken to give the producers' organisations a degree of local management with respect to cod and, ind the case of the Shetland Producers Associations, to both cod and haddock. That is a welcome development. I am sure that those who have been given this power will act responsibly and that the scheme will be a forerunner of even greater local management schemes.
I hope that the Minister of State has sufficient time to respond to some points about conservation measures. The hon. Gentleman said that there TACs would be set on sprats. As I understood the regulations, sprat fishing will still be banned in the Moray Firth and Firth of Forth areas between October and March. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was aware that that matter was specifically raised when the House last debated this issue on 7 December. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that he would consider the point again in relation to this year. He said also that he would consider especially whether boats under 40 ft in length could continue to catch sprats as a by-catch. Those who greatly depended for their living on the Firth of Forth and Moray Firth areas suggested that, by fishing with boats less than 40 ft in length, they were not doing any serious damage to young herring.
Ther is a very technical regulation on the measurement of crustaceans. I am disappointed that no steps have yet been taken to implement any system of licensing for lobster fishing. I believe that within the past four or five months the Minister has met representatives of the lobster fishing industry and that he is well aware of the depth of worry at the licensing system which the Government have been quick to implement with respect to other species. Such a system is necessary to safeguard an industry which for many people provides a considerable part of their livelihood, especially in areas in which there are not many other forms of economic activity.
I should like to refer to a constituency point on the Orkney and Shetland box, or, as it is sometimes called, the north of Scotland box. It was recognised in the preamble to the regulation of January 1983, which implemented the common fisheries policy as we know it, that measures were required to safeguard localities wher the local population was heavily dependent on the fishing industry,

255
not only directly in the catching site but indirectly in processing. People, especially those in Orkney and Shetland, argued that an excessive number of vessels over 26 m in length were licensed and allowed in to the box. What monitoring has occurred of vessels operating in that box? Is it the case that, because of the way in which the regulations are drafted, the total number of vessels — 128—means 128 at any one time? That might mean that more vessels could enter the box as one left.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that much of the fishing for demersal species in that area is done by boats of less than 26 m. I hope that if the purpose of the regulation was to protect those fishing grounds for those who lived closest to them, the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the measures are not as effective as was hoped.
The matter that most concerns the House is the future of herring and the relationship between the Community and Norway. It is regrettable that there has been a total breakdown. There have been reports of the Norwegians having already fished more than 30,000 tonnes of herring in their own sector. That is probably more than our fishermen have fished so far this year.
We are well aware of the damage which the Norwegians' industrial fishing inflicted on the herring stocks in the North sea in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It would be a tragedy if that damage were allowed to be repeated for that which has been achieved over recent years could so quickly be lost.
When the Minister said that the ball was very much at the Norwegians' feet I wondered whether that was entirely correct. He rightly said in another context that he has made representations at the Council of Ministers about the excessive catching of juvenile herring by Danish fishermen. If that is why the Norwegian Government are pressing more than other member states for a larger allocation of herring stocks, I ask the Minister whether representations cannot be made to the Danish Government for a quid pro quo arrangement with them if some compensation has to be paid to Norway.
Those issues concern the past, but the inadequacy of the policing operations of the common fisheries policy allows Denmark excessively to fish juvenile herring stocks. The most recent edition of Fishing News draws attention to the drastic consequences visited upon a Grimsby vessel for the mistakenly wrong reporting of a landing. A contrast was made between the efficiency of the Norwegian policing of its own sector compared with that in many other areas. We have heard within the past week or 10 days of an increase in the Community budget and we must wonder to what extent the Minister will be pressing for more inspectors to be appointed. The number was set originally at well into the 30s, if not approaching 40, but only 13 inspectors have been appointed. There are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who realise that there is an inadequacy in the inspection arrangements and who would press for more effective policing of the common fisheries policy.
We welcome many of the positive achievements within the fishing industry this year, but we do not wish the Government to become complacent. There are still many problems, not least that of herring and the restructuring of the fleet. The introduction of licences has caused a considerable number of problems in many areas. As many warned, the decommissioning grant has become the
256
bottom line for the sale of vessels to effect the transfer of a licence. The purchase of older vessels is being taken into account when consideration is being given to the cost of purchasing a new vessel. That brings problems for areas that have traditionally been dependent on fishing, especially if many of the licences go away to other parts of the United Kingdom and are bought up by corporate bodies. There will be damaging consequences for share fishermen, who in many respects, especially in the peripheral areas of Britain, form the backbone of the local economy.
11.8 pm
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Like other hon. Members, I shall not seek to detain the House too long in this short debate. Therefore, I shall not go over the documents before us in great detail.
First, I refer to document 4969/84, which is dated 15 February 1984. It seeks to allocate to Norway an interim allocation of herring in the North sea. It would allocate 15,000 tonnes, which must be caught by 31 July 1984. I am glad that the interim arrangement would not prejudice the definitive allocation for 1984 and subsequent years.
The fishing industry will want a guarantee that because the Norwegian share of the interim fishing allocation would be relatively greater that that which the United Kingdom Minister considered appropriate, the agreement on that allocation was reached only because the declaration by the Council of Ministers on 3–4 October 1983 stated that in all future negotiations the Commission must advise Norway that shares between the Community and that country would be according to the relative ownership shares of North sea herring hitherto considered appropriate by the Community. The Government must ensure also that the interim arrangements for the early months of 1984 will not prejudice the definitive allocation for 1984 in respect of our fishermen or for subsequent years.
In this connection, the Grampian regional council's fisheries committee, which met yesterday, passed a resolution requesting Her Majesty's Government to use their influence — as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said—to get the EC and Norway round the table to discuss over-fishing, which is source of great concern in the north-east of Scotland, and particularly to the fishermen in my constituency who have been so adversely affected by Norway's over-fishing, as was again confirmed by the Minister this evening.
In document 11209/83 I observe that the total allowable catches for the North sea cod, haddock and whiting will be lower in 1984 than in 1982 and 1983. What steps do the Ministers propose to take to ensure that any increases in the TACs for saithe, plaice and mackerel will compensate the fishermen for the reduced TACs of the other species? Any major reduction in the overall TAC for the North sea stocks would be greatly detrimental to the fishermen in my constituency.
In connection with document 7248/84, I notice that Denmark has 28,780 tonnes of North sea herring in the northern and central North sea areas 4A and 4B, as against the quota to the United Kingdom of only 29,020 tonnes for the same areas. Can the Minister tell the House why Denmark enjoys such a large proportion of the quota? The same applies in the southern North sea and the eastern English channel, where the United Kingdom has only 6,700 tonnes of herring, as against France, which has 19,000 tonnes, and the Netherlands, with 18,000 tonnes.

257
Why is there such a disparity in the United Kingdom's quota as against that of the other member states, bearing in mind that the greatest amount of fish is caught around the shores of Britain?
I am pleased to see that document 7286/84 says that attempts will be made to control the undesirably high by-catch of young herring being taken when fishing for sprats, to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North referred. This was another matter with which the Grampian regional council's fisheries committee was concerned. Can the Minister say—the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North also asked him this question — how effective is the policing and catch reporting in the areas concerned? Much damage was done to the young herring over the past years during the conservation periods when the Norwegians were fishing for sprats and picking up hundreds of thousands of tonnes of small herring. Is this matter now under control in Brussels? Are member states ensuring that there is less by-catching of those young fish?
In document 7250/84, I am pleased to note that the proposed revision of the conservation rules of the southwestern mackerel box would prevent directed fishing for mackerel within the box using bottom trawls, while allowing a by-catch of pelagic species, including mackerel in bottom trawls.
The question of access was also raised by the Grampian regional council's fisheries committee, which requested that access should be granted to a limited number of vessels from the north-east coast of Scotland, on condition that, should small fish be causght, fishing would cease immediately. Last year we had a number of problems in the south-western mackerel box between the fishermen in the south-west and the Scots. Fortunately, reason prevailed in the discussions between the Scots and the south-west fishermen and the problem was resolved. I hope, therefore, that this piece of draft legislation will ensure the smooth working of the south-western mackerel box this year.
Document 5390/84 of 1 March 1984 proposes TACs and quotas on certain stocks affected by the recent agreement reached between the Community and Spain on Spanish fishing opportunities in Community waters for 1984. While I accept that the agreement will provide an increased United Kingdom quota for monkfish, which will be welcomed, I have grave reservations about the United Kingdom agreeing to any TACs or quotas for Spanish fishermen in Community waters where they do not have a history of traditional fishing. It must be borne in mind that the accession of Spain to the Community will be dependent upon the total restrictions being lifted which are at present enforced by the Spanish authorities on our dependent territory of Gibraltar.
Nor should it be forgotten that if Spain secures membership of the Community, it will have the largest fishing fleet among the member states. The British Government must be careful to safeguard the interests of the United Kingdom fishermen, who cannot afford to lose any part of their TACs or quotas, having suffered from the need for conservation over the years.
It is unfortunate that, as usual, we are discussing this important topic of fishing so late at night. Having examined the instruments carefully, I give them a guarded welcome. I trust that the British Government will continue to play a large part in the decision-making in Brussels,
258
bearing in mind that so much of the fish caught in Community waters comes from around the shores of Great Britain.
11.16 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Only two comments need be made about these documents. The first is that one heaves a sigh of relief that the quotas for 1984 have actually been agreed, and so early in 1984, instead of being left until December and an indecent scramble to stitch the whole thing together, which is what usually happens with the common fisheries policy.
The second is to emphasise that the real problem with these quotas is cod. That is the central issue. The cod catch is down, yet we in Grimsby depend on cod almost totally. The fact that the cod quota is down means an 18 per cent. reduction in the earnings of the port because the reductions have not been compensated for by any increase in earnings or increased prices in the market. Also, the Government have kicked away the prop that a port such as Grimsby needs, the operating subsidy, which helped to keep the industry going. Now it must suffer this blow of an 18 per cent. reduction in earnings.
It is not good enough for Britain to end up with a scattered, small boat fishing industry. We need an industry which is concentrated in ports such as Fleetwood and Grimsby, ports which can offer facilities for a professional industry. This industry needs investment and replacement, and the lack of that has caused the decline in the safety record to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred.. It needs confidence, but it will not have it as the industry shrinks and does not receive the backing it deserves from the Government.
Grimsby is suffering partly because of the row which has been precipitated with Norway, a row which has precluded an agreement on extra cod from Norway. This is fish which we are not catching, fish which our Ministers pledged to get for us, fish which the commissioners pledged to negotiate for us but fish which we do not have and which would supplement the reduction in catches.
We do not have that catch because of the Danes. The Minister was mealy-mouthed about allocating responsibility for the breakdown in talks, but responsibility must lie with the Danes. They have caught 170,000 tonnes of immature herring off the west coast of Denmark in Danish vessels. No action has been taken to stop it and, so far as I know, there have been no prosecutions, no cuts in quotas, no threats made and no punishment levied for what they have done. Indeed, there is even talk of rewarding the Danes for this heavy catching of juvenile herring by giving them an increase in the by-catchers allowance for industrial fishing from 10 to 20 per cent.
I warn the Minister that if he accepts that increase in by-catchers, the industry will be up in arms. We want more than an effort of opposition from him. We want his pledge to go on opposing such an increase, because we know how the EEC can soften attitudes in such matters.
That catching of juvenile herring is of great concern to Norway because the fish swim into Norwegian waters—if it is allowed to mature— but the way in which the juvenile herring are being caught gives them no confidence in EEC enforcement mechanisms, about which they feel much as I do. They have become obstructive on extra cod and have begun to catch herring in their own waters much in the way that the Danes have been doing.

259
In this matter, we are on the side of Norway. We have the same concern about conservation. At times, it seems that they and us are the only countries which pay any attention to conservation. More important, we need Norway's co-operation, and the port of Grimsby needs the catch that we make in Norwegian waters. It is essential, therefore, that we press for action against the Danes as a sanction to try to get an agreement with Norway.
That brings me to the central point of quotas, and that is the problem of policing, which has always been the weak link of the common fisheries policy, partly because of collusion between the fishing authorities and the fishing industry in continental countries, but also because the EEC inspection force began weak and finished up weaker, turning from a force into a farce. Only 13 men police that enormous area. Britain suffers both ways. We restrict our effort because our fishing is better inspected and policed than it is anywhere else except Norway. Yet we suffer the sanction of cuts, in cod quotas for example, because of overfishing by others who are not adequately controlled or policed.
The extent of overfishing was revealed when my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North asked a question only a week ago. The Netherlands' cod catch in 1983 was 112 per cent. of its quota. The Danes caught 163 per cent. of their haddock quota and the Netherlands caught 121 per cent. of its quota of haddock. The Danes caught 159 per cent. of their quota of saithe and 162 per cent. of their mackerel quota. The Netherlands caught 109 per cent. of its mackerel quota. Deliberate and flagrant breaches of quotas has taken place and nothing has been done.
Britain's cod quota has been improved for Grimsby by making it more flexible, but only Britain operates under a restrictive system of licensing and quotas. Why are not other countries so effectively policed? Policing cannot be done without logbooks showing where the fish is caught or without effective co-operation by authorities on shore in the different countries. Until we get that, there can be no satisfaction with the quotas or with the CFP arrangements.
Grimsby's FEOGA money for the Fish Producers Organisation has been withheld because of dissatisfaction with fish grading. We need that money to underpin the prices on the market when the market becomes more difficult — as it will at the end of the year and the beginning of the next fishing season—to guard against a collapse of prices and to keep the FPO solvent.
Our grading, although no better, is certainly no worse than that in most other ports. The difference is that ours is more continuously and closely inspected by officials. The inspection at other ports is not as rigorous. I challenge the Minister to examine grading at other ports. If he cannot go to other ports, I urge him to come to the Mecca of the fishing industry —Grimsby — and to inspect the boxes from Peterhead. He will find that grading there is exactly the same as ours. It is unreasonable to make Grimsby an example while not dealing with the problem elsewhere.
The cut in the cod quota is causing severe problems in Grimsby. The industry faces a crisis of survival in the coming winter months when the viability of the landing companies and of some of the vessels which are old and not making money will be threatened without the special
260
help of an operating subsidy. The Minister must help to keep going viable industries in concentrated, efficient ports such as Grimsby.
11.23 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: Unlike my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), and unlike the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who have made distinguished contributions to debates on this topic in the House, this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to participate in such a debate. I shall take a moment or two—I shall try to be brief—to describe the nature of my interest.
In my contituency, commercial fishing takes place from Folkestone, Hythe and Dungeness. It is a significant activity in an area where unemployment is above the national average. It is important that it should prosper. Its prosperity is far from assured and I regret to say that the agreements contained in the documents before the House this evening are far from assuring that prosperity, even if they are not in themselves objectionable.
The first reason for that less than satisfactory situation is that which has been touched upon by several hon. Members who have already spoken, and that is the inadequacy of the arrangments for inspection and enforcement. The evolution of ministerial attitudes to that matter is not altogether encouraging. In January 1973, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who then had responsibility for these matters, participated in the debate on the agreement on the common fisheries policy he assured the House that a proper system of enforcement would apply to all countries in the Community, not only to the United Kingdom. He said that we would ensure that the enforcement was carried out well and effectively.
By the time we reached last December, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was less sure about the effectiveness of the arrangements. He said that he had maintained regular pressure on the Commission and that he had been assured that the full complement of 13 inspectors would be in place by the end of the year and that he preferred to reserve judgment on the need for an increase in the complement.
The fishermen whom I represent are in no doubt about the inadequacy of that number. They are in no doubt about the inadequacy of the present arrangements. They say that it is no use having a common fisheries policy unless it is enforced effectively and uniformly throughout the Community. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister of State to look again at that aspec of the matter. It goes to the very heart of the policy. Without effective enforcement, all the weary hours that he has spent on th negotiations will have been wasted. I have far too high a regard for the abilities of my hon. Friend, and I hope some understanding of the other calls on his time, to wish those hours to be wasted in that way.
Mr. Gerald Malone: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Member of the European Parliament for the north-east of Scotland, James Provan, recently secured an initiative to control over-fishing from the Netherlands? He managed to secure an action which required the books of fish processors in the Netherlands to be examined. They were impounded and examined. Is that not one aspect of the way in which we can obtain control?

261
Unless fish processors in some of the countries where catches are being landed are controlled, we shall never reach a satisfactory solution.
Mr. Howard: Every small step forward is welcome, but I fear that we need a leap or two. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do what he can to secure such leaps.
Even enforcement will not in itself be sufficient. My hon. Friend will know that the fishermen whom I represent suffer greatly from the inshore activities of the large beam trawlers. They regard it as profoundly unsatisfactory that the restriction on the activities of those beam trawlers should be expressed in terms of engine power. I fear that they will not be greatly mollified by the substitution of kilowattage for horsepower, which is what the agreements in the documents before the House secure. They want a limit expressed in terms of vessel or beam length. I was greatly encouraged by my hon. Friend's remarks. I urge him to press with urgency and determination for limits expressed in those terms.
The final point that I wish to make relates to the subsidy on fuel which is presently enjoyed by French fishermen. I had occasion recently to visit Boulogne and Calais in order to make common cause with representatives of those communities on a matter which arose as a result of the French Government's proposal to withdraw the no passport excursion facility. That proposal will damage the economic interests of those communities at least as much, if not more than, it will harm the interests of my constituency.
I discovered during that visit that they had many interests in common with the constituency which I represent, but I fear that fishing is not an area on which our interests are common, especially so long as they enjoy a subsidy on their fuel which enables a fishing vessel from Boulogne to be viable when an exactly similar fishing vessel from Folkestone is not. That is unfair. It is unacceptable. I urge my hon. Friend to do all in his power to ensure that discriminatory measures of that kind, which I fear are all too common in other areas of Community policy pursued by other members of the Community, are stopped.
I am far from certain that all the measures to which I have referred will suffice to assure the prosperity which I should like to see accrue to the fishermen in my constituency, though I believe that they would go a considerable way towards achieving that goal. In the longer term it may be necessary to consider more fundamental measures such as the introduction of a scheme of regional management, but the measures that I have identified would be a good start, and it is in that spirit that I commend them to my hon. Friend.
11.30 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall be brief, because I know that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) wishes to contribute to what, for me, is too short a debate on a very important issue.
I want first to add a comment to the observations of the hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg). He talked of the absence of compensation for redundant share fishermen. If he were here, I am sure that he would agree that that is a matter for deep regret but that the same applies to fishermen employed by trawler companies.
262
My brother Leslie had 19 years service with a trawler company. He received the princely sum of £385 in redundancy.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: He was lucky.
Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend says that my brother was lucky, but that was £15 less than the European grant per gross registered tonne for decommissioning the vessel on which he sailed. It is surely time that we had a pension scheme for all fishermen.
I said that it was a matter for regret that this was such a short debate. I say that especially in the light of what the Select Committee said in its 26th report concerning, for example, the proposed increase in the by-catch when fishing for Norway pout. If that comes about it will be a scandal. Sooner or later the Danes will have to face the need to seek alternative foodstuffs for their pig industry.
There is also this very important issue of beam trawling. I have argued in the past for a complete ban within a few miles of our coastline.
There are other issues raised in the documents, for example, the removal of the Community prohibitions on the use during a specified period each year of trawls, purse seines and so on in certain Scottish lochs and other related issues which are worthy of a more comprehensive debate.
Finally, I add a brief comment to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) on the safety of fishermen. In fairness to the officials of the EEC concerned with this industry, it must be said that they are deeply aware of the importance of this issue and recently organised a conference on fishing vessel safety at L'Orient, in Brittany, to examine the problems. The conference spent a great deal of time examining the design of vessels and deck machinery on the basis that the deck of a fishing vessel is a work place that needs the most stringent safety regulations. I look forward to the day when we debate the safety and training needs of our fishermen.
11.34 pm
Mr. David Harris: Having tried and failed to get into the debate on the milk industry —I I quite understand why I failed — I am grateful for, and delighted to have, the opportunity to say a few words about another important industry in the south-west, the fishing industry, and it will not surprise anyone if I confine my comments to the south-west mackerel box.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) seemed to be saying that we should have some overfishing in the mackerel box but not too much. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) was also not quite right in suggesting that everything was wonderful and that everyone agreed entirely about the future of the box. I shall not, however, reopen old wounds and issues that we have discussed with vigour on previous occasions.
I hope that in winding up the debate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will give an assurance that the matter will be cleared up at the next Fisheries Council meeting, which I gather is not due to take place until September. The problem of the mackerel box and the need to end an extremely damaging exemption have dragged on for far too long and September is not far off the beginning of the mackerel season. it would be intolerable if the issue remained unresolved at the start of the new season. Indeed, I say without fear of

263
contradiction that if the matter is not settled by then there will be great trouble off the south-west coast of England, which the whole House should be determined to avoid.
I should mention in passing that there is a drafting defect in the regulation. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is aware of that, and I hope that he will take full account of it.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State referred in opening to the restructuring of the fleet. As he and most hon. Members involved with fishing communities know, there have been diabolical delays on the part of the Commission in Brussels in paying out FEOGA grants to our fishermen. I hope that that problem, too, will be brought to an end.
11.36 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): We have had a short but most interesting debate on the European Community documents before us. As usual, hon. Members have used great ingenuity to bring in matters perhaps not entirely within the scope of the documents and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have allowed some latitude in that respect. I shall try to answer as many of the questions as possible, but anyone who has listened carefully to the debate will appreciate that 10 minutes is not nearly long enough to answer them all.
In the past few months, since the TACs and quotas for 1984 were decided by the Council on 31 January, the common fisheries policy has perhaps moved into a new phase. Our task now is to keep the policy in good repair, in particular by updating the various conservation rules and regulations as and when new scientific evidence becomes available, while at the same time keeping a close watch on the various markets for fish and fish products so that the industry can make the most of its fishing contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) asked for an assurance that the problem of the south-west box would be resolved by September. All too many years of fisheries negotiations make it foolish for any Minister to give such an assurance, but I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are well aware of the problems and the conflicting interests involved and of the importance for a number of competing groups of getting a solution that is sensible in terms of both conservation and the livelihood of the fishermen.
Much of the debate has dealt with the issue of herring. Those who were concerned about the Council's decision unilaterally to fix this year's quota and TAC without completing negotiations with Norway should know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State expressed reservations about that decision in the Council and made it very clear that we were extremely concerned lest the Norwegians take action against us or drag their heels in future negotiations. We made our view very clear at the Council, but that view did not prevail. As hon. Members know, the Norwegians, as we expected and forecast have shown their disapproval of our decision, but I believe that we still can, and will, get round the table with Norway. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) that we are doing our very best to make sure that the Community and Norway can soon negotiate on the herring stocks in the North sea.
264
We have no evidence at the moment—I repeat this for the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan—that the Norwegians are breaking the rules in fishing in their zones. Indeed, I understand that they have closed certain areas of their sector because of the high percentage of small herring in their catch. I hope that we can reach a sensible agreement with the Norwegians. We have a joint interest, in the Community and especially in Britain, with the Norwegians, in making sure that the work that has gone into conserving and bringing back the herring stocks to the North sea is not thrown away just because we cannot come to an agreement.
I move on from herring to the question of cod and haddock. They are not unrelated, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out in his speech. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby were pressing for higher quotas for those species. Unfortunately, in reality we must take into account the scientific advice that the biomass in those species is going down. We must not allow cod and herring stocks to decline in the same way as herring in the North sea.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby is quite right to say that it is important for us, and for cod, to have sensible negotiations with the Norwegians in order to get reciprocal agreements, and to fish for more cod in their sector. I assure the House that my hon. Friend is doing his best to resurrect the negotiations. He warned the Council of Ministers that those were in danger at the Council in May.
Still on the subject of the Council meeting in May, I shall deal with the question of Norway pout fishing. My hon. Friend said, and I can underline it, having sat beside him at the Council that we are very much alone in pushing the case that we believe in the well-founded scientific case against an increase in the by-catch. We believe that all of those factors are related. We are talking of the biomass of cod and haddock. Perhaps whiting is not endangered yet, but the point is that if we take too many of the small, juvenile fish then we shall have, so to speak, burnt our boats for the future.
I can assure the House that we are taking a very firm view of the matter, as did my hon. Friend at the previous Council meeting. We are basing our case firmly on the scientific evidence. As I said, and as he said, we were not getting many supporters in the Council of Ministers.
I shall deal with one or two points briefly. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked a question about the north of Scotland box. I cannot confirm his understanding of the number of vessels that may fish in the box. The number of large vessels that may come in at any time is 128, but that total has never been approached. There are rules for reporting in and out of the box that enable us to monitor what is happening there. The box rules also apply to other vessels and we watch them from aircraft as well as from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland's fishery protection vessels.
It is true that there is no limit to the number of smaller vessels that may fish in the box. So far, there is no evidence that that is preventing the Shetlanders from taking their catches and increasing their incomes, as they did last year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) told us about the problems of Fleetwood, which we appreciate very much. My hon. Friend's Department has

265
received a copy of the report commissioned by the Fleetwood Inshore Fishermen's Association and it will be replying shortly to the letter that my hon. Friend the Minister received from my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre.
The report is an interesting and thorough study of the problem facing Fleetwood. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is well seized of those problems. At the same time, as my hon. Friend recognised, there are very real difficulties in providing special subsidies for particular ports and, indeed, any operating subsidy would be open to challenge under the Community's state aid rules. Thus, we shall study the report, and I hope that we shall be in a position to respond to it before too long.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked about sprats, and sprat fishing in the Moray Firth and Firth of Forth. Scientific advice still support closure, but research voyages have been authorised to the places and at the times suggested by fishermen in order to test our scientific advice. But, as with other species, although it would often be nice to ignore the scientific advice and to allow the catches that the industry would like, such a policy would be very shortsighted. We must be responsible. However, we shall attempt to check on the scientific advice that we have received.
The hon. Members for Aberdeen, North and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned the safety of fishermen. As I have said in Committee with the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, fishing is, indeed, a hazardous occupation. The report from, I believe, Dundee univerity is with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I have already drawn attention to that matter, as it came up in Committee on the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill. I very much hope that the industry will make greater use of the open line that is available to improve and help safety at sea.
I turn to the all important question of policing the common fisheries policy that every hon. Member has
266
dwelt on. After a very long clay, night and bit of a morning at the last Fisheries Council, my hon. Friend the Minister raised once again the subject of log books and policing. He underlined the importance that the United Kingdom places on that. The Commission recently announced that log book printing had gone to tender. Obviously, we hope that that will proceed. On policing in general, we agree that there is room for substantial improvement in reporting and enforcing catches, and we are continuing to press the Commission on that.
There are signs that the inspectors are tackling the task sensibly, and I think that we can look forward to improvements. However, I can assure the House that 'we shall continue to urge effective policing. I have noted the point about the need for more inspectors, but we should allow the system to have a chance to work before——
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 11209/83, 11209/83 Amdt. 1, 5390/84, 7248/84 and 7286/84 on total allowable catches and quotas for 1984, European Community Document No. 4969/84 on interim arrangements for Norwegian fishing for herring in the North Sea, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 24th January 1984 on interim arrangements for Member States' fishing for herring in the North Sea and European Community Document No. 7250/84 on technical conservation measures; welcomes the timely adoption of the total allowable catches and quotas for 1984 with the improvements secured for the benefits of the United Kingdom fishing industry, and the subsequent amendments to total allowable catches and quotas, including the quotas for North Sea herring; and urges the Government to ensure that any further decisions on total allowable catches and quotas for 1984 and on technical conservation measures also meet the needs of the United Kingdom industry.

Discipline Acts
11.47 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move,
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.
The purpose of this order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. The House will be aware that the practice of giving annual parliamentary consideration and approval to the legal basis for the service man's special position in law is long-established. A new Armed Forces Act is required every five years and the present one expires on 31 December 1986. In the intervening years a continuation order, such as the one I am moving tonight, is introduced. The last Armed Forces Act was passed in 1981 when the Select Committee considering it said that it was satisfied that these procedures, providing for quinquennial Bills and annual continuation orders in the interim, were satisfactory to ensure parliamentary oversight of the working of the service discipline Acts.
We are of course giving further consideration to the points made by the 1981 Select Committee in considering proposals for the next quinquennial Bill. The House will, I am sure, understand that I am not able to anticipate the provisions of that Bill tonight.
However, I am glad to be able to announce that we have accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee in respect of the provisions of the 1981 Act which cover the detention and treatment of persons subject to service law overseas who are certified to be suffering from mental disorders. An order to detain an individual for treatment is made by his or her commanding officer on the recommendation of two doctors. The Select Committee recommended that, as a matter of administrative practice and where circumstances permit, one of the two certifying doctors should be a civilian, preferably with specialised psychiatric knowledge. Of course, although some of the doctors employed by the services overseas are civilians, it may not always be possible in some areas to ensure the participation of a civilian doctor. This was recognised by the Select Committee, but we are content to accept the recommendation in principle and we shall apply it wherever possible.
The services' disciplinary system plays a significant part in contributing to the extremely high standards displayed by the services both in peacetime and in fighting roles, and I invite the House to approve the order.
11.50 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: As the Minister explained, the order keeps in being the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. Those Acts are revised every five years, and changes are incorporated into a new Armed Forces Act. The last Act was in 1981. After new legislation has been brought before the House, the Select Committee on Defence studies the Bill and makes its recommendations. We are grateful to the Minister for accepting one of those recommendations in relation to psychiatric medical advice in respect of the certification of members of the armed forces.
However, the Minister did not tell us about anything else. That is not a complaint, but we are reaching the point
268
when the Ministry of Defence will be beginning to consider the next five-year Bill. I note from the Select Committee's report that it takes about two years for new legislation to be produced, for the consultations to be carried out between Government Departments, and for it to be drafted and presented. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will tell the House whether consultations have started about changes that may be made in the next quinquennial Bill.
Some hon. Members may feel that it is a waste of time to debate the order every year. It is not, because it enables the House to bring the Select Committee's recommendations to the attention of the Ministry of Defence. As we move from the old legislation towards the new legislation, we can draw the attention of the Ministry of Defence to various changes that may be necessary. Even a professional army, which is more immune to changes in society than a conscript army, is subject to social pressures and changes. One of the purposes of the order is to draw attention to the Select Committee's recommendations. The other is to draw to the attention of the Ministry of Defence any changes that occur in society as they impinge upon the armed forces to ensure that the changes are included in the new Bill.
The Select Committee made recommendations on three points and touched upon a fourth. I hope that the Minister will give some answers when he replies, because these questions have been asked in the past and answered in letters to Opposition spokesmen. They are sometimes not answered on the Floor of the House and are not incorporated in Hansard so that hon. Members can know what is going on. The trial of young service offenders, the death penalty and the composition of courts martial were the subject of recommendations by the Select Committee. The fourth subject, which was discussed at great length but without specific recommendations because it did not seem to be a major problem at the time, was drug abuse.
The Minister and the House will be aware that section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 1981—I shall call it the last Act—made various changes to custodial sentences that could be imposed by a court martial on young service offenders. There are two matters about which I should like the Minister to give an answer, if possible, this evening. The point was dealt with in the Select Committee's report at paragraph 6 which was headed, "Young service offenders." It stated:
"The number of Servicemen who might be expected to receive such a sentence"—
that is a sentence for detention in a civilian corrective institution for up to two years—
"in any one year would be small".
I believe that the Government's estimate was fewer than 25.
The point has been made in previous debates that with the youth training scheme, and so on, there are more young people in the armed forces. That figure was for 1981. Perhaps the Minister could estimate the figure of young offenders now dealt with under section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 1981.
The next point about young offenders relates to paragraph 7 of the Select Committee report. The Select Committee recommended that
"consideration be given before the 1986 Armed Forces Bill is introduced to the evolution of a system under which social inquiry reports on young Service offenders could be made more readily available to courts-martial. We note that the Navy is already moving in this direction."

269
In last year's debate the Minister dealt with this point in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), but he did not give a clear answer. The Minister said:
"we should like to assure the Select Committee that considers the next five-year Bill that adequate safeguards exist"—
that relates to social inquiry reports into the background and problems of young offenders—
"and that we shall continue to look at the recommendations made last time by the Select Committee."—[Official Report, 14 July 1983; Vol. 45, c. 1079.]
If the Government are saying that safeguards exist, why do they believe that a change is necessary, or is the Minister saying, as he said last year, that adequate safeguards exist, that that will be the end of the matter, and that the Government will not try to move towards the recommendation of the Select Committee?
I deal next with the vexed question of the death penalty. Punishment by death is discretionary in all but one case, and the death penalty can still apply in respect of various offences. The Select Committee considered this matter in paragraph 11 of its recommendations. While it did not recommend that the death penalty be abolished in respect of these offences—and I do not wish to go down that road now, although it was touched on in a previous debate —the Committee recommended that the definition of the word enemy should be reconsidered in respect of the discretionary punishment in all cases but one by death in respect of such offences.
The Government's assertion for the retention of the death penalty is given in paragraph 11:
"Retention of the death penalty is necessary as a deterrent given that a potential offender on the battlefield, where death may result from obeying orders, is unlikely to be deterred from assisting the enemy by no more than the possibility of imprisonment."
Like all theories of deterrence, once one tries to define them, one gets into considerable difficulties. Indeed, that attempt to explain what deterrence means gets into the same difficulties that one encounters in other spheres.
The Select Committee continued in paragraph 11:
"We did feel, however, that there was room for a clearer definition of the phrase 'the enemy' which is crucial in this context."
The existing definition of the "enemy" apparently means
"all persons engaged in armed operations against any of Her Majesty's forces, including … mutineers."
That is a wide definition. It goes further than battlefield. In the Select Committee report, there is a memorandum prepared by the Ministry of Defence on the matter. In regard to offences in which there is discretionary death penalty, at page 60, paragraph 5, it says:
"The consequence of these offences may be greater than any crime of murder in civil life, in that they could imperil the force to which the offender belongs and threaten the outcome of a battle or campaign thus ultimately jeopardising not only the lives of individual servicemen, possibly in very large numbers, but also the collective existence of the country as a whole through increasing the chances of defeat in war."
The person who wrote that clearly had in mind the concept of enemy as the traditional enemy in time of war or armed conflict. However, the original definition talks only about
"all persons engaged in armed operations against Her Majesty's forces."
In the case of the siege of an embassy, the people inside could be engaged in armed operations against Her Majesty's forces. That, of course, goes much wider than battlefield, and does not imperil the nation or the country or, indeed, other members of the armed forces. There is a case for considering the definition.
270
When one begins to reconsider these matters, as many difficulties may arise as are likely to be solved. The element of discretion in some ways only makes the position worse, and in view of the large numbers of offences involved, I think that the definition should be reconsidered with the aim of narrowing it down.
The Ministry of Defence memorandum shows that what is in mind is an enemy on a battlefield or in a minor conflict in time of war or armed operations. I hope that the Ministry's thinking can be explained to us. The Select Committee was specific about the desirability of considering the definition again.
The Select Committee also dealt with the question of the composition of courts martial. This question was dealt with in paragraph 16, in which the Select Committee commented on the idea—extraordinary in this day and age —that only officers are thought good enough, or clever enough, to sit on courts martial. The Select Committee states:
"we believe that such a review"—
apparently there were two such reviews in the 1940s, the Lewis Committee and the Pitcher Committee—
"is now due and ought to be conducted before the introduction of the 1986 Armed Forces Bill."
The Minister of State should tell us whether a review is in progress, even if the Ministry has not yet reached a conclusion. In this day and age, it is not good enough lo trot out the somewhat artificial reasons given for excluding non-commissioned officers from courts martial which were given in the Lewis and Pilcher reports. The Pilcher report, I believe, dealt with the Navy.
I should like to quote from page 82 of the Select Committee's minutes of evidence. I refer to paragraph 3 of the Ministry of Defence memorandum of evidence on the composition of courts martial. It states:
"The conclusions of the Lewis Committee and the Pilcher Committee are considered to remain valid today … The members of a court-martial are required to be judges of law as well as of fact and also to determine sentence in the event of a conviction. There is thus a requirement to have knowledge of Service law, which forms part of the training syllabus of officers"—
I do not know how much training is given. Perhaps a couple of hours are spent on the manual of military law.
There is also a requirement—
"for a high educational level"—
No doubt all officers have a high educational level, but so do many NCOs—
"and for experience and understanding of the difficulties and exigencies of life in a Service community."
That is not confined to officers. Those reasons must have seemed pretty contrived in 1949, and they seem totally out of date in 1984.
"A number of further problems would arise if other ranks were allowed to sit on courts-martial. Such a change might be interpreted as giving the court-martial, and in particular the other rank(s) selected, a representative rather than a judicial function."
That is complete nonsense. One is merely saying that the choice should be there. One is not talking about an obligation to choose representatives of a definite constituency.
Is the Ministry of Defence taking seriously the recommendation for a review? A case can be made for change, because circumstances have changed. This matter could be looked at again.
I must make it clear that the Select Committee did not find evidence of drug abuse within the armed forces, and no one is suggesting that that is a major problem. We should be told about the present position, because,

271
unfortunately, changes occur rapidly. As a professional body the armed forces do not have the same problems that society in general and other armies have. It seems that the United States army is experiencing a major problem. I do not know about the position of the army of the Federal Republic of Germany in that respect.
In paragraph 15 the Select Committee drew attention to this fact:
"The number of drug offences committed is well below one per thousand Servicemen a year'.
What are the latest available figures? Apparently most offences were committed with soft rather than hard drugs.
On page 81 the Select Committee touched on the sharp increase—this was from a low base—in the Navy, for reasons about which no one was entirely clear, from 73 convicted offenders in 1979 to 154 in 1980. That is perhaps a greater variation than one might expect in a year. The Select Committee commended the Navy on the way in which it was dealing with the problem. No one is suggesting that it is a major problem. Is there still an upward trend? Have the figures stabilised? Was 1980 an aberration? We have not been given that information.
In 1980, most cases of drug abuse in the Navy, and, I take it, in the other two forces, related to cannabis, which is called a soft drug, and very few to heroin. Unfortunately, there seems to have been a heroin epidemic in Britain, although not in the armed forces. Will the Minister provide the latest available figures for convictions, so that we can ascertain whether the hard drug element has increased from its negligible level in 1980?
Page 113 of the Select Committee's report shows that drug offences in BAOR appear to be higher—again this is from a low base—than in the United Kingdom. For these purposes, the United Kingdom includes Hong Kong, Cyprus, Malta and Gibraltar. In 1980 there were five such offences among the United Kingdom land forces and 22 among BAOR forces. It was suggested in the evidence to the Select Committee that that may be because of the proximity of BAOR forces to the forces of the United States and, perhaps, of the Federal Republic of Germany whose army to a great extent comprises conscripts and not professional volunteers. This is an important matter, about which I hope the Minister can provide some information.
This is an important debate and we shall need to know, certainly next year, much more about the Government's plans for their new Armed Forces Bill. If the Minister is able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and is given leave to reply to the debate, I think that he owes it to the House to tell us about the thinking of the Ministry of Defence on the Bill to be introduced in two years time and to say what it should cover.
12.15 am
Sir Antony Buck: I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate. It is right that we should bring under routine scrutiny disciplinary matters in the armed forces. It is one of the features which distinguishes Britain from less happy lands.
On the whole, there is an harmonious relationship between our armed forces and the civilian population. I once made a speech to that effect in my constituency. I spoke about the splendid relationship between the Army and Colchester generally. A report of my speech was headlined in the local press, but an adjoining heading
272
stated: "Jocks do over Bull and Bush". It appeared that there had been a small riot in one of the local pubs, but that happened several years ago. A Scottish regiment was involved which was much welcomed in the town in other respects. Perhaps it was the imbibing of the spirits which are associated with Scotland which caused a breach of discipline to occur on that occasion. It was a very rare lapse.
We should put on record our appreciation of the strong discipline in the armed forces and the harmonious relationship which exists on the whole between the civilian population and the armed forces. That reflects on our basic system and, more than that, on the calibre of the armed forces.
Arising from this measure is the issue of discipline in the armed forces. Those who contravene Army, Navy or Air Force discipline, but Army discipline especially, tend to end up at the military corrective training centre at Colchester. I am on the board of visitors of that establishment and it is a good thing that there is a civilian board, as it is protective, too, of the military. I introduced the concept of civilian boards when I had ministerial responsibilities for the Navy and I am glad that it has been extended to all types of corrective establishments and glasshouses, as they used to be called, in the armed forces. It is important that a visiting board of civilians should know what goes on at these establishments.
If my right hon. Friend is given the leave of the House to reply to the debate, I hope that he will refer to the rebuilding which is taking place, at long last, at Colchester. When the rebuilding is completed, those who come within the armed forces' disciplinary procedures will be able to be placed in corrective training in sensible conditions instead of the extremely adverse conditions which have existed. It seems that we are now to see the last of the Nissan huts. I hope that my right hon. Friend will summarise the progress that has been made. The establishment is intended to provide mild punishment and, more importantly, the rehabilitation of those who are disciplined.
I had the privilege of leading the first parliamentary delegation to the Falkland Islands after the confrontation with the Argentines. I was vastly impressed by what I saw. We have a moderately large military force stationed on the Falklands. The members of the force are kept extraordinarily busy and I understand that there is a low rate of crime, so called, among our forces and little contravention of military discipline. I understand that the less serious matters are dealt with on the spot. If there are more serious contraventions, are those concerned sent back to Britain for a court martial? What system is applied for our forces in that remote part of the south Atlantic?
I conclude as I began by saying that we are very lucky that the number of cases in the armed forces which have to be brought within the ambit of the measure that we are considering is remarkably low. We are very lucky in the quality of our armed forces, and that statement cannot be expressed too often in this House.
12.20 am
Mr. Tony Benn: This is a disciplinary order and most of the debate has been about the important details of discipline, but perhaps I might remind the House why we have this order and procedure, and refer to what would happen if we did not pass the order.

273
The order says very clearly in article 1 that, unless the order is passed, the discipline of the armed forces will expire on 31 August 1984; in other words, on 1 September other ranks would not have to obey the non-commissioned officers, non-commissioned officers would not have to obey their officers, and officers would have no power whatever. It is against that background that I want to discuss the order.
Going back over the history—the clock is being put back so quickly that it is perhaps worth while reminding ourselves of it—this House had many conflicts about the desire of the Executive to maintain a standing Army. Some of the earlier conflicts—we remind schoolchildren of them when they come to the House—were about the struggles of Parliament not to pay for wars that the King wanted. Indeed, the first power and control of the armed forces was a power and control exercised by the purse, by refusing to vote Supply.
The first standing Army was established by Oliver Cromwell, whose statue stands outside the House, and Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army played a notable part in a particular period of our history. After the end of the Commonwealth period, Charles II disbanded the standing Army and set up a household brigade—from which the Coldstream Guards emerged—to protect the monarch personally. After that, James II, who succeeded him, began to build up a standing Army again, and it reached the size of 20,000 before the Glorious Revolution of 1688–9. [Interruption.]Conservative Members who will celebrate the victory of William of Orange must also remember that he was a King invited by Parliament to assume the throne.
It was one of the principles of the Bill of Rights of 1689 that there would be a second control of the armed forces —not only the control of Supply but the control of the discipline of the armed forces. The reason why we have an annual order is that Parliament wants, even now, to protect itself against the possibility that there might be a resumption of military control. That is why the order is before us now.
When I was first elected to the House—I do not think I have spoken on this matter for 30 years—there was a full Act of Parliament that went through every year, called the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. The Bill had its First Reading, Second Reading, Committee stage and Report stage in both Houses of Parliament in order to review the discipline of the armed forces.
When they hear about Parliament, children are told that one of the great powers of the House of Commons is that it controls the purse and the sword. That is one of the bases upon which we are held to be a parliamentary democracy. Why, then, raise the matter now in a fundamental sense?
I am not disagreeing with anything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said about the problems of drug abuse, capital punishment, courts martial, and so on. But I am raising this question because I think the time has come when Parliament should be a bit more candid about the safeguard which it claims to have. We do have a standing Army in Britain which is not subject to annual approval by Parliament: it is the American Army. [Interruption.]Hon. Gentlemen may not like it, but the reality is that if anybody—[Interruption.] I think that I have established the validity of my point. It is that, if people go to one of the air bases which the
274
Americans occupy, they will find it surrounded by British troops, and a thin line of Army policemen, whose disciplinary code we can terminate if we wish.
But inside the bases is an army of 30,000 people whose disciplinary code and whose power to make war we in Parliament do not control. It is worthwhile when we go through the annual ritual of patting ourselves on the back to recognise that the objectives of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 have been totally neutered.
We have another army in Britain which is not subject to any form of parliamentary control over its discipline. I refer to the national police force that has been set up —[Interruption.]I must be scoring many successes if Conservative Members have so little regard for the traditional rights of Parliament that they object to a reference to the fact that we are not required to pass any instrument on an annual basis which would deal with the disciplinary powers of the police as there are for the Army.
I am coming to the relationship of the Army and the police. The police force today is much bigger than the standing army that was disbanded in 1688, they are better armed than the army of 1688 and we have no control over them. [Interruption.]Although it embarrasses Conservative Members to have it said, many of the claims that we make about parliamentary supervision of the armed forces have now been fatally eroded by the presence of a foreign army and of a domestic army not under the control of Parliament.
The Army is now being used in support of the police in the mining dispute; I wish to put that on the record because it is the crucial matter. When the dispute began, I asked the Leader of the House——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying a long way from the matter before the House. We are debating whether the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1984 shall be approved. I hope that he will relate his remarks more closely to those measures.
Mr. Benn: I am relating them directly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for I shall invite the House to oppose the continuation of those measures because the Army is now being used for intervention in a domestic industrial dispute. That is my reason for speaking, and I must be entitled to be heard on the subject.
I rehearse to the House, the history of the matter. At the beginning of the dispute, early in April, I asked the Leader of the House whether the armed forces had been alerted. The right hon. Gentleman replied no, that they had not. I then wrote to the Prime Minister, repeating the question, and I asked whether any members of the armed forces were in police uniforms, what their role was and what supporting role were they taking.
I did not receive a reply for a fortnight and I had to telephone No. 10 to remind the Prime Minister to reply. Then I received a skilfully drafted letter saying that there had been no "authorisation" for the armed forces to be used, that police did not need to display numbers on their uniforms, because that was not a statutory requirement, but that the armed forces were being used in a supporting role, I think in catering and transport. We then saw pictures in the newspapers——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument closely. If he is bringing his

275
comments to the point where the question of military discipline is a factor in the situation to which he is referring, I hope that he will do that quickly.
Mr. Benn: The battle to control the armed forces by this House was one of the great conflicts of the 17th century. If you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I cannot advance reasons, based on the conduct of the armed forces why their disciplinary code should not be renewed, then I must say, with great respect, that you are denying the opportunity to debate the order, the purpose of which is precisely to give Parliament a chance every year to decide whether it wants a standing Army. I am advancing in an historical way, and respectfully, an argument that the armed forces are now being used for domestic repression in respect of the mining dispute.
The Prime Minister released her letter to the press. Not a single newspaper printed it. Why? Because the letter got as near as could be to admitting that the armed forces were being used in support of the police. Photographs also exist of sergeants in Army uniform engaged in police actions vis-à-vis the miners.
I come to the reason why I raise the matter. First, we do not control the American standing army, secondly we do not control the police army through an annual disciplinary procedure. But primarily I raise the matter because the use by the Government of the armed forces in the mining dispute forces me and other hon. Members to fall back upon an ancient safeguard—we are not obliged to renew the disciplinary code for the armed forces.
If the Minister can give an absolutely clear and categorical assurance that no members of the armed forces covered by this order have been in any way involved in the dispute, either in police uniforms or in a supporting role, that is a different matter. But he will be hard put to do so, because the Prime Minister in her letter admitted the involvement. It is therefore open to me, and other hon. Members who will go along with me, to register our ancient constitutional right to say that the dangers of a standing army have reappeared, and that we are not prepared this year to renew those disciplinary codes.
12.33 am
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is difficult to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who took us characteristically on a history tour. He explained how the measure before us goes to the roots of our parliamentary system. He also gave a characteristically conspiratorial view of the world in which we live. I noted with interest that he recommends that we vote against the order. That would be deeply irresponsible. That is not the course recommended by his Front Bench.
The business of bringing the measure back to the House for review each year extends beyond the mere tradition which the right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out. It has a practical significance because it ensures that the disciplinary codes keep in touch with changing circumstances.
The relationships between the armed services and the population are, at least in some measure, a direct result of the sensitivity that exists between the two. I recall when I was a young, raw marine officer having to turn up at disciplinary hearings to support marines with whom I served. I had to give character evidence on their behalf.
276
One day I was before the captain's table on board one of Her Majesty's ships. I can recall the captain sentencing the young man concerned. I think that I can quote his words exactly. He said, "Marine X, I award you 28 days' stoppage of pay and if there had been a shred of evidence against you I would have put you inside." One is glad to note that the discipline Acts within the services have moved somewhat further than that. My experience of discipline and the action of the Acts within the services now is that they are much more adequately and carefully applied. It is becaue the Acts come before us for renewal annually that that is the case.
I want to touch briefly on three subjects. The first was raised by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). We are entering the run-up now to a quinquennial Act which will come back before us. That is, as he rightly said, only two years away. If the Minister catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and is given leave to reply, he should tell us the general outline of the reforms that the Ministry of Defence would wish to see brought into effect. We should begin to determine what changes will be made. Those recommendations should now begin to emerge.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman also touched on the recommendations in respect of young offenders. I shall not repeat what he said, except to say that I reinforce his point.
Lastly, I want to touch on the subject of courts martial. That was also mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but his point needs some reinforcement. To allow courts martial to be in the hands of only commissioned officers is an unfortunate anachronism from the past. The right hon. Gentleman particularly asked to what extent Army, Naval and Royal Air Force officers receive training in the law. As he rightly said, a courts martial determines not only matters of fact but matters of law as well. That training is quite comprehensive and in many senses adequate. The standing of many of our non-commissioned officers, in particular many of the warrant officers, in the services, is such that they can and should properly take part in those proceedings. He and other hon. Members will know as well as I that it is frequently the case that officers who sit on courts martial can have recently joined the services at the age of 20, 21 or 22 with no broad experience of life. I should have thought that the people who sit on those courts martial could as adequately have been those warrant officers and senior NCOs with a broad knowledge of service life and a capacity to participate in those equally properly.
The Select Committee has suggested a review and I hope that the Minister will be clear whether that review will go ahead and when we might see some reaction to it.
Dr. Godman: I think that the hon. Gentleman's service experience is more recent than mine, but is it not the case that an increasing number of officers in our armed forces are ex-NCOs or former senior warrant officers? If they are considered good enough to be given a commission, surely on that basis, apart from all else, they should be considered good enough to sit on courts martial?
Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He reinforces my point. I do not believe that the conferring of Her Majesty's commission upon somebody also confers upon him unique wisdom which was not there beforehand such as to qualify him to take part in a courts martial. I only wish that I could agree that there are an increasing number of promotions from the ranks of the sort that he

277
is talking about. Assuredly, the point is correct. There is a place now at courts martial for senior NCOs and particularly warrant officers. The time has come to review that rather curious anachronism which excludes them from a key process.
May I finish more or less where I began with the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield? Although I disagreed with almost every word he said, one point upon which he touched does bear some reinforcement. I do not agree with him that it would be appropriate that other forces in the country should as a matter of internal discipline obey any other internal military discipline system than their own. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the American Army in Britain should in some way be answerable to the House for its internal discipline.
However, a matter of some importance is one on which I shall touch in a ten-minute Bill in a few weeks' time, so I shall not labour it now. It is that visiting forces, especially American forces in Britain, are immune not only from our own service discipline Acts but from our civil law as well. The immunities granted to them, which are unique in any NATO country, provide them with immunity while on duty based in Britain from both our civil and our criminal law. That is a matter which perhaps is not proper for us to consider now, but it will be in the very near future. It is an anachronism which must be changed.
There is no reason why we should not agree with the passage of the order. To do otherwise would be totally irresponsible. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with the matters that I have raised, but I can assure him that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will support the order.
12.40 am
Mr. Dave Nellist: I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in opposing the continuation of these discipline Acts. I do so because I see them as an attempt to separate the armed forces from the rest of society. That will be difficult, bearing in mind the fact that the overwhelming majority of members of the rank and file of the armed forces are made up of ordinary working-class lads and lasses, in many cases escaping from the pressures of mass unemployment and seeking refuge in the permanent positions of work in the armed forces because of the actions of this Government in creating unemployment. When such young people enter the armed forces they enter a new world of discipline and a rigid, class-oriented group which these Acts are designed to bolster. They are designed to isolate and cut off those young workers from the rest of society.
We might be forgiven for asking why that is necessary if the only enemies faced by the armed forces, as the Government's representatives, were external enemies. We have seen in the last couple of years, especially during the Falklands campaign, that, with its control of all the national newspapers, the Tory party is adept at whipping up nationalism and at getting support for Britain against an external enemy. If that is possible, it should not be necessary to separate the armed forces in quite such a dramatic way.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister does not see matters in that way. In a speech reported some months ago in a document issued by the publicity unit of the Ministry of
278
Defence, she spoke of the role of the armed forces and actually put the external enemy as the second reason why it was important to have discipline in and to maintain control of the armed forces.
We know that from practical experience. We have seen interventions not only in the miners' dispute but in that of the dustmen in Glasgow and during the Fire Brigades Union dispute in the late 1970s.
The order is designed to reinforce the discipline and isolation of ordinary working-class lads and lasses in the armed forces because of the increasing danger in the 1980s and 1990s in Britain of class solidarity between the brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts and fathers and mothers of those on picket lines outside the armed forces and those who escape massive unemployment by joining the armed forces. It raises a question about the unwillingness in the future of members of the armed forces to be used as strike breakers. That is why, in the Government's view, the order is so necessary.
If this place is designed, as I am often told it is, to uphold the democratic rights of working people—and the actions of this Government show that to be at least a questionable definition of Parliament—we should have overwhelming support for our opposition to the order and in favour of the extension of basic democratic rights to members of the armed forces.
Working people have won many rights by struggle. Later they have been legitimised by the House after those struggles. Many of those rights are under threat. But most of the democratic rights enjoyed by working people are not available to members of the armed forces because of these discipline Acts and the way in which they are upheld and enforced. There is no right to free speech. There is no right to a free press. There is no right to organise. There is no right to strike. There is no right to support the political party of their choice. Under instructions issued by the Ministry a few months ago, even the right of attendance —out of uniform and in their own time—of marches, demonstrations or political meetings held by CND and other organisations has been withdrawn by the Secretary of State. Finally, there is no right to negotiate and argue for improvements in pay and conditions in the armed forces.
The Tories do not want any extension of those rights because it would begin to break down the class system on which they rely for the maintenance of discipline in the armed forces. Any analysis of the social, educational and financial background of senior officers shows that the overwhelming majority come from public schools such as Eton and Harrow, from Oxford and Cambridge universities, and so on. [Interruption.]As the din opposite suggests that some Tory Members do not believe me, I shall illustrate my argument with examples of what has happened to pay in the armed forces since the Tories came to power.
In the past five years the pay of policemen—because they are at the sharp end of industrial disputes under the Tories—has risen by 119·6 per cent. The situation in the Army shows the class system in operation. Majors, generals, brigadiers, colonels and others right at the top have had a real increase in pay of between 8 and 12 per cent. but privates, lance-corporals and corporals—the ordinary squaddies at the bottom—have had a decrease in real pay of 5 per cent. Why has police pay increased so dramatically and why have pay differentials widened in the armed forces? It is because disciplinary orders of this kind

279
give senior officers the power to prevent discussion, negotiation or action by the rank and file to improve their pay and conditions.
If the rank and file organise or request negotiations or withdraw their labour in pursuit of better pay or conditions, they may fall foul of various sections of the Act. Section 29A, for example, provides that failure to attend for duty may lead to imprisonment for up to two years following court martial. Then there is section 31 relating to mutiny, which in Britain in 1984 still carries the death penalty. Section 33, on insubordination, includes the use of insubordinate language. Incidentally, I note that 80 per cent. of the arrests in the miners' dispute in the past 17 weeks have been for breaches of the peace, obstruction of the highway or obstruction of a police officer, and I have witnessed many instances in which insubordinate language — the use of the word "scab" or other descriptions of those who have tried to break the strike—has been used as a reason for such arrests.
In the Army that is tightened still further by section 33, under which insubordinate language used by a rank and file soldier to a senior officer can result in imprisonment. Finally, section 36, on disobedience generally, also provides for two years' imprisonment after court martial. Those sections could and would be brought into play if rank and file service men or women tried to negotiate or to withdraw their labour in pursuance of better pay and conditions. That is why the Government want these Acts to be continued.
It is an inalienable and unquestionable right in and of itself for working people in whatever sphere to be members of a trade union. If that is not sufficient argument for the Tories, I remind them that in Holland 30,000 soldiers belong to a trade union, in Germany 100,000 soldiers belong to a trade union and in Sweden there is not just a trade union organisation but a soldiers' parliament. There are plenty of precedents in Europe for extending the rights of trade union organisation. Labour Members and the Transport and General Workers Union and other trade unions argued this under the Labour Government, and I associate myself with that call.
I expect severe opposition from the Government when the vote comes tonight on the order, not for spurious or comical reasons as suggested by the jokes passing back and forth between hon. Members opposite, but because there are in the Government — this is a back-handed compliment—one or two far-sighted people who look to the next five, 10 and 15 years and have learnt the lessons of history. They think, "What will we need the armed forces for in the next 10 or 15 years?"
They know that the boom of the 1950s and the 1960s is decisively over and that the Government have destroyed one fifth of all our factories and put 5 million people on the dole and 15 million on or below supplementary benefit level. There is an unprecedented instability in British society, much evidenced by the 17 weeks during which almost 1 per cent. of the population—the miners, their wives and their children—have been prepared to defy the Coal Board and the Government. That is understood by some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who are more frequently ex-members of the Cabinet than current members. They look into the future with a bit of acumen
280
and foresee that sharpening, and realise the need to strengthen and maintain the disciplinary codes within the armed forces.
There are the international links in terms of what happened in Greece in the 1960s, what happened in Chile in 1973 and in Latin America, Asia and Africa. In the final analysis, the armed forces have been called into play to defend private property and private profit. In the next decade and a half we shall not be immune in Britain to the social pressures that have been evidenced in other continents in the past few years. That is why Tories want disciplinary orders like this to go through. They realise increasingly that there will be a need for the armed forces to be used against the dustmen, the fire brigade or generally against working people, to maintain profit and the capitalist system, or for the purpose that they have been used in Northern Ireland. Therefore, they need that control.
I shall finish with this example. After the declaration of UDI by the then Rhodesian Government in the mid-1960s the then Labour Government considered whether to push for military intervention in Rhodesia. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has referred in newspaper accounts since that event to
"seditious muttering among very senior generals."
He then, apparently,
"called in the ring-leader and gave him my views of his behaviour and that was the end of that."
That may or may not have been all that happened in that example of potential mutiny at the top of the armed forces regarding the Government of the day and their decision about the use of the armed forces.
The Tory strategists, however, consider that the more likely implications for the future are of the opposite example coming about. If the Army were to be more fully used against the miners on picket lines in the next few weeks, or in other industrial disputes in future, there would be the real risk of workers within the Army seeing brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, mothers and fathers opposite them on picket lines and refusing to carry out orders. It is for that reason that the Acts must be maintained by this Tory Government.
I would argue that the House should be looking to an extension of democratic discussion and debate, of democratic organisation and trade union rights in the armed forces. For those reasons, I shall oppose in the Lobby tonight the continuation of the Acts.
12.45 am
Mr. Tony Banks: I should like — [Interruption.] I hope that you would remind hon. Members sitting on the Cross Benches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they are not supposed to make comments from a sedentary position or, indeed, from any other position.
We are attempting to discuss the orders from this side against the barracking from the disciples of Onan on the Tory Benches that we have come to expect.
The disciplinary codes affect the Armed Forces very seriously indeed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) mentioned the number of members of the Armed Forces who had unfortunately become involved in drug abuse. It is, of course, regrettable that, given the duties that many members of the Armed Forces are required to perform, the use of drugs has become almost common place. We know that the level of drug

281
abuse on American bases in this country has reached alarming proportions. I hope that the Minister will give some indication that he and the Government are aware of the level of drug abuse in the British Armed Forces. How many military personnel are involved in taking narcotics? What steps are the Government taking to cure them of those unfortunate habits, and how many disciplinary cases have there been?
That is very important for one reason, and one reason only. Given the present level of weaponry, the thought of British or American personnel being in contact with nuclear weapons—despite the necessary precautions that we are assured are taken—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members do not find such matters particularly serious. I should not wish to detain them from a speedy return to the bars if that is where they want to go. However, some of us are rather concerned that there could be British or American personnel who have contact with nuclear weapons in this country whose minds are influenced by drugs. I believe that some sign of awareness of that problem on the part of the Government might ease the minds of many people. I hope that the Minister will direct his attention to the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): What is the hon. Gentleman's estimate of the number of Soviet military personnel in control of nuclear weapons on the other side who might be affected by alcoholism due to the consumption of vodka?
Mr. Banks: There are two points to be made. First, I do not suppose that members of the Soviet Union's armed forces are any more influenced by alcoholism than many Conservative Members appear to be — [Interruption.] Secondly, as far as I am aware——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman will realise on reflection that he has cast aspersions on other hon. Members and that is not in order.
Mr. Banks: I am trying to take the matter seriously, but I get the distinct feeling that Conservative Members are not doing so. I am also trying to be charitable and so I conclude that their reasons for not taking it seriously are not totally disconnected from the intake of alcohol.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must take note of what I said. It is not in order to cast aspersions on other hon. Members. I hope that he will rephrase his remarks.
Mr. Banks: I merely wish to point out that, unless Conservative Members are prepared to take the matter seriously, Opposition Members will draw their own conclusions as to why. However, in order to proceed to my next point, I shall, of course, withdraw any conclusions that the sensitive souls on the other side of the Chamber might have drawn from some of the innocent comments that I made.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) asked about the influence of drugs or alcohol on members of the Soviet Union's armed forces. Obviously, I have very little knowledge of that. However, I am not so concerned, because as far as I am aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and no doubt you will correct me if I am wrong—there are not many bases in Britain that are staffed and manned by them. In those circumstances I am
282
more worried about those that are based on British soil, which is why I am directing my remarks to them. I took what the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said seriously, if there was serious import in his intervention.
My next point about the use of armed services for civilian purposes was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). When the Minister replies, will he tell the House how the disciplinary codes apply to members of the military, w ho are being used for civilian purposes, for example, members involved in industrial disputes? There has been much speculation in the newspapers about the number of members of the armed forces who are being used in the current miners' dispute. Until we receive a categorical assurance from the Minister that under no circumstances have members of the military been used in the miners' dispute, we shall continue to make the accusation because of the prima facie evidence for it.
Mr. Rob Hayward: If the hon. Gentleman had been present in the House yesterday during Question Time on energy, he would have heard the Secretary of State for Energy give that assurance twice.
Mr. Banks: I am directing my remarks at the Minister for State for the Armed Forces, not at the Secretary of State for Energy. If he knows as little about his Department as the Secretary of State knows about his, his assurance is not worth anything.
At what level is the military involved in industrial disputes, whether the miners' dispute or another, and if they are involved, are they covered by the disciplinary codes that we are discussing? What level of training is undertaken within the armed forces now for their use in civilian disorders? I have tabled a question about that and look forward to the reply.
The Opposition feel that the military will be used increasingly to intervene in civilian matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East rightly said that the greatest threat to the British ruling class does not come from the Soviet Union but from civilian disorder and our people rising up against the Government's oppression and injustice. At that point the military will be forced on to the streets, not to deal with an external aggressor but a civilian population. Will the Minister tell the House to what extent that preparation is already going ahead and to what extent he has knowledge of it?
1.3 am
Mr. Stanley: With leave of the House, I should like to reply to the points raised. I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) that our annual debate on this matter is not a waste of time. Many important issues stem from the primary legislation, and it is right that we should have the opportunity to consider them once a year. He referred initially to the recommendations of the Select Committee's report about young service offenders, and asked whether we had a revised figure for the numbers of such service men. The estimate in the Select Committee's report is fewer than 25. He asked whether the introduction of the armed services youth training scheme was likely to make any significant difference to that figure.
I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a figure different from the one contained in the Select Committee's report. Given the relatively small numbers of those under training

283
in the armed services youth training scheme and the fact that those trainees can withdraw rapidly from the scheme on 14 days' notice if they are not happy with life in the three services, I do not believe that there is any reason to think that the introduction of the scheme has altered that figure.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked what the Government's view was about the normal sources of advice given in the civilian courts when young people were before them. That matter is referred to in paragraph 7 of the Select Committee report. We take the matter seriously. He referred to the Royal Navy, which has made use of its existing welfare organisation — the naval personal and family service—to prepare social inquiry reports on all offenders appearing before courts martial where the court so desires. The Army and the Royal Air Force, having a much larger number of courts martial and no similar welfare organisations, have been considering ways of providing a like service, taking into account constraints on manpower. No final decisions have been reached. We are currently considering ways of presenting to the courts involved additional information on the background and circumstances of offenders, which is not necessarily provided under the current system. I hope that by the time we reach the next quinquennial legislation, shall be able to say in more detail how the other two services will provide the additional background information when young offenders go before the courts.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the death penalty and the definition of "the enemy". I assure him that we have begun a careful review of the term "the enemy" with a view to deciding whether a better and more specific definition is possible. That is a difficult task, and the right hon. Gentleman said that, when one comes to examine changes in the definition, one can create almost as many difficulties as one appears to solve.
The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) spoke about the composition of courts martial. I can confirm that we have that matter under consideration. There appears to be a distinct lack of any body of opinion in the services— including noncommissioned ranks—in favour of a change from the present system.
The important subject of drug abuse was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we had figures later than the ones he quoted. I should like to refer him to the text of the letter that I wrote to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) which is reproduced in a written answer that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement gave on 1 May 1984. It contains a fairly full statement of our current assessment of the degree of drug abuse within the services. He will see there the figures for the years 1981, 1982 and 1983 in respect of each of the three services. In view of some of the comments that have been made about the scale of the problem, I should like to highlight them for the House.
The Royal Navy figures are 58 for 1981, 27 for 1982 and 67 for 1983. The Royal Air Forces figures are 38 for 1981, 29 for 1982 and 28 for 1983. Those figures are for investigations which have resulted in proceedings being taken. The Army's figures are on a different basis. They
284
show the total number of cases investigated, including those which do not result in proceedings. The figures are 169 for 1981, 143 for 1982 and 168 for 1983.
I quote those figures because they show two things. First, they show that over the last three years, taking the overall pattern, there has been no significant increase in the number of cases of drug abuse—which, of course, is welcome. Secondly, they show that what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said about drug abuse being commonplace—that is the word he used—has no statistical basis. Those are microscopic figures in relation to the total number of service men involved. It is a gross misrepresentation of the services to suggest that drug abuse is in any way commonplace.
However, as I am sure both sides of the House would agree, exposure to drugs is a matter that all three services take seriously. We would wish to try to eradicate this problem as quickly as we can. Indeed, in the last few months I have asked all three services and their principal personnel officers to take a fresh look at drug abuse education to try to tackle it at the preventative end. All three services are taking that seriously, and will be making renewed efforts to draw to the attention of service men the dangers to their health and to their careers that arise from getting involved in any way in drugs.
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) for his comments about the importance of service discipline, and for the tribute that he rightly paid to the high standards of behaviour that exist in the services. He asked for information on the Colchester military corrective training centre. That project is well under way, and we expect it to be completed next year. I hope that that will be a significant military establishment in his constituency, and I am grateful to him for the support that he gives in his constituency capacity to the important service interests beyond the corrective training establishment in his constituency. He referred to the position in the Falklands, and I reinforce what he said. Despite the distance from home and the fact that these are unaccompanied tours, our service men have conducted themselves exceptionally well in the difficult circumstances in the Falklands. Touch wood, we have had few problems. This reflects the high standards that exist.
As to the distribution of disciplinary cases, the arrangements in the Falklands are the same as elsewhere. Normally speaking, disciplinary cases will be dealt with by those in commend on the spot, but there are certain arrangements for any particularly serious cases to be referred back to the United Kingdom and to be dealt with in this country.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) gave us what I might describe as an idiosyncratic but, I think, characteristic speech which started off with a history lesson. I felt, as he was reciting the origins of this order in relation to the 17th century, that that was more or less in accord with my recollection of the history of that time. I found myself agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman. However, it was too good to be true. When he switched from the 17th century to the present day, he produced a travesty of a description of the role of the Americans in this country, and of the police. He appears to think of the Americans and the police as forming an internal standing army which is subversive, out of control and about to take over the country.

285
The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically about military involvement in the miners' dispute. The position is as stated in the reply which the right hon. Gentleman received from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman tried to dress up that reply as the sensational revelation of some form of military involvement. However, he gave his position away completely when he commented that the Prime Minister's letter had been unreported. If the Prime Minister had confirmed the right hon. Gentleman's deepest prejudices and had stated that the military establishment had been brought to bear, the letter would hardly have been unreported.
The only form of military support was described in the letter. Some of the splendid members of the police force who are having to spend much time away from home—often at considerable personal inconvenience—have to be accommodated and catered for in service accommodation. That is the extent of the involvement of the services.
Mr. Robert Parry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stanley: I wish to reply to the points made in the debate, to which the hon. Gentleman did not contribute.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) said that he would vote against the order. He based his decision on a view of the armed forces which—having seen much of the armed forces myself in the past year—I found it impossible to recognise. According to the hon. Gentleman, the lads and lasses, as he terms them, of the armed forces are insular and class-ridden and a hotbed of Socialist discontent. The sharing of hardship, danger and sacrifice in the Falklands war give the lie to that view of the armed services.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 82, Noes 5

Division No. 390]

[1.17 am

AYES

Amess, David

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Ashdown, Paddy

Good lad, Alastair

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Gregory, Conal

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hanley, Jeremy

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Harvey, Robert

Buck, Sir Antony

Hawksley, Warren

Burt, Alistair

Hayes, J.

Cash, William

Hayward, Robert

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Cope, John

Hooson, Tom

Dover, Den

Howard, Michael

Eyre, Sir Reginald

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

Forth, Eric

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Fox, Marcus

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Freeman, Roger

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Gale, Roger

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

286

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Knowles, Michael

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lang, Ian

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Speller, Tony

Lester, Jim

Stanley, John

Lord, Michael

Stern, Michael

Macfarlane, Neil

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Major, John

Taylor, Rt Hon John David

Malins, Humfrey

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Mather, Carol

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Tracey, Richard

Merchant, Piers

Trippier, David

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Moynihan, Hon C.

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Nelson, Anthony

Wheeler, John

Neubert, Michael

Whitfield, John

Newton, Tony

Whitney, Raymond

Nicholls, Patrick

Wilkinson, John

Norris, Steven

Wood, Timothy

Osborn, Sir John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Powley, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Raffan, Keith

Mr. Tim Sainsbury and Mr. Archie Hamilton.

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

NOES

Benn, Tony

Bermingham, Gerald

Tellers for the Noes:

Nellist, David

Mr. Eddie Loyden and Mr. Tony Banks.

Parry, Robert

Patchett, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.

Business of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 5th July, the Motions relating to Trade and Industry, Education, Science and Arts, Environment, Foreign Affairs, Agriculture, and Welsh Affairs may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after the first Motion has been entered upon, and, if proceedings on the Motions have not been disposed of by that hour, any Amendments to the first Motion which may have been selected by Mr. Speaker may be moved, the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then put the Question upon the said Motion and any Questions necessary to dispose of the other Motions and of any Amendments moved thereto which have been selected by him; and that, notwithstanding the practice of the House, each Motion shall be regarded as a single Motion. —[Mr. Mather.]
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Objection taken. What day?
Mr. Mather: Today, Sir.

Industrial Grants
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]
1.27 am
Mr. Derek Foster: In March, Manders and Co. of Newton Aycliffe went out of business, leaving 80 employees, mostly low-paid women workers, without jobs, and owing hundreds of pounds of wages and holiday pay. In nine short months the company notched up debts of about £250,000 despite a full order book and about £60,000-worth of help from the Aycliffe development corporation.
That was the latest crash in an astonishing three-year trail involving a network of companies and tens of thousands of pounds of public money. The two business men concerned were David Alderman and his son-in-law, Ivan Collins. They were active in three separate companies in the north-east and all of them are now in liquidation. Their debts total more than £2 million. Indeed, David Alderman is associated with at least 36 different companies.
The facts of the case have been made public by Tyne Tees Television in a very good exposé just over a week ago, and also by Roger Cook of "Checkpoint" two weeks earlier, so I do not want to delay the House by going into too many details. Suffice it to say that, having gone out of business as Fashion Industries in Hartlepool, starting up again within a week as Joanne Clare, going out of business as Joanne Clare, starting up again within two days as Manders, with help this time from British Steel Industries, they again flitted at short notice to Newton Aycliffe to enjoy approximately £60,000 worth of help from the development corporation. They were prevented from moving again to Peterborough only because the development corporation there heeded the warning from Aycliffe on this occasion.
There are several specific questions that I want to ask the Minister arising from those facts, and I want to make one or two general points.
Can the Minister tell me whether it is true that the network of companies with which Mr. Alderman and Mr. Collins are associated owe the VAT authorities about £1¼ million? If that is true, I think that he and the whole House would agree that that is a scandal which certainly needs to be investigated.
Is it also true that during the whole period of activities in Hartlepool and in Newton Aycliffe no national insurance contributions and no PAYE were paid? If that is the case, perhaps the Minister will tell me—or cause to have investigated—exactly how much that amounts to.
How true is it that Mr. Alderman and/or Mr. Collins are negotiating to start up business again in the south, perhaps in Basildon or Stevenage? Certainly the Aycliffe Development Corporation has warned all its colleagues in new towns about the activities of those companies, and it would be very disturbing if others were not heeding the warnings which Peterborough heeded.
Has the Minister's Department done any research into the size of the problem caused by these so-called "phoenix" operations? The Manders case suggests to me that there is a great rip-off of public sector job hunting agencies which may have escalated over the past four
288
years as areas such as mine have become desperate to retain any job in the teeth of the avalanche of job destruction.
Will the Minister set up an urgent inquiry into the size of the problem? When he has the results, will he tell the House frankly of its dimensions?
Now may I urge the Minister to draw the insolvency law much tighter? We cannot possibly allow directors involved in a series of voluntary liquidations or compulsory liquidations to start up again in this way with impunity. Will the Minister tell the House whether he has any plans to deal with that problem?
Is is not time that the Department compiled a national register of bad risk individuals? It could be very easily compiled and very easily made available to all the job-hunting agencies so that the sharks are at least identified and the job-hunting agencies made alert as to their activities.
Will the Department devise an agreed set of criteria which all job-hunting agencies could apply in cases such as this? At least we would then know that a model set of criteria applied thuoughout the country. There is a cast-iron case for monitoring companies enjoying grants. It was stated, with a great deal of credit, in the "Checkpoint" programme that many workers had not been aware of any monitoring taking place in the companies with which they were concerned.
Perhaps the Department should operate a ceiling net cost per job so that job-hunting agencies avoid a dutch auction. It is clear that, in the case of Manders, real jobs were not created or retained, merely shuffled from one area to another. Will the Minister institute a full departmental inquiry into the activities of Mr. Alderman and Mr. Collins to prevent further suffering by employees and further rip-offs of job-hunting agencies?
1.36 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Trippier): There are two aspects to the subject which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) has raised.
First, the hon. Gentleman asks whether there should not be stronger measures to deal with the so-called Phoenix companies, where directors successively close down companies and open up new ones. The issues surrounding this and the regime for disqualification of directors were addressed in the report of Sir Kenneth Cork's Review Committee on Insolvency Law and Practice.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asks about situations in which such companies apply for public funds and whether the monitoring arrangements applied by those responsible for disbursing public funds are sufficiently stringent.
I do not propose to discuss the specific case which the hon. Gentleman raised. My Department was not involved in being asked for or giving grants to the company. I understand that the grants which were given were made by the Ayclyffe development corporation and that, before doing so, it took references from the company's bank and principal customer.
Instead, I will deal with the broader issues of principle, and in particular the widespread concern that has been expressed about the activities of delinquent directors. The problem of abuse of limited liability has featured prominently in the Government's review of the insolvency legislation. The White Paper—"A Revised Framework

289
for Insolvency Law"—published earlier this year, set out our proposals for tackling this abuse, and two major reforms are now proposed.
First, a new civil liability for wrongful trading will be introduced. Wrongful trading will expose directors to a civil liability which may be imposed if, on winding-up, it appears that a company was allowed to trade beyond the point where a director knew, or ought to have known, that there was no reasonable prospect of the company meeting its liabilities.
Secondly, a more rigorous regime of disqualification designed to deter the dishonest and irresponsible director will be introduced. This will be to increase the power which the courts already have to disqualify directors for a specified period. This prevents them from taking on a directorship in any Companies Acts company, and a register of disqualified directors is held by the companies registration office which is available for public inspection. This is already close to the hon. Member's idea of a national register of bad risk companies. Our proposals for extending the court's powers are to provide, first, for automatic disqualification in the case of compulsory liquidations, secondly for possible disqualification in the event of wrongful trading, thirdly for liquidators to be able to apply for disqualification where a director is considered unfit to act, and fourthly for the Secretary of State to apply for disqualification in the light of an inspector's report.
These proposals will be a powerful counter to abuse of limited liability and will inhibit directors from continuing to trade when they know that their companies are insolvent. There will, of course, be flexibility to avoid unnecessary and unjust interference in the work of responsible directors. But the Government have concluded that tough new measures are now appropriate. Limited liability is a privilege which we can no longer allow to be abused.
Subject to other pressures on the parliamentary timetable, it is hoped, therefore, to introduce a Bill including the necessary reforms in the next Session of Parliament.
This range of measures will provide a powerful counter to the abuse of limited liability and will be of benefit to companies' employees and to creditors. The question of getting value for money out of grants offered to companies from taxpayers' or ratepayers' money is just one aspect of this.
The specific topic that the hon. Member raised is about grants to industrialists and how they are monitored. I have already explained that in the particular case grants from my Department and from central Government were not involved. Let me describe, however, the monitoring procedures that we operate in the Department of Trade and Industry for the assistance that we offer.
There are two stages — the appraisal stage when applications are submitted and the monitoring stage for successful applications when an offer has been made and payment is due. The appraisal stage is probably the crucial one in the context of the problem that we are discussing. Appraisal procedures differ slightly between the various schemes of assistance offered by the Department, but the same basic principles underly them all. Applicant companies are required to demonstrate that they have the managerial competence, and where appropriate the technical capability, to carry their project through and that they have the necessary resources to finance it. Applicants are required to provide details of any other applications for
290
Government assistance. Indeed, it is more usual for the Department to be criticised for requiring too much information than to be accused of handing over cash too readily.
A sensible judgment has to be made about the degree of investigation that an application requires. The appraisal officer will draw on his experience of the industrial sector and of similar cases, on feedback from the press and other organisations in the field and on his personal assessment of the individuals involved.
The larger the project, the more intensive the investigation. In regional offices it is common practice to ask for an applicant's curriculum vitae and most cases are seen by the Department's accountancy service which will subject the case to scrutiny, often including correspondence with the applicant's bank.
In larger cases more rigorous procedures are applied and cases will be closely scrutinised by the sponsoring divisions — the industry experts — the Department's accountants or the industrial development unit, which is made up of financial experts from the private sector seconded into the Department.
All applications under the support for innovation facility, in whatever part of the country they are made, and from whatever sector of industry they come, are logged and held in a central computer database. Amongst other things this holds details of the assistance sought, the grant offered and payments made.
The system is being extended to cover all selective assistance by the Department. For applications that have come through this scrutiny and are judged worthy of assistance, an offer is made and payments of grant are then subject to the monitoring procedures. The principal objectives of monitoring are to ensure that public funds are used for the purpose for which they have been made available—meeting the terms and conditions imposed—that the objectives for which assistance is granted are attained and to enable the Government to take appropriate steps, where necessary, to safeguard their position. The depth of monitoring varies according to the type of assistance given and the degree and scale of risk attached to the project concerned. Cases are classified as "low" or "high" risk and assessment is a matter of judgment based on the viability of the project, its sensitivity to market and economic change, the amount of assistance provided and the nature of the security against which assistance is given.
In all cases, however, the applicant will normally receive at least one visit from the official nominated to monitor the project. Claims for payment must be certified by an independent auditor and accompanied by a progress report and the latest audited account.
If monitoring indicates that a project is not proceeding satisfactorily or that the conditions under which assistance was offered have materially changed, there are powers to withhold payment of grant or to reclaim grant already paid.
No system is foolproof, of course, and it is probable that some spurious applications slip through the net. But it would be wrong to treat applicants for assistance as if they were potential criminals, and a balance has to be struck between caution in the use of public money and ensuring that schemes of assistance are operated efficiently and effectively. Overall I am satisfied that we have got the balance right.
The hon. Gentleman asked what lessons the story has for the effectiveness of regional policy. He may have seen

291
from the White Paper on regional industrial policy last November that when decisions have been taken on its coverage, the new regional incentives will involve more selectivity and evaluation. The proportion of discretionary regional selective assistance will rise relative to the more automatic regional development grants. That will involve more evaluation of applications. The question of displacement, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is one factor that will be taken into account. Where grant is paid in relation to fixed assets, arrangements will continue to apply, as at present, for clawing back grant if those
292
assets are no longer used and in future when it is linked to a cost per job ceiling so that it can be clawed back if that ceiling is breached.
Those evaluation and monitoring criteria apply to gants offered by my Department. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the various local development corporations and new towns might operate under unified guidelines. He will appreciate that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing this matter to the attention of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Two o'clock.

WALES
  Beef Industry
  Beef Industry
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Inward Investment
  Inward Investment
  Land Registration
  Land Registration
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Public Houses
  Public Houses
  Strip Searches
  Strip Searches
  Assaults (Newham)
  Assaults (Newham)
  Police Officers (Criminal Offences)
  Police Officers (Criminal Offences)
  Subversion (Definition)
  Subversion (Definition)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Metropolitan Police (Earnings)
  Metropolitan Police (Earnings)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Messenger Group Newspapers Ltd.
  Messenger Group Newspapers Ltd.
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Commercial Fraud (Investigation)
  Commercial Fraud (Investigation)
  Productivity
  Productivity
  Charities
  Charities
  Private Health Insurance Schemes
  Private Health Insurance Schemes
  Pay-as-you-earn Codes
  Pay-as-you-earn Codes
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Electrically-powered Two-wheeled Vehicles
  Electrically-powered Two-wheeled Vehicles
TRANSPORT
  Motorway Speed Limit
  Motorway Speed Limit
  Shrewsbury Bypass
  Shrewsbury Bypass
  Written Off Motor Vehicles (Log Books)
  Written Off Motor Vehicles (Log Books)
  A1 (Upgrading)
  A1 (Upgrading)
  A1 (Crash Barriers)
  A1 (Crash Barriers)
  Stansted Airport
  Stansted Airport
  Stoke-Derby Link Road
  Stoke-Derby Link Road
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Charities Value-added Tax Reform Group
  Charities Value-added Tax Reform Group
  DHSS and Local Authorities (Social Work)
  DHSS and Local Authorities (Social Work)
  King's Lynn
  King's Lynn
  NHS (Staff Levels)
  NHS (Staff Levels)
  Cabinet Committees
  Cabinet Committees
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Departmental Efficiency
  Departmental Efficiency
DEFENCE
  RAF Chilwell
  RAF Chilwell
  National Union of Seamen (Correspondence)
  National Union of Seamen (Correspondence)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Heavy Vehicles
  Heavy Vehicles
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Student Unions
  Student Unions
  Religious Instruction
  Religious Instruction
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Local Authority Expenditure (Books and Equipment)
  Local Authority Expenditure (Books and Equipment)
  Educational Publications
  Educational Publications
  OECD and EEC Countries
  OECD and EEC Countries
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Oil-seed Rape
  Oil-seed Rape
  Aujeszky's Disease
  Aujeszky's Disease
  Milk Production
  Milk Production
  Slaughter (Farm Animal Welfare Council Report)
  Slaughter (Farm Animal Welfare Council Report)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Business (Assistance)
  Business (Assistance)
  "Textiles and Clothing: A European Strategy"
  "Textiles and Clothing: A European Strategy"
  House of Fraser
  House of Fraser
  Messenger Group Newspapers Ltd.
  Messenger Group Newspapers Ltd.
  Dumping
  Dumping
  Pirate Radio
  Pirate Radio
  Foreign Insurance Companies (Judgments)
  Foreign Insurance Companies (Judgments)
  Insurance Companies
  Insurance Companies
  Steel Imports (United States)
  Steel Imports (United States)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Diplomats (Offences)
  Diplomats (Offences)
  Consulate-General, Jerusalem
  Consulate-General, Jerusalem
  Diplomats (Tel Aviv)
  Diplomats (Tel Aviv)
ENVIRONMENT
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Green Belt and Land for Housing
  Green Belt and Land for Housing
  FIRST MEMORANDUM OF RESPONSE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT TO THE FIRST REPORT FROM THE ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE, SESSION I983–84 HC 275-I
  FIRST MEMORANDUM OF RESPONSE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT TO THE FIRST REPORT FROM THE ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE, SESSION I983–84 HC 275-I
  Cornish Unit Houses
  Cornish Unit Houses
  Royal Docks (Survey)
  Royal Docks (Survey)
  George V Dock
  George V Dock
EMPLOYMENT
  Adult Training
  Adult Training
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Retail Price Index Advisory Committee
  Retail Price Index Advisory Committee
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Open Tech
  Open Tech
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Health and Safety Commission
  Health and Safety Commission
  Labour Force Survey
  Labour Force Survey
  Minimum Wage and Income Support
  Minimum Wage and Income Support
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Factory and Agriculture Inspectors
  Factory and Agriculture Inspectors
  Skillcentre Training Agency
  Skillcentre Training Agency
  Job Search Week (Young Workers Scheme)
  Job Search Week (Young Workers Scheme)
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Certification Officer
  Certification Officer
  Job-splitting Scheme
  Job-splitting Scheme
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Women Workers (Public Sector)
  Women Workers (Public Sector)
  Training
  Training
  Health and Safety Executive
  Health and Safety Executive
  Retraining Schemes
  Retraining Schemes
  MSC (European Social Fund)
  MSC (European Social Fund)
  Travel-to-work. Areas (Review)
  Travel-to-work. Areas (Review)
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  Ministerial Meetings
  Ministerial Meetings
  Jobcentre Network
  Jobcentre Network
  Health and Safety Commission (Noise Caravan)
  Health and Safety Commission (Noise Caravan)
  Earnings (Women)
  Earnings (Women)
  Wages Inspectors
  Wages Inspectors
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Working Week
  Working Week
  18 to 25-year-olds (Training)
  18 to 25-year-olds (Training)
  Elderly Persons (Retraining)
  Elderly Persons (Retraining)
  Lost Working Days
  Lost Working Days
  Young Persons (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Young Persons (Stoke-on-Trent)
  TUC Centres for the Unemployed
  TUC Centres for the Unemployed
  Jobcentres (Advertisements)
  Jobcentres (Advertisements)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Working Hours
  Working Hours
  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Travel-to-work Areas (Wales)
  Travel-to-work Areas (Wales)
SCOTLAND
  Vandalism
  Vandalism
  Electricity Supply (Aid)
  Electricity Supply (Aid)
  Dundee Enterprise Zone
  Dundee Enterprise Zone
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
SOCIAL SERVICES
  16-year-olds
  16-year-olds
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  OECD Report (Poverty)
  OECD Report (Poverty)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  North West Regional Health Authority (Ambulancemen)
  North West Regional Health Authority (Ambulancemen)
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Bolton Health Authority
  Bolton Health Authority
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Homes (Heating)
  Homes (Heating)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Chiropodists and Podiatrists
  Chiropodists and Podiatrists
  Carers (Pensions Safeguards)
  Carers (Pensions Safeguards)
  Drug Addicts
  Drug Addicts
  Dental Treatment (Costs)
  Dental Treatment (Costs)
  Unclaimed Benefits
  Unclaimed Benefits
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Benefits (Inflation)
  Benefits (Inflation)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Salmon
  Salmon
  Eastern Heatherland Social Services Board (Private Insurance)
  Eastern Heatherland Social Services Board (Private Insurance)

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

Monetary Aggregates: Growth
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the increase in the money supply as measured by the aggregates for £M3, PSL2 and £M1 respectively, at an annualised rate over the latest period of three months for which figures are available; and what was the average monthly level of bank lending to the personal sector over the same period; and whether these figures are in accordance with the fulfilment of the monetary objectives of Her Majesty's Government.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, in substitution for my noble friend Lord Gowrie I shall give the Answer to my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne. In the three banking months to the end of banking May, £M3 grew by 10·5 per cent. on annualised rate, PSL2 by 17·8 per cent. and M1 by 29 per cent. No figures are available for total bank lending to the personal sector on a banking month basis. I would remind my noble friend that we have never targeted bank lending and that PSL2 and M1 are no longer target aggregates. M0 and £M3, the 1984–85 target aggregates, are growing satisfactorily against the ranges set for them at Budget time.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that information, which I shall study with great care and interest. Will he elaborate on the statement issued by the Bank of England last week, which said that the present condition of monetary policies suggested that, on domestic grounds, there was no case for a rise in interest rates? Are we to deduce from that that although the Government have no intention of using a rise in interest rates to restrain any tendency of the pound to fall against the dollar, they would still take action on the interest rate front if they were satisfied that the growth of consumer credit in particular was too fast?
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I apologise to the House, to my noble friend and to my noble friend the Leader of the House for this quick change act, which we in the arts are of course used to. I believe that my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne must be thinking not just of lending to persons, for which, as he has acknowledged, banking quarterly data for banking March, April and May were published on Wednesday, 27th June. Those figures
138
have shown that lending to persons has increased as a proportion of total sterling lending—and I think that that gives him some cause for concern—but that the total sterling lending has remained fairly steady. I appreciate that this is a matter which he raised before with my noble friend Lord Cockfield, and that he is concerned about it. At the moment I do not think that his concern is too strongly based in view of the steadiness of total sterling lending, but we are keeping an eye on this.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as nobody really understands these matters other than the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, and perhaps the noble Viscount who answered the Question in the first instance, would it not perhaps be better to ignore these aggregates, as most people around the world are now doing, and to concentrate (as, for example, are the United States) on expanding our economy and reducing unemployment?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is a little disingenuous. He understands these aggregates perfectly well as he was Chief Secretary when they were first introduced. The fact of the matter is that the United States are fortunate in being able to expand their economy internally at the expense of what the rest of us have to suffer, and this is part of the problem.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble Earl supply the House with a translation—either in English or, if need be, in Welsh—of the Answer originally read out by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, again, that is a nice try by the noble and learned Lord, because the Government, of which he was a luminary, to their great credit introduced these methods of monetary measurement. They are now the common currency of all governments around the world, and broadly speaking if we get our calculations on this front too far wrong—and they are complex and difficult—we soon suffer, whatever our political interests or tendencies, from very adverse effects.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House on what grounds he is able to suggest so confidently that a Minister who introduces such technicalities as these necessarily knows what they are all about?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it is my experience that Ministers try to master these matters. The difficulty is that there has been considerable controversy within the trade, if I may so describe it, as to which particular altimeter one should watch at which particular time.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is not the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, who asked the Question, well placed? Is not the answer given by the Minister that the totality of borrowing is the same but that its constituent elements have altered in that private borrowing has gone up and corporate borrowing has gone down? Is not that the wrong kind of mix, to put it in its simplest terms? Would not we prefer it to be the other way round? Do not those

139
figures indicate that there is private spending, which is not productive, at the expense of corporate spending, which is?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think that it is a little simplistic to say that all private borrowing is unproductive. Obviously, those people who are the beneficiaries of individuals' borrowing and the changes in their spending patterns as a result of the borrowing would not take that view at all. Many of those who so benefit are of course corporations, building societies, the construction industry and the rest. However, it is certainly true that one would wish for an emphasis on corporate borrowing. One of the reasons why the Government try to keep their own borrowing down is so that business interests will be encouraged to borrow.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it really is a little breathtaking for the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, to dismiss the significance of monetary aggregates since he played such a prominent and distinguished part in educating the then Chancellor into their application in the middle 1970s? May I press my noble friend further on one point? Can he say whether it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government that movements in the exchange rate are to be regarded as a possible indicator to domestic monetary conditions, rather than as a pointer to the desirability of changes in interest rates?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the current movements in the exchange rate, particularly against the dollar, indicate more about the management of the American economy which the United States can to some degree handle in a manner which is disadvantageous to the rest of us, or to many European economies. That is a slightly different question. As to my breath being taken away, I am old enough in the game now to cease to be surprised at the difference between Ministers in Government and Ministers in Opposition.

Lear Fan Project
2.44 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the aggregate amount of taxpayers' funds currently committed to, or at risk in, the Lear Fan project; and what is the current level of employment in Northern Ireland directly attributable to this project.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, in my own right, with perhaps a little more preparation and a little more understanding, I shall seek to answer my noble friend.
Under agreements concluded before September 1982, Her Majesty's Government provided Lear Fan Limited with funds totalling £25.3 million and a bank guarantee of 15 million dollars out of a total funding
140
requirement of 90 million dollars. In September 1982 Her Majesty's Government agreed to provide further public funds up to a maximum of 30 million dollars in the form of loan capital, matching private sector funds of 60 million dollars, and to extend the bank guarantee to 31st December 1986. To date, the company has received approximately 20.9 million dollars from public funds under the September 1982 agreement.
In addition, since 1980 the company has received £1.02 million under various other schemes—primarily training and short time working schemes.
At present the company has about 350 employees in Northern Ireland. On 31st May the company announced the temporary closure of the Northern Ireland factories for a period of 6–8 months from the beginning of July. This will mean some 320 of the workforce being laid off, leaving 20–30 people working for the project.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that information. Would he be inclined to agree that after all the delays and disappointments which have occurred in this project, and in particular its consistent failure to obtain certificates of airworthiness in the crucial United States market, hope deferred is beginning to make the heart a bit sick; and that this, following on the De Lorean project, is entitled to make one wonder whether the Ulster Province is really altogether wise in relying so heavily on apparently thousand to one outsiders? Can my noble friend assure the House that there would be no question at all of any further funds being transmitted to Lear Fan at least until an American certificate of airworthiness has been obtained?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I am informed that the company is now well into its certification programme. Everything of course will depend on the success of getting that certification. Without a certificated aircraft there will be no jobs either in Reno in the United States of America, where certification work is taking place, or in Northern Ireland. It is therefore necessary that the company concentrates its resources on achieving that goal. Certainly I can assure my noble friend that the Government will be extremely cautious so far as any further funds are concerned, and that the main purpose at the moment is to achieve the certification programme.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that these matters were dealt with very fully in our recent appropriation debate on 21st June when his noble friend Lord Lyell answered a number of these points? Can the noble Viscount confirm that if the certification of airworthiness is granted the production will be centred in Northern Ireland? Can the noble Viscount say what has happened, or will happen, to the 315 workforce which has been laid off? Does this mean that they are eligible for redundancy pay, or does it mean that the whole skilled workforce is being dispersed?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, on the noble Lord's second point I understand that discussions between the

141
company and their workforce are proceeding at this moment. I think it would be unwise for me therefore to comment in detail on that. If certification is achieved, then certainly the work will be carried out in Northern Ireland, and indeed would represent considerable employment opportunities in Northern Ireland. It must therefore be the very great hope that that certification programme will be carried forward and that certification for the aircraft will be achieved.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, would the noble Viscount agree that if the Government cut off funds immediately, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, the total withdrawal of Government support now may well prevent certification being obtained, which of course is crucial to the whole future of the project? Would the noble Viscount use his best endeavours with Her Majesty's Government to deal with this very carefully before taking any such tragic decision because of the high levels of unemployment in that province?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, certainly I assure the noble Lord that it is the Government's hope that the certification programme will go forward, that the aircraft will be certificated, and that therefore the work on this aircraft will be carried out in Northern Ireland. That has been the purpose of the loans put forward so far by Her Majesty's Government and it is our wish that it should succeed. If it does succeed that will be greatly to the benefit of the employment in Northern Ireland where it is so desperately needed.
Lord Blease: My Lords, would the noble Viscount not agree that from the earliest stages the Lear Fan project was recognised and acknowledged as a high risk enterprise project? Will he not agree also that with the use of this new technology Lear Fan has a fair lead time in this area? Will he accept that his assurances to the House today, that the Government and the Northern Ireland Office are making every effort to ensure that the agreement that has been reached to maintain employment in Northern Ireland, will be warmly welcomed by the workers at the Lear Fan factory? I understand it is a fact—and I ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware of it—that workers are still being employed on the project at Nevada. Let us hope that this project will be revived in Northern Ireland again.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think he will know that the company is now well into the certification programme. Extensive static testing has revealed several defects in the initial design. The correction of these defects, in particular the most recent fuselage failure, has resulted in a significant degree of slippage in the schedule. The company's revised certification programme forecasts that the initial certificate for an unpressurised aircraft will be obtained by mid-November 1984, and the supplement to the certificate for a pressurised aircraft will be obtained by mid-February 1985. If these dates are met that would mean a considerable reassurance to everyone. Those are the aims at the moment and we must all hope that they will be achieved.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, may I press my noble friend one stage further on what I think he said earlier? I thought I understood him to say that Her Majesty's Government would be extremely cautious about committing more funds this side of the endlessly deferred satisfactory conclusion of the process of certification in the United States. But surely all experience suggests that it would be the height of folly to commit any more funds, over and above those that have already been committed, at least until this certification has been achieved.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, naturally I agree in principle with what my noble friend said. When I said that the Government would be extremely cautious, I meant that. I always think it is fateful in these sort of negotiations and discussions to close up all options altogether. I was merely being very cautious in saying that the Government would be extremely cautious.

BBC Transmitter Proposal: Bearley
2.56 p.m.
Lord Kings Norton: 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 when the report of the inquiry into the proposal by the BBC to build a high powered transmitter for the World Service at Bearley, near Stratford-upon-Avon, will be published.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the inquiry to which the noble Lord's Question refers has been completed, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has not yet received the inspector's report. When he has done so and has taken his decision whether or not the development should proceed, the local planning authority will be informed. The report will then be available to anyone who attended the inquiry and asked for a copy.
Lord Kings Norton: My Lords, if I understood the Minister correctly, he was saying that the Minister would take a decision before the report was published. If that is so, may I ask him whether he is aware that this will be disconcerting to between 30,000 and 40,000 people living in the area at Bearley and Stratford-upon-Avon because they have grave apprehensions that if this project goes through there will be serious interference with radio reception in the area and that local industry, which has a large number of computerised systems and apparatus, will have them badly affected?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, the noble Lord did understand me correctly. The decision will be made by my right honourable friend before the report is published. This is normal practice in all planning inquiries. The purpose of all inquiries is to consider all matters relating to the development and the objections to it. I have no doubt that the matters referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and any other pertinent matter will be included in the inspector's report.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the construction of this enormous complex on the edge of one of the loveliest towns in this country, and one of our most valuable tourist attractions, is a matter of national not merely local importance? Will he give an undertaking that the local planning authority will in no circumstances be given permission to go ahead until there has been an opportunity for the matter to be discussed in this House?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I am afraid I am not in a position to give that undertaking to my noble friend. The controversial nature of the development and the local feeling about it prompted my right honourable friend to arrange the public local inquiry in the first place, though he is not statutorily bound to do so because this, as I am sure is well known, involves Crown land. There were various technical aspects of the inquiry and my right honourable friend had a technical assessor appointed to sit with the inspector at the inquiry to assist with the evaluation of technical evidence. I therefore have no doubt that the report of the inspector will include, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, all pertinent matters.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that on many occasions Members of this House have spoken with high praise of the content of the programmes of the BBC's external services, but have regretted their poor audibility in some important parts of the world? Is the noble Lord aware that some of us are awaiting this decision or the report with great interest on this idea of building a new, powerful transmitter near Stratford-upon-Avon, and that we will not cavil at the additional expense if it is necessary to find an alternative site in the interests of minimising the damage to the environment and the interference with other people's electrical installations?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, while agreeing wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, in his praise of the BBC external services—with which I had some small connection when I was speaking for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office some two years ago—this particular matter is sub judice as all planning inquiries are at this stage in their development. I cannot comment on individual matters such as those raised by the noble Lord.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if his right honourable friend were to give permission to proceed before a debate in Parliament took place he might, as a result of that debate, find himself in some difficulty?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I will certainly call the attention of my right honourable friend to my noble friend's point.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the evidence from both sides presented to this inquiry has been so highly technical that nobody would wonder if the Secretary of State took some time to evaluate it before coming to a decision? But is he also aware that there are two reasons for proceeding as expeditiously as possible
144
with a decision: first, because of the amount of local disquiet about the project; but, secondly, because the erection on some site of this transmitter is a matter of the greatest urgency and it is important, if the decision goes against the Bearley site, that preparations for a new site should be started as quickly as possible?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have no doubt that my right honourable friend will consider the points made by my noble friend, and I shall make sure that he has the opportunity so to do.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, wherever the transmitter is built, is it not widely agreed that the news on the BBC World Service is balanced, impartial and well-informed? Do not many hundreds of thousands of people in this country listen to it regularly? Can my noble friend therefore confirm or deny that after the new transmitter is built this service is likely to be inaudible in many parts of the country? Would that not be very unfair indeed on the British taxpayer who has had to pay the piper?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, I have nothing but praise for the BBC's external services. The original reason for starting this transmitter was that the external services of the BBC have a need to be heard more strongly and more widely in certain parts of the world. Again, I will take up the point raised by my noble friend.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during last year 30,000 letters were received by the BBC overseas service from mainland China, and that whatever is decided in terms of the site for this broadcasting station it is essential that we should be getting on with this new station so that we can take advantage of the friendship that is extended to us by the letters?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have no doubt that all the points raised this afternoon, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, will have been raised during this inquiry. The inspector will report his findings on the matter, and it will be on that report that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will take a decision.
Lord Kings Norton: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister ask his right honourable friend, when considering this matter, to consider the other sites which would be equally suitable from the BBC point of view and which, if adopted, would cause interference on a much smaller scale than the Bearley site?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I fully expect that this, too, will be covered in the inspector's report; but, again, I will bear in mind the noble Lord's point.

Interest Rates: Government Policy
3.2 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their present policy on interest rates.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, we continue to give high priority to policies designed to encourage lower interest rates. Maintaining sound monetary conditions is the best way to ensure a downward trend in inflation and interest rates over the medium term. But interest rates are bound to fluctuate if we are to keep control of monetary growth.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, being aware that the appetite of your Lordships for matters of this kind is fully satisfied, I will content myself by saying that I shall read the Minister's Answer carefully.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, with the leave of the House, will repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer that is to be given to a Private Notice Question in another place on the future of Halvergate Marshes.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill will be adjourned for dinner at approximately 7.30 p.m. for the period of one hour, and during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Health and Social Security Bill will be completed.

Anglian Water Authority (King's Lynn Tidal Defences) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Cardiff City Council Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): 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 Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Suspension of elections and appointment of councillors]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 17A:
Leave out Clause 2 and insert—
("Restriction of term of councillors elected in 1985.
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall have power after the passing hereafter by Parliament of an enactment which provides for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the
146
metropolitan county councils and the transfer of their functions, to make an order to restrict to a term expiring not before 1st April 1986 the period of office of councillors of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils elected in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act.
(2) Pending a decision by Parliament on their continued existence, the composition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils shall be one member elected for each of the electoral divisions in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act.
(3) In respect of the Greater London Council the electoral divisions shall correspond with the parliamentary constituencies in Greater London.
(4) In respect of a metropolitan county, the electoral divisions shall correspond with proposals made to the Secretary of State by 1st March 1985 following a review by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England pursuant to subsection (5) below.
(5) The Secretary of State shall, not later than one month after the passing of the Act, direct the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to carry out a review of the boundaries and electoral divisions of any metropolitan county for which such a review has not been completed under the principal Act within the previous twelve months, and to make proposals by 1st March 1985.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment which is before the Committee today follows as a logical consequence of Amendment No. 1, which was the first amendment of the Committee stage last Thursday and which, as your Lordships will remember, was passed by a majority of 48. The purpose of that amendment was to delay the operation of Part II of the Bill until the passage of the main abolition Bill. The constitutional implications of the proposal to abolish elections and change political control by appointment at the GLC weighed heavily with the Committee. Equally serious in the view of the Committee was the suggestion that the elections should be cancelled before your Lordships' House had taken a full decision on the main abolition legislation.
In debate, the Minister stated that it would be impossible for the Government to enact the main Bill before the elections, due in May 1985. It is with dealing with those elections that the amendment I am now moving is concerned. The proposals of the amendment passed last Thursday made it clear that if this were proved to be the case then the elections should proceed; and several speakers in the debate attacked the proposal for interim councils and, in particular, the gerrymander of political control of the GLC. In his statement in another place on Friday, the Secretary of State sought to escape from the implications of the decision of your Lordships' Committee—I think one can only put it that way—and said that all the options were open except the holding of elections. In his words, he said, "It would be absurd" to hold elections on the basis that those elected might be in office for only two months before being replaced by interim councillors. But the amendment passed by your Lordships' Committee insisted on elections, which was one of the most important concomitants of the contents of that amendment.
It is extraordinary that the Government should be considering replacing elected councillors with appointed nominees so soon after an election; and this statement ignored the criticisms of interim councils made in your Lordships' House and their implicit rejection by your Lordships' Committee in passing the

147
amendment. The amendment referred not just to the holding of elections but to the whole of Part II of the Bill, including the arrangements for the interim councils. This amendment, No. 17A, would complete the work of the first amendment and replace Clause 2, which sets up interim councils and at the same time cancels the elections. This clause is now really dead wood. In its place this amendment tidies up arrangements for an election but also allows the Secretary of State reserve powers in order to see the terms on which councillors are elected if the main Bill goes through.
The other option referred to by the Secretary of State was the alteration of the terms of existing councillors for a shorter or longer period. I think the Committee should be quite clear that any extension of the terms of those already in office represents a cancellation of the elections; and any such formula still requires the elections to be cancelled before Parliament as a whole has decided the abolition issue.
It was on this point, particularly, that the Committee made it very loud and clear on 28th June that it found the constitutional implications of such a step to be unacceptable. I believe it is crucial that we recognise that the Government's abolition date of 1st April 1986 is wholly unrealistic. The complexities of dismantling major authorities are more likely to require two years than one. The Government implicitly conceded this by their refusal to insert a time limit in the Bill or to guarantee that interim councils would not continue beyond April 1986. We must inquire why the Government have failed, according to the statement of the Secretary of State, to accept the clear view of your Lordships' Committee embodied in the amendment. The constitutional position of this House in Parliament requires that elections he held if the main Bill is not enacted by that date. Any, other option is, I believe, a gross presumption of the will of Parliament and should be rejected. The ball is now in the Government's court.
Amendment No. 17A should therefore be read in the context of the decision of the Committee on Amendment No. 1. The Minister has already said that he cannot get the main Bill through in time to cancel the elections. This amendment, therefore, restates the commitment already established by this House to hold the elections in May 1985. I hope that the Government, in reconsidering their position following our decision last week, will pay greater heed to the view of your Lordships following our debate this afternoon.
The amendment restates the commitment to hold elections and seeks to modify the worst excesses of the Bill. It certainly is not a wrecking amendment, but seeks to make changes where these are necessary, within the structure and the Long Title of the Bill. In fact, this amendment would make the Bill more in keeping with the Long Title than it is at present. The amendment is intended as a comprehensive one to meet the charges which have been raised from all sides of the House against both the proposals in the Bill and the manner in which it has been brought to this House.
Under subsection (1) of the amendment the Secretary of State would have reserve powers to make an order for the purpose of limiting to a term expiring not before 1st April 1986 the period of office of
148
directly elected councillors, and such an order could only be made after Parliament had approved and enacted legislation to abolish the metropolitan county councils and the GLC. The new clause also provides for the elections in May 1985 to be conducted on revised boundaries. The Long Title of the Bill refers to the making of, and I quote:
"provision for the composition of the Greater London Council and metropolitan county councils pending a decision by Parliament on their continued existence".
The new clause seeks to make such provision. In the case of the GLC, it ensures that the new parliamentary constituencies on which the 1983 general election was contested are introduced for the seats on the GLC. In the case of the metropolitan counties, the change is more substantial. Boundary reviews are pending in these areas and one has already been completed. These reviews are expected to produce significant changes in the composition of the metropolitan county councils and would have been expected to be completed in time for the elections in May 1985.
The issue of the bypassing of the House of Lords in this legislation which aroused such deep criticism from all quarters has been met by the new clause. The Secretary of State would be empowered to make his order only after the enactment by Parliament of the abolition proposals. Once abolition had been decided on, there could be no objection to his having the power to limit the terms of elected councillors to coincide with the date of abolition. This would accord with the precedents of local government reorganisations of the past and puts the cart once again firmly behind the horse.
Nothing in the new clause binds the hands of the House of Lords until it has had the opportunity to debate and decide on the main abolition proposals. The amendment seeks to revise the Bill to make it acceptable, both in terms of its democratic implications and, equally important, in terms of its implications for the authority of the House. It follows the course which might have commended itself to a government which had been in less haste to rush forward its abolition proposals and also with greater regard for the proper constitutional role of this House as a revising Chamber and as a safeguard against abuse. As I said when I introduced the amendment, it follows the clear view which was established on Amendment No. 1, and I hope the Committee will recognise its clear and deeply held views and will give its support to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: Of course, I do not accept just about everything the noble Baroness has said. She it is who refers to gerrymandering of political control of the GLC; I refuted that before and I refute it totally and absolutely now. She says that 1st April for abolition is now wholly unrealistic. Not at all. The date is 1st April 1986 and, subject to the confirmation of Parliament in due course, that is the date that will be met.
The noble Baroness also said, "Why have the Government failed to accept the decision of this House?" She will just have to have a little patience until she learns what decision the Government will take. I assure her that we are well aware that it is a decision that will have to be taken and it will be done without undue delay.

149
Amendment No. 17A would allow the Secretary of State to restrict the terms of office of serving GLC and metropolitan county councillors elected in 1985, once the main Bill is passed. It further seeks to require a review of MCC boundaries, unless one has been completed recently, and to determine the electoral divisions for the MCC elections accordingly. The review would have to be initiated within one month of this Bill's being enacted and the proposals made by 1st March 1985.
The intention of the amendment is clear. It would allow the May 1985 elections to take place, with revised boundaries in the MCCs. But I submit that this amendment is unnecessary, and indeed in parts it is inconsistent even with the Bill as amended by this Committee. The Bill as amended contains a provision to allow the suspension of elections by order. This amendment would remove that option. The Government are considering the position of the May 1985 elections in the light of Amendment No. 1. But if we were to go down the road of holding the elections—and that is only one of many options we are considering—this amendment would not be the way we would wish to do it, because, all else apart, it has a number of defects. There is no need to include in the Bill the provision for terminating GLC and MCC councillors' terms of office. If elections were to go ahead, the proper place for such provision is the main Bill.
As to the other provisions within this amendment, they are inconsistent with Amendment No. 1. Since this amendment would not have effect until the passage of the main abolition Bill—in all likelihood not until the summer of 1985—it is nonsense to make requirements about dates within one month of the paving Bill being enacted or by 1st March 1985. The elections would have taken place before the amendment had effect; so it could not affect the electoral divisions of the May 1985 elections. For these reasons, I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment, or, if she does not, for your Lordships to resist it.
Baroness Birk: In answer to what the Minister has said, in the first place, we do not know what is in the main Bill—nobody knows; I do not think the Government know; I do not think the department knows; I do not think anybody at all knows, except that the Government intend to bring forward a Bill to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. That certainly is not good enough on something which is for us to discuss and on which we have to make a measured and serious decision. This is certainly not contradictory; it follows the line of the amendment that was passed last Thursday and what it does is absolutely consistent and entirely logical. It gets rid of the interim councils, because the amendment that was passed certainly includes the taking place of elections, unless the whole of the main Bill gets through by April 1985. This seems absolutely incongruous and quite impossible. Therefore, what this amendment does is to cover the time factor, and it gets rid of the interim councils which were really considered as a great anathema by many noble Lords in all parts of this Chamber and certainly not only from these Benches.
150
In fact, the word "gerrymander" in that debate did not come from these Benches in the first place but from the Benches opposite—yes, I am afraid it did—where noble Lords were concerned that overnight the control of the Greater London Council would turn from Labour to Conservative, although they were not speaking as members of the Labour Party or with any particular sympathy for Labour policy but were looking at it on a democratic and constitutional ground.
Since then the Government have not clarified their intentions. I appreciate that the Minister cannot possibly make a statement on the Government's attitude to that amendment at this moment and certainly I did not expect him to do so. But we are all rather in limbo at the moment about this—I should say that the Government are: I do not think that we are—because the amendment has gone through, and so far as this Committee is concerned it is now part of the Bill, which means that the rest of this Bill sits very incongruously on it. Frankly, much of the discussion this afternoon is going to be shadow boxing, because nothing fits round it: the legislative clothes no longer fit on the Bill. But because in the future we may be able to improve on this amendment, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, may wish to say something at this point, before any further action is taken. He told me that he intended to say something on this.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton: As the noble Baroness said, I had intended to say something on this, but my notes have been mislaid and I have just been finding them. I can only assume, from the approbation that the noble Baroness was receiving, that she was saying what I would have said. I do know from discussions I have had with local authorities and other parties that, however the Government seek to interpret what happened last week, the noble Lord the Minister ought to give serious consideration to this, because elections should proceed if abolition is undecided by May 1985; and if the elections were to go ahead the officers should remain in office until abolition. It seems to me that this amendment, regardless of what attitude the Government take towards it, would improve the quality of the Bill and should be part of it, and I should like to support the amendment as moved by the noble Baroness.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord apparently rests his case on what he said at the beginning; but I think he ought to take fully on board the unreality of much of what we are going to say as we proceed through the Marshalled List today. The Minister must know that he is inviting the Committee to take note of two circumstances. We are at the Committee stage of a Bill, the precise nature of which we shall not know until the Government make a Statement tomorrow. In other words, it is quite possible that we shall proceed today to discuss largely academically what our attitude would be if the Bill was different from what it is at the moment.
The Bill was changed last week. The Government are taking time—we have heard statements not only made in the newspapers but from Ministers outside

151
the other place and also on the radio today, which make it appear that the Government intend to make a Statement today or tomorrow. The Minister could be enormously helpful to the Committee if he were to indicate what that Statement is likely to be so that we could adjust our consideration of the amendments.
The Minister has the opportunity to be helpful or to remain as he has been so far today, unhelpful, to the Committee. Much of what we are going to say will literally be a waste of parliamentary time. The Minister may very well feel that is the best way to proceed. Not only do we not know what the present Bill will contain but we do not know what it is that we shall have the opportunity of amending subsequently at the Report stage and later. And also the Minister is unable to tell us what the main abolition Bill will contain. We are talking in the paving Bill about a period between now and when a future Bill, whose details we do not know, may or may not become law.
Quite frankly, I believe that the Committee has been treated with contempt by the inability (I do not say the unwillingness) of the Minister to guide your Lordships on precisely how best to use our parliamentary time. Some of the amendments we have down are very, very important and far-reaching, and until the Statement that we understand is to be made tomorrow or on Thursday or Friday or next week or the week after is made the Committee is literally in a state of limbo as to what its proper attitude should be to a changed circumstance.
The Minister may very well feel that he is unable to be more helpful. I am certainly going to say it is not his fault that we are in this situation. This Committee, collectively, has put the Minister in that difficulty, but until the Minister and his colleagues react to the situation, quite frankly we are going to be frustrated in our desire to try to produce proper legislation. The Minister and the Government ought to make a Statement at the earliest possible moment.
Lord Bellwin: It is not usual for me to treat your Lordships with contempt. In fact I think this is the first time I have ever been accused of doing that, and it is certainly not something that I do. The Government are considering carefully how they will respond to Amendment No. 1. As I said earlier, there are a number of options and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.
A noble Lord: When?
Lord Bellwin: I cannot tell the House when, but it will be made as soon as possible. The Government's firm resolve to fulfil our election commitment to abolish these unnecessary and expensive upper-tier councils remains.
The effect of Amendment No. 1 is to delay the coming into operation of Part II of the Bill. It does not remove any part of Part II. The Bill as it stands continues to make provision for suspending elections and for the appointment of transitional councils. Those provisions remain in the Bill and therefore remain for debate in this Committee. To the extent that amendments on the Marshalled List are affected
152
by Amendment No. 1 it must be for your Lordships to consider the implications for any specific amendment.
The Government are ready to play their full part in the Committee's examination of the detailed provisions of the Bill. I do not think I can be more helpful than that. I understand exactly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I agree that there is a certain difficulty; but in no way does it preclude our continuing consideration of the Bill. What we cannot do is to announce today what the decision will be. Also, it would be wrong to make assumptions as to what it will be. I do not think anyone should seek to do that, and therefore it is on that basis that I think we should proceed.
Baroness Birk: I understand what the Minister has said. I am sure my noble friend did not mean that the noble Lord the Minister was himself holding out on us. He did not mean that at all: what he meant was that we are waiting for a response from the Government this afternoon. The Minister has really said, again as I said earlier in moving the amendment, that we seem to be indulging in shadow boxing this afternoon. He has made it quite clear—and his position is absolutely understandable—that there is not much of any great consequence that he can say on any of these amendments because they are all entirely tied up with the central core of the whole argument.
Because this is the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, its main concern is to set up the interim councils and make provision for them. As both sides have pointed out, in the meantime we are not dealing with the abolition Bill here. In view of that, I think the Minister should consider very carefully, not just for its own sake and for our sake, but for the convenience of the whole House, as well as in the interests of common sense, whether this whole Committee stage should now be adjourned.
Lord Denham: I think that the noble Baroness is going much too far on this. We had this argument beforehand, after the defeat on the previous day. The noble Baroness and her friends, with their friends in the Alliance, put before the Committee Amendment No. 1 which they assured the Committee was not a wrecking amendment, and the Committee accepted it. We now have to carry on with the rest of the Committee stage of this Bill; the Bill will have its Report stage, and then it will go back to another place. There are other parts of this Bill, such as those dealing with the disclosure of information, and for the noble Baroness to seek to stop consideration of this Bill is going much too far.
Lord Tordoff: The noble Lord the Minister has said that we can make no assumptions. It seems to me that the assumption which your Lordships must make is that the Bill is as it now is; in other words, the Bill is as amended by Amendment No. 1. If we are to proceed, we should proceed on that basis, and certain consequences flow from that; namely, that the delegated members of a new council are, for the time being, a myth and that there will be elections in Greater London and the metropolitan councils next May. Therefore, any other interim provision relating to that is a non sequitur, so far as your Lordships are

153
concerned at this moment, unless, and until, the Government come back with some other observations. I suggest we should proceed on that basis.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I suggest—
Lord Boothby: I want to say only a few words, as a very old parliamentarian. In view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have told us that they have important new proposals to make as a result of the vote that was taken in this Chamber last week, and that we do not yet have any idea of what are those proposals—nor, apparently, have they, and I do not blame them for that; they deserve careful consideration—I submit to your Lordships, with all due respect, that the whole of today's debate is a complete waste of time.
Lord Denham: I must put the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, right. My right honourable friends have not announced that they have important new decisions to make—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Denham: No announcement has been made. Your Lordships' Committee has carried Amendment No. 1 against the Government. That is a decision on which your Lordships were perfectly within your rights. We are now carrying on with the rest of the Committee stage, we will then have a Report stage, and the Bill will finally go back to another place. It is open to Her Majesty's Government to make further recommendations to your Lordships at Report stage or when the Bill reaches another place, but it really is not open to your Lordships, having amended the Bill, to suggest that it should be totally dropped and not considered at all.
If noble Lords opposite are saying that and are claiming that the Bill is emasculated, then I would say that, believing that, they have been improper to have done what they did. But I believe that they put down that amendment thinking that it did not drastically alter the whole Bill and they thought that it was a proper thing for your Lordships' Committee to do. Therefore, having carried that, we carry on with the rest of this Bill and it goes through its other stages. It may well be that another place will wish to consider what we have done in all parts, but we cannot drop the rest of this Bill; it would be procedurally incorrect.
Baroness Birk: As the Chief Whip has now come into this discussion, can he answer one question? Is he saying that what was said on the "World at One" news programme today by Brian Curtois of the BBC is completely untrue? Is no statement to be made by the Government tomorrow?
Lord Denham: I am in a little difficulty here, because I did not hear the "World at One" and what Brian Curtois said. What I understood—I think at about third-hand—was that it was suggested that the Government had already made up their mind as to what should happen and made up their mind in a particular direction. I can tell your Lordships that that is not so.
Baroness Birk: The Chief Whip also said that there is no reason why we should not continue with this Bill after the passing of the first amendment. I put it to him very strongly and clearly that this Bill is very different from a great many other pieces of legislation which are before us, because they stand on their own. This is known as a paving Bill to the main legislation. That first amendment has made a tremendous difference to this Bill and also to the paving to the main legislation. We have already found from the first amendment, and indeed from the Minister's replies to it, that it will be even more difficult to continue than I had previously thought. I was very doubtful about it. There are a great many amendments that we are not moving and which we cannot move because of the connections not only with our amendment, but with what the Government are now to do. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, was not incorrect—he was quite right—when he said that it will be a big waste of your Lordships' time, if nothing else.
Lord Denham: I really must suggest to the Committee that we carry on with this Bill, as has been proposed.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I suggest a simple procedure, which is that we move amendments, withdraw them without argument, get through the afternoon extremely quickly, and bring them back on Report?
Lord Denham: That is, of course, the right of your Lordships to do, if any of your Lordships so wish. Her Majesty's Government cannot force the Committee to express an opinion on the amendment of any noble Lord who does not wish to push it to a Division.
Lord Barnett: May I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he intends to reply to the debates on the assumption that Amendment No. 1 was carried and is therefore part of the Bill, and that every other amendment stems directly from what is now in the Bill, or whether he intends to say on every occasion that we must wait to see what the Government propose to do?
Lord Bellwin: The answer is, a bit of both. We really are trying to catch up with what goes on in another place. The fact is that there will be certain matters raised which have nothing whatsoever to do with Amendment No. 1. There will be others where there is a connotation based upon what will be the ultimate decision. In responding to amendments that are moved I shall try to point out, where it has to be pointed out, where there is a difficulty. I think that this does not apply to the majority of the amendments before us today, and that ought to be made clear, so that there is no doubt. The majority of the amendments here are not affected by that and therefore it does not apply. But where it does, I shall do my best to be helpful where I can and point out where there is a difficulty and what are the arguments, on the assumption that the Bill is as amended.
Lord Barnett: Nobody is accusing the noble Lord personally of being unhelpful, because from my brief experience in this House I know that he is a most helpful Minister. But the noble Lord, Lord Boothby,

155
was surely absolutely right, and, judging from the Minister's initial answer to my noble friend Lady Birk, it seems that he will on almost every occasion—indeed, he has admitted it now—be speaking in both directions. The net result will be to make a nonsense and a mockery of all our debates this afternoon. Surely it must be in the interests of your Lordships not to pursue the matter further.
Lord Denham: I do not know why the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is speaking on this particular point. Is he in temporary charge of the Front Bench opposite, or is he in temporary charge of this particular Bill so far as the Opposition is concerned? We are getting very much out of order on this point. Could we not, please, continue with the Bill? The Motion before the Committee is that Amendment No. 17A be considered. Can we please return to the Motion which is on the Marshalled List and not go into the realms of theory as to what may or may not happen elsewhere and what may or may not have been said elsewhere?
Lord Boothby: If the Government themselves, as they have admitted, do not know what we are talking about, how the hell should we know?
Baroness Birk: On that very sound note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Denham: This is probably the appropriate moment to resume the House in order that the Statement may be made. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Halvergate Marshes
3.42 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place in answer to a Private Notice Question from the Member for Copeland. The Question was as follows:
"To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future of the 92 acres of Halvergate Marshes which is Grade 1 listed landscape in the ownership of Mr. David Wright".
The Answer to that Question is as follows:
"Four of the five farmers who gave notice some months ago of their intention to plough parts of Halvergate Marshes have now agreed not to proceed this year. The fifth, Mr. David Wright, declined to enter into a holding agreement and the strategy committee of the Broads Authority decided last week not to offer him a full management agreement; nor have they sought a direction under Article 4 of the General Development Order.
156
"While I much regret that Mr. David Wright has decided to start drainage operations on his land, I do not consider that the Broads Authority's decision in this case seriously jeopardises the protection of the Halvergate landscape as a whole".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we are very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement which has been made in the other place. I have a number of questions which I must ask the Minister. First, may I ask him whether he is referring to the 92 acres which were under discussion in this House on 13th June? If so, it will come as a surprise to those of us who were present at that debate to find that the 92 acres are still under discussion.
Given this second opportunity, does not the Minister think that some action should now be taken to rescue Grade 1 land which is of very great conservation importance? There are a number of ways in which it could be saved. There could be an Article 4(1) direction under the general development order. There could be an enforcement notice under Section 87 of the Town and Country Planning Act. There are several other ways in which this land could be protected, even if Mr. Wright does not wish to cooperate. Will not the Government take this matter seriously and take action now to save this land?
The other question which I must ask the Minister is this. In the debate on 13th June the point was made that the Opposition were willing to give some of their parliamentary time to discuss amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act, in order to strengthen it. Has any progress been made? Has any action been taken by the Government? We on these Benches cannot help feeling that the whole question is not being taken very seriously.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, while we welcome the fact that there has been a Private Notice Question and that an Answer has been given, we on these Benches certainly deplore the actual Answer. The idea that this action is not going to jeopardise the Halvergate Marshes as a whole seems to me not to hold water in any way. It is a serious encroachment, an encroachment which is irreversible. Although this may be only a small encroachment at this time, every encroachment that is made in this way causes irredeemable damage.
Is it not time for the Government to take seriously the question of amending the Wildlife and Countryside Act? Is it not true that all the arguments which we on these Benches, and those on this side of the House, put day after day when the Wildlife and Countryside Bill was going through Parliament, about how the negotiations, which the Government put forward as being the right way to approach these matters, would not work, have now been proven to be right? The negotiations do not, in fact, work. All I can do at this stage is to congratulate the Secretary of State for the Environment upon the way he approached the problem, at least at the very beginning, by bringing into effect a planning decision. But the Government must grasp this nettle and must stop any more of our priceless heritage going down the drain.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for their initial response to the Statement. Perhaps I fell into my usual trap of speaking too fast when I have countryside matters to impart to your Lordships, because I do not think that the noble Baroness understood the tenor of what I said when I repeated the Statement. I can confirm most certainly that the 92 acres were those referred to in both the noble Baroness's question and my answer to our debate on 13th June. My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is exactly the same as I gave then. I have no doubt that he has read, and cogitated on, my words, and I see no reason to change them.
At that time, as I remember it, the noble Baroness asked me whether I did not regard this situation as having a domino effect. I do not, because I see this as being a totally isolated piece of land. Nor can I accept that the history of the Halvergate Marshes points up a failure of the 1981 Act. It has always been recognised that local planning authorities would have difficult decisions to take. They have to balance the conservation interests against other considerations. This is what local planning authorities are there for. As to the Article 4 direction, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the Statement said that the Broads Authority have not sought a direction under Article 4. I am afraid that I can go no further than that in answer to the noble Baroness.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true that the Broads Authority gave my right honourable friend and my noble friend conflicting advice? First, the 92 acres are, in effect a panhandle. Is my noble friend aware that I was advised by a very senior officer of the Broads Authority that this is not an area which they regard as being of great importance? That was the advice which was then given to my noble friend, and my noble friend repeated that advice to the House in our debate on 13th June. The very next morning the senior official of the Broads Authority offered a £258 per acre management agreement for not doing something to the land for one year. I would drive oxen round my land, clad in woad, for £258 per acre. It is an absolute rip-off price. It is a case of a man saying, "This is my price; take it or leave it", so putting at risk his brother who had been offered £160 per acre and other farmers who had settled for between £80 and £100 an acre. Surely this is a fault of the system. I know that there is nothing more irritating than being reminded, "I told you so", but equally there is nothing more satisfactory than saying, "I told you so". This matter was pointed out by myself and other noble Lords during our wildlife and countryside debates.
We have tried to get the system changed, but the Government are in a terrible cleft stick. They have either to submit to blackmail, and pay up, or they have to let something go. For the sake of the vast majority of farmers and landowners who really care about the countryside, we must amend this system.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that I am grateful to my noble friend. On Wednesday, 13th June I reported to the House the facts as they then were. On the following Friday it became apparent that there had
158
been a change of mind and that officers at the Broads Authority were pursuing the possibility of a management agreement with Mr. Wright at a substantially higher figure. When the Broads Authority met on the Monday they decided that it would be inappropriate to offer Mr. David Wright an agreement on more expensive terms than those which had been offered and accepted for most of the remaining area. This matter was entirely within the province of the Broads Authority. I should make the general point that my right honourable friend has no locus stands in the matter of the Broads Authority; it is totally a local authority concern.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's reply so far as it went; but he has still not answered my main question. What action have the Government taken to co-operate with the Opposition in bringing forward an amendment to the Act which will help to close the loopholes in it and which will prevent this kind of thing happening in the future?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness if I did not understand the full purport of her second question. The answer is that, as she will know, discussions are in progress between her honourable friend and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, with, as I understand it, the honourable Member of Copeland involved. Discussions will have to come to a head some time this week on the subject of a Bill to amend Section 28 of the Countryside and Wildlife Act proposed by Mr. Peter Hardy.
The cleft stick which was applicable to the arguments of both my noble friends and the noble Baroness is not quite as cleft as they would have us believe. The fact is that all these matters have to be dealt with by agreement. The Conservative Party has never stood for pre-emption in matters such as these, and I hope it never will.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, is it not nevertheless somewhat preoccupying if, as I understand my noble friend to have said, Her Majesty's Ministers have no standing in this matter? Apparently, if the Broads Authority had not, fortunately, had belated second thoughts, this worthy gentleman would have received his £58 per acre over and above which, as I understand it, he could have received before that a grant for draining out from the Ministry of Agriculture. Then, if there were no long-term arrangements for conservation, at the end of the year for which this gentleman had been paid his £258 per acre he could have received another grant from the Ministry of Agriculture for doing the same work all over again. Surely this reinforces the point made by my noble friend Lord Onslow that we must look again at these procedures, before the Treasury is ruined by them.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I said in reply to the Unstarred Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Onslow nearly three weeks ago that there was nothing absolutely fixed about the compensation arrangements and that the Government would need to look at them again. I said that it was always understood at the time when they were written that the Government

159
would do so. As far as the other part of my noble friend's question is concerned, the Countryside Commission is paying 25 per cent. of the Broads Authority's costs of management agreements, and the commission itself does have control of the money it advances.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, noble Lords opposite have posed the question very ably indeed, but they have not suggested the answer. Surely the answer to this is that paying people to do nothing is quite ridiculous. I am not arguing about whether or not it is right that the environmental lobby should require these marshes to be left alone; but if that is the case, and if it is decided that that is the case, then surely the Crown should take over the land and then let it with proper conditions attached. Is not that the solution?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the argument is surely about whether one is paying people to do nothing or paying people to stop doing something. Over and above that, it would not be appropriate for the Crown to take over the land.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that in 1981, when speaking at the National Park authorities' conference on the site of Halvergate, his right honourable friend Mr. Michael Heseltine announced an agreement, which he considered to be entirely satisfactory, of paying compensation at the rate of £65,000 a year to secure the whole of Halvergate Marshes for all time? He was totally confident that this justified the Act which has just passed into law.
Does not the latest development highlight against the background I have just mentioned the total inadequacy of the Act in this respect in having no fall-back powers? Is it not further accentuated by the fact that the Countryside Commission has made a strong recommendation that the Broads Authority should be elevated to the status of a national park under special conditions? Is it not an essential part of the national parks to conserve, and will the noble Lord bear that point in mind?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is quite right. My right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment made the announcement to which the noble Lord referred. On the other hand, circumstances change, and in the light of today's events, it seems that that particular statement was not pertinent. As to the general changes to the Wildlife and Countryside Act, this matter is being discussed at the moment—and I am grateful for your Lordships' views to further those discussions.
Lord Maude of Stratford-Upon-Avon: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that since it appears that almost any product that is likely to be grown or raised on new agricultural land is already being produced in embarrassing and costly surplus, it would seem that the preference should rather be for environmental conservation than providing new agricultural land?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is no doubt in
160
my mind, as I have said before in this House, that the problem is that marginal land is, through economic forces, becoming less marginal. Having gone that far with me, the decision then has to be made as to how to make this land less marginal. It may be that the right way ahead is through the economics of food growing—and I say "may be" and not that it definitely is—or it may be through conservation grants such as those we are discussing this afternoon.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as a result of my previous constituency interests I know the area in question extremely well and have tramped over Halvergate Marshes? Is he aware also that to say that it is an isolated piece of land is really far from the truth, in the sense that it is part of a very special SSSI? Would he not agree that once one eats into one part, then that is the thin end of the wedge? He called it a cleft stick but it is the thin end of the wedge.
Is the noble Lord also aware that not only did the then Secretary of State in 1981 make the statement he did but that as recently as April this year in another place the Minister (Mr. William Waldegrave) said:
"I can assure the hon. Member that Halvergate is safe for a year".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/4/84; col. 954.]
He went on to say that the Government were in the process of discussing a long-term solution, but he stated that the marshes were "safe for a year". Is it good enough for the Government now to say that they are proposing perhaps to consider future legislation by not to take action over the events which are now occurring? Does the noble Lord not agree that the Minister has power if he cares to use it? There is a Section 29 order; he can exercise an Article 4 discretion; there is compulsory purchase. There are a variety of methods by which he can take action if he cares to do so. Will the noble Lord say why the Minister himself, his Secretary of State, is not sufficiently concerned about this infringement upon an absolute Government commitment as to take action?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has put rather more heat into that question than it actually deserves. I accept straightaway that the land of the Halvergate Marshes is Grade 1 land, and was so designated some years ago. Since then the situation has changed. "Why?", I am immediately asked. It is because this land is on the edge of a Grade 1 area. It has been ploughed on two sides and has a railway on a third. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, says that he knows the area. He may well be able to confirm (I have been unable to establish this in the brief time available this morning) that on the fourth side there is a river. To me that means that, although it was so disignated, it can no longer reasonably be expected to remain in that position.
When the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, talks about SSSIs, he is in fact quite wrong because the land in question is not covered by an SSSI. This is a purely countryside matter. It is on countryside matters, on the countryside aspect of the whole thing, that my right honourable friend and the Broads Authority have considered this question.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, do I understand from what the Minister has just said that if there is a chipping

161
away of this protected area that does not matter? Surely that argument could be applied to the Green Belt. It could be applied to the commitments made by Ministers right across the country on every subject, that, because it happens to be on the edge, which it is, it really does not matter and it is not worth the Minister taking the action which he is entitled to do. Is that his argument?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no. My argument is that if you have what is a unique piece of land it should be judged on its merits, and the merits are as I have just described them to the House.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, may I assist my noble friend a little on this issue? As your Lordships may be aware, I have taken a considerable interest in this particular problem over the last four or five years. The land concerned is as a pan-handle; it sticks out as a triangle. One of the officers of the Broads Authority told me quite categorically that they did not regard it as part of the Grade 1 quality landscape. They included it in their map only because the two Wright brothers at one time farmed it as a partnership, and they therefore wanted to use it as a lever in respect of the very much more important piece of land than that which is now covered. Surely, therefore, we should be accurate when we start trying to embarrass my noble friend, and not use emotive words and every single cliché that can be found in the book.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this time I am quite definitely and uncategorically grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this ridiculous system of paying people not to destroy the precious land of Britain cannot long endure? There is one complete answer to this. If this was an ancient monument, it would be illegal to "muck about" with it. It should be illegal. These precious pieces of land should be treated like ancient monuments, and then we should not have any of this expensive nonsense.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords. I think that what my noble friend Lord Craigton is advocating is that there should be automatic planning controls in a situation such as this. I know this is one of the ideas that is floating around, but at the moment I do not think it is something which I should like to pursue.
Baroness White: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has sympathy from all quarters of the House in trying to defend what is becoming increasingly indefensible?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not believe—although the House obviously does—that this is something which is indefensible. Apart from that, I am grateful to the noble Baroness.

Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill
4.5 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Alport Lord Alport moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause:
("Inner London Education Authority.
.—(1) Section 2(1) of this Act shall not apply to the election to the Greater London Council by electors of an inner London borough or of the City of London for membership of the Inner London Education Authority.
(2) Subject to subsection (4) of this section a person elected to be a member of the Inner London Education Authority in accordance with subsection (1) shall hold office for a period of four years from 7th May 1985.
(3) Any person elected to membership of the Inner London Education Authority under subsection (1) or (4) of this section shall be a member of any body or authority which may, as a result of any subsequent enactment, be established to assume the responsibilities and functions of the Inner London Education Authority.
(4) In the event of a vacancy arising among those persons elected to serve on the Inner London Education Authority after 7th May 1985, such vacancy shall be filled by an election held in the electoral district where the vacancy has occurred, and any provisions contained in this Act for the suspension of elections to the Greater London Council will not apply to such an election.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment which I now propose has none of the political undertones which have characterised so much of our previous discussion of this Bill at Committee stage and before. Nor do I think that this amendment is affected, except in a very minor way, by the decision of your Lordships to give approval to Amendment No. 1 a short time ago. This amendment has as its object that we should ensure that, whatever may be the consequences of this Bill for London as a whole, the educational system of inner London shall continue without interruption of its administration.
The importance of this continuity for inner London is because, firstly, there is an important and, up to the present, successful campaign to improve the general quality of secondary education in inner London schools. This follows what Members of the Committee will remember as the Hargreaves Report. Secondly, steps are being taken to improve the provision of education for children with special need. Thirdly, the present ILEA is trying to cope with the very difficult problem of dealing effectively with a contracting school population, which has been falling by an average of 10,000 a year since 1979. This, as your Lordships will well recognise, means the closure of schools and the re-allocation of pupils to different schools, with very great changes taking place, decisions upon which are urgent.
I should say to your Lordships, if I may, that my own knowledge of the education problems of inner London is based simply upon a school founded many years ago by one of the Livery companies in North London, now a very seriously disadvantaged area, which is administered by a governing body of which I am not, and never have been, a member. It comprises members of the court of that company and the governors nominated by the ILEA.
This amendment is in rather different terms from, but has the same object as, an amendment which was moved in another place and debated at a very late hour. Its purpose is to ensure that elections for the ILEA take place in May of next year. Under the present dispensation, membership of the ILEA consists of 35 councillors who are at the same time

163
elected to the GLC by the local government electors of inner London constituencies. There are, in addition, 12 members nominated by the boroughs of inner London and one by the City of London.
If the Bill before us had gone through without amendment, the present ILEA would have ceased to exist at whatever date Parliament decided. A wholly nominated body would then have taken over until 1986, and then, presumably, elections would have been held for the new ILEA at some date after that. If Amendment No. 1 is retained and accepted by the Government, or if decisions are made to extend the life of the present GLC for a period of months, or perhaps until the major Bill has passed through all its stages in the House—whatever decision the Government may make—there is bound to be a period of 18 months or more of very considerable uncertainty with regard to the development of the educational policy in inner London.
My interest, as I have intimated, refers to the Skinners Company's School for Girls at Stamford Hill. That school is a microcosm of the real problems of education in Inner London, partly on account of the very great racial mixture of the pupils in that school and the very great social problems which surround the parents—often single parents—in that part of London. For a school of that sort—and indeed schools of all sorts in Inner London—the standard and efficiency of the administration and the ability of the authorities to make decisions quickly is exceedingly important. As I have said, it is perfectly clear that under the proposed arrangements in the Bill, or whatever new arrangements the Government may put forward in the next few days, there will be an interim period, under different authorities, of very great uncertainty.
The Secretary of State for Education has accepted that the ILEA in the the future, whatever may be the fate of the GLC, shall be elected. Indeed, there are very strong arguments for this, as the Government acknowledged. These were set out by my noble friend Lord Bellwin on 5th April. On that occasion, referring to the White Paper, Streamlining the Cities, he said:
"The White Paper proposed that there should continue to be a unitary education service in Inner London, run by a single education authority. It also proposed that the authority should be a joint board of councillors appointed by the Inner London borough councils and the Common Council of the City.
Those whom we consulted, in particular those Members of this House and others with a close understanding of the needs of education in Inner London, were overwhelmingly in favour of a directly-elected authority. We have been persuaded by their arguments. The nature, scale and importance of the education service in Inner London, taken together, justify a directly-elected authority in this special case".
He went on:
"We propose, therefore, that the successor body to the ILEA should be directly-elected. We intend to provide for this in the main legislation abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, to be introduced in the next Session.—[Official Report, 5/4/84; cols. 817–8.]
If that is the considered view and decision of the Government, why is there any objection on their part to an election taking place to the successor of the ILEA, or to the ILEA itself if the GLC is still in being, in May of next year? That is the date when the election for the ILEA, in parallel with that for the GLC, would have taken place.
Reading the account of the debate in another place, and the Secretary of State's reply to that debate, I have a very clear impression that his own personal wish would be to hold these elections to the ILEA next May, but loyalty to his colleague in the Department of the Environment naturally precluded this. However, he admitted on three occasions during his speech that the Government's interim proposals—that is, for the future of the ILEA—were not perfect. Surely it can only make sense, whatever may be the mischief of this Bill to the GLC, that the body to administrate education in London should be excluded from it. That is what this amendment seeks to do.
What would happen if this amendment is accepted is that elections would take place next May in the Inner London boroughs for 35 members of the ILEA, whether it is regarded as being the present one or the new one. There would be an election for one member by the City of London. I believe your Lordships have agreed on an earlier occasion that the City of London should be, so to speak, comprehended in any plans that may be had in the future for the government of London, whether nominated or whatever it may be.
Under that principle, the election that takes place next May would be for members who would hold office for four years. If under the principal Act a successor authority is established, as indicated in my noble friend's Statement to which I referred, the members elected next May would comprise that authority. If a vacancy occurred, elections would take place as and when necessary in the particular part of London where the vacancy occurred. That is the purpose of the amendment. Thus, the continuity of education administration for Inner London would be safeguarded at a time when, as I have said, it is essential in the interests of 300,000 or more children who depend for their primary and secondary education on Inner London schools.
The difficulties and weaknesses of an interim nominated body or indeed any other interim arrangement would be avoided. Schools like the Skinners's school to which I referred earlier would not have to wait for 18 months, 2 years or perhaps 3 or 4 years before important decisions are made about accommodation and the complement. The elective principle for the education authority for Inner London would be established. Teachers and administrative staff in London's most important public service—and the Government acknowledge that—would be relieved of a long period of uncertainty and frustration, and one of the major disadvantages of the Government's present proposals for the future of London would disappear.
I have drafted this amendment to the very best of my ability to cover all the matters which seem relevant and to give effect to the proposal for which I am asking your Lordships' support. If there are any deficiencies in drafting, they can be put right at a later stage in the progress of the Bill through this House. I most sincerely and earnestly invite my noble friend the Minister to accept the principle of this amendment whit h seeks to give practical effect to the policy to which he and the Government are already committed, and in doing so act in the best interests of the children and people of London generally. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: I should like to intervene briefly to say that I had drafted an amendment which was almost identical in terms to that of the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I think his amendment is a slight improvement. As soon as I saw his amendment on the Marshalled List I immediately added my name.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, has explained with the greatest clarity the purpose of his amendment. It may of course seem slightly hypothetical this afternoon, as most of our proceedings will, but the matters raised in this amendment are, I should have thought, certainly arguments in favour of leaving Amendment No. 1, which was passed in your Lordships' Committee, in which case this amendment would not he necessary. However, the matter certainly deserves to be aired in case, at a later stage, this amendment should prove necessary.
The Bill proposes the nomination of borough councillors—either 35 or 29 (we are not told which) on the old boundaries or the new boundaries—which means that each of the 12 boroughs and the City would need to nominate two or three councillors for the interim period: that is, in addition to those who are already there. These nominated borough councillors would have a terrifying triple mandate. They would be members of the interim GLC, members of ILEA and members of their boroughs. It must also be borne in mind that they would he people who had been elected in 1982 not with this particular purpose in mind and they would be confronted with an enormous volume of work for which they would not necessarily be best fitted. The workload they could expect—that is, borough, GLC and ILEA—would be quite unprecedented and almost certainly physically impossible. That was a point made by Conservative members of the ILEA during a debate I heard in the ILEA chamber towards the end of last year.
The mind really boggles. Here we have the Hargreaves report on improving secondary schools in the Inner London Education Authority area, in which we understand the Secretary of State has taken a great interest and expressed approval of many of its aspects. It has 104 recommendations, and a five-year plan is proposed to implement the report's proposals, some of which are of the greatest importance to education in Inner London. Is it conceivable that an interim body, composed as I have described, could possibly begin to make any advance on the implementation of the Hargreaves Report?
What would happen to the composition of ILEA under the Government's proposals in this Bill bears thinking about. Under the paving Bill the following senior ILEA members would he suspended, because elections would be cancelled, and they would have to be replaced by these inexpert borough councillors. The people who would automatically go are the leader, the chairman and the chief whip—and I speak feelingly of chief whips—but much more importantly, the chairmen of the policy co-ordinating committee, the schools committee, the development committee, the staff and general committee, the staff appeals committee, the equal opportunities committee and the 16 to 19 review committee. All those jobs would fall vacant to be filled by—I do not know whether they would be reluctant amateurs—certainly amateurs, quite unfitted for this task.
166
Therefore, it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has done us a great service in putting forward this amendment. The Secretary of State has committed himself to elections in 1986. We do not yet know the format that he will propose or the number he will envisage on the body. It might possibly be two per constituency, in which case it would be 58, or it might be less. But there is no doubt that under the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, there would be genuine continuity between the old body and the new. That is to say, those who were elected onto Lord Alport's body would stay on and be joined at the time of the 1986 elections by a roughly equal number of new colleagues. We should therefore have continuity on the authority, and it would be able to get on with doing all these extremely important jobs in the field of Inner London education.
On all those grounds I would recommend this amendment very strongly to your Lordships. I do not imagine that the noble Lord will press it this afternoon, but if we have to come back to it at a later stage, I hope that it will gain the approval of your Lordships' Committee.
4.22 p.m.
Baroness David: I should also like to support the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I thought that the amendment was originally put down to save ILEA from the damage done by the Bill, as originally drafted, but now that elections in 1985 have been restored by the passing of the all-party amendment last Thursday, the situation seems to me different. The noble Lord thought that perhaps it was not. There is confusion about this in all our minds, I think, and that has been shown widely by the discussion earlier in the afternoon. It seems to me to be worth while anyway to use the amendment to discover, if possible, the Government's intentions as regards ILEA and to make abundantly clear how important continuity is for ILEA and how damaging three different administrations in three consecutive years would have been to the education service after its 114-year-old unbroken tradition as an education authority directly accountable to the people of Inner London.
Sir Keith Joseph said on 5th April:
"The nature, scale, and importance of the education service in Inner London, taken together, justify a directly elected authority in this special case".
So the point has been conceded that there should be a directly elected authority. Could not the Secretary of State move one further important step forward and agree that the directly elected authority should be elected in May 1985, so that there would be continuity? Sir Keith claimed that an interim GLC/ILEA, composed of nominated borough councillors, would provide, "continuity, capacity and coherence", but I simply cannot believe that. Three-quarters of the membership would disappear to be replaced by borough councillors perhaps with no experience of running an education service and maybe not even an interest in it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, those nominated members would not have the vast amount of time necessary, and Conservative Members agree with that, as he said. Ten of the leading chairmen

167
would go, and many vice-chairmen, too. Sir Keith has admitted that:
"the interim arrangements proposed by the Government are not totally perfect".
That, I should think, was the understatement of the year.
Speaking from my own quite long experience on an education committee. I well remember after elections, when there were a good many new members on the education committee, what a long time it took to run them in, because they simply did not understand the whole service. Many questions were asked. The work took very much longer to get through. I think that these borough councillors, who would not have been elected to perform an education service, would find great difficulties and the service would suffer indescribably. These inexperienced members might have to deal with rate capping. They might have to enforce cuts in the education budget without having the knowledge and understanding of the service necessary to do the job. They would also be responsible for setting the 1986–87 rate budget, even though they would have no responsibility for its implementation, because after the interim year they themselves would be replaced.
The next two years will be very critical, as both noble Lords who have spoken have said. Falling rolls will mean a lot of reorganisation of secondary schools and then there is the development of the new initiatives to improve standards and achievement that have been proposed in the Hargreaves Report, which has been widely acclaimed by everyone, including the Secretary of State. He is very concerned with improving standards. We hope that this work will go on quickly, but certainly it will be infinitely more difficult if temporary councillors are running the service. For all those reasons, I hope that the Minister will have something constructive to say in reply to this amendment, and that the future of ILEA, and, most important, the future of the school children in Inner London, will be firmly secured.
Lord Bellwin: As my noble friend Lord Alport reminded us, on 5th April the Government declared, after consultations and discussions, that they would prefer to have a directly elected body in regard to ILEA. The reason for the change was that the weight of informed opinion among those whose views the Government respected was overwhelmingly in favour of the change. I think that it is probably only fair to say that the Government deserve credit for taking the consultation exercise very seriously. This was one of a number of changes made as a result of the comments we received.
It has to be said, however, that the focus of the argument was on the longer term and the successor body to the ILEA. In the short term the proposals for the interim body did not attract the same weight of comment. This is only reasonable and to be expected, since the interim arrangements are complicated by the wider question of the elections to the GLC itself and the complex relationship between the GLC and the ILEA.
The Government have taken the view that it would be anomalous, and in principle difficult, to attempt to
168
distinguish the ILEA from the GLC in the interim period. The strict legal position is that the ILEA is the GLC, acting through a special committee as the local education authority for the Inner London area. The basic principle of the paving Bill is that it should make the minimum necessary change. We have been scrupulous in not anticipating the provisions which would be proper to the main abolition Bill. Until we are in a position to put forward detailed proposals for the abolition of the GLC, it would surely be premature to set about the task of disentangling the ILEA.
Thus, the interim arrangements for the membership of the ILEA ought to follow those for the GLC. The members of the special committee comprise two groups. First, there are 13 nominees from the Inner London borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London. They are councillors whose term of office on their council runs until May, 1986. So there is no need to take any action in the paving Bill in respect of them. Then, as has been said, there are also 35 elected GLC councillors elected for electoral divisions in the area of the inner London boroughs and the City. They are, ipso facto, members of the special committee by virture of being the GLC councillors for their electoral divisions. Their term of office, like that of all the other GLC councillors, expires in May 1985. The argument about what should happen beyond 1985 is part of the general question which the Government are now considering in the light of the decision on Amendment No. 1. This is why when we were talking earlier I said that there would be areas of difficulty in answering all the points on all the amendments, and this is certainly one of them. Yet it is not my wish—and I think it would be wrong—to put the case against this new clause to strongly.
As my noble friend Lord Alport very properly pointed out, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in replying to a debate on a similar amendment in another place, did not make the error of putting the case against this too strongly. He agreed that there are arguments here on both sides. However, as the Committee will know, in the end the Government would have to be convinced that the alternative proposed was superior to the intention. The considered view at the end is that the practical problems in operating the body in the interim period perhaps should not be exaggerated, and that the case in principle for separating the ILEA from the GLC and treating the two differently is not strong enough.
Another problem is whether it would be right to seek to make permanent arrangements for the ILEA in what is, after all, an interim Bill. This is clearly a difficulty. I hope that the Committee will gather, not only from what I say but from the way in which I say it, that I go along very much with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Here is not an impassioned argument against the amendment—not at all. I think that what my noble friend said, and what the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, is a very fair point of view. However, as in so many things, at the end of the day someone has to take a balanced view. That is why we have come to the conclusion that we have. We think that the weight of the evidence just goes that way, not least because we

169
are in an interim, paving situation. That really is the difficulty that I am in.
I hope that my noble friend who moved the amendment will understand the way in which I am answering. It would not be difficult for me to say that we would have another look at the question. All these matters are not black and white, and open and shut. We think very hard before coming to conclusions. We have just on the balance reached the conclusion which I think is probably right. I cannot go further today, as I am sure the Committee will understand.
Lord Alport: I am very grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. I do not think that those of us who sit on the Back-Benches are always very sympathetic to those sitting on the Front Bench. However, on this particular occasion and during the debates on this Bill my sympathies lie entirely with my noble friend Lord Bellwin. At the present moment he has the hopeless and impossible task of trying to answer questions. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said something to this effect: if the Government do not know their mind, how on earth are we supposed to understand it ourselves?
I accept that my noble friend has done his best to stall at the present moment. I do not propose to carry this amendment further at this stage. I very much hope that my noble friend and the Government—and in particular the Secretary of State for Education—will consider this matter because I can assure him that there are very strong arguments on our side of the balance. I would submit to the Government that there are better arguments on our side than on their side. I hope that at the next stage, if it proves necessary, we will be able to prove that the proposals that are represented by this amendment are superior to the proposal which the Government have put forward. However, that remains for another stage.
I can assure my noble friend that I will return to this with a revised amendment which will include something which I overlooked in the present one, which is divorcing the ILEA from the GLC so that it would cease to be a sub-committee of the GLC after the election in May. That was the loophole which I forgot. So my noble friend has given me an opportunity of improving the amendment at the next stage. I am grateful to him for that. I am grateful to him for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness David: Before the amendment is withdrawn, I should like to say I was not quite so happy with the Minister's reply as the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I hope that when the Government are considering what they are going to do about the ILEA elections that it will not be the convenience of the Government's legislative programme which will be their prime thought but that it will be the 300,000—I think that is the number—of schoolchildren who are under the authority of ILEA.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Replacement of councillors]:
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 21A not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Filling of vacancies]:
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 22A not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment Nos. 23 and 24:
Page 4, line 27, leave out ("any provision of").
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("under that provision").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 23 and 24. These are technical amendments. They do not in any way alter the operation of Clause 4, which deals with the filling of casual vacancies. I have been advised that it is not strictly technically correct for Clause 4(7) to require the substituted appointment to be made under the provision under which the original appointment was made. I am aware that Clause 4 is not—shall I say?—the most transparent of clauses. However, I can assure the Committee that the effect of the clause is in no way altered by these two technical amendments which I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Supplementary provisions]:
4.38 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 6, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 25, I also intend to speak to Amendment No. 26.
Amendment No. 26: Page 5, line 13, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 14 and insert ("and no order shall be made under subsection (3) above unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
These amendments relate to the powers which the Secretary of State is seeking to reduce the quorum at the metropolitan county council and GLC meetings. For the benefit of the Committee I will read out parts of Clause 5 and subsections (3) and (4). I believe that the proposed power of the Secretary of State is quite breathtaking. In Clause 5(3) it states:
"If the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the transaction of business at meetings of a council whose members are appointed under this Part of this Act he may by order prescribe for meetings of that council a quorum which is smaller than that specified in paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 to the principal Act".
Subsection (4) states:
"The power to make orders under subsection (3) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
A number of serious questions need to be asked both as to the purpose of the amendments and the consequences of the amendments. First of all, as we know, the quorum has a very hallowed place in the democratic practices of this Chamber and of any other democratically elected body. The number of people in any body who by standing orders must be present in order that the business be valid is always given very careful consideration.
As we know, it is in order to give some substance and strength to the decisions of the committee, the council, the House, the authority, or whatever it is. It is normally fixed at the lowest possible number consistent with the ability to say, after a decision has

171
been taken, that an adequate number of individuals were present. In no way can we see any possibility for a lower limit to the quorum. What the Bill says is that the Secretary of State himself shall decide the lowest possible number that need to be present in order that the business shall be valid. There is no power-making authority on the face of the Bill to ensure consultation with the authority concerned before the lower figure is fixed.
We realise that the prime tenet of the Government in local government legislation is to centralise the maximum amount of power in the hands of central government. This is a very good illustration. We come later to amendments that deal with the substance of how the Government will persist in interfering with the ability of a county council to carry out its work. Here, the Secretary of State is saying that he will decide without consultation the lowest number of people who, in his opinion, are competent to be present in order to give the business that is carried out validity and purpose. We consider that this constitutes an unwarranted interference by central government.
Of course, we are aware of what the Government are seeking to anticipate. It is the possibility that if the quorum remains at the level at which it is presently pitched and the Secretary of State does not take these powers, it will be possible for members to absent themselves from a council, which democratically they are entitled to do, and thereby invalidate the quorum that at present exists. This is the argument that we have already seen trailed. It is possible, judging by the statements made earlier today, that the Government do not know what is going to happen, that they do not know what legislation they are going to ask us to approve, and that they do not know the powers of the abolition Bill. In this realm of fantasy, let us therefore try to imagine what is to happen and come forward with legislation to check what the Government are going to do. We believe that the Government have to make out a much more substantial case. They have made no case so far in this Committee for the reason that they seek to anticipate an event that hinges upon a premise that may well have a false base.
All this matter is in conjecture following upon last week's decision and today's statement, and anticipating tomorrow's statement and Thursday's Cabinet decision. The Government Chief Whip asks us to proceed because there may be no changes at all. We cannot make any assumptions; we cannot make any guesses; we have simply to proceed. However, as I see it, the Government are saying that they anticipate the possibility of some mischievous people seeking to thwart the main intentions of the Bill, the details of which we have not had for a period of time, the length of which we do not know. Whether the interim is two months, 12 months or whatever, the Government are saying that they want to make certain that there is no way that anyone can turn.
The only saving grace is that subsection (4) contains the possibility that a statutory instrument will be laid so that we shall at least have the opportunity of scrutinising what the Government intend to do. However, we are very unhappy indeed. This is a matter that hinges absolutely on Amendment No. 1. We know the effect of Amendment No. 1. However,
172
until the Government say what they intend to do about Amendment No. 1, we remain far from happy and very much opposed to what the Government intend in Clause 5(3) and (4). At this stage, before coming back to the issue, we await to hear the Government's justification of their case based on something more than a premise or an assumption. It has to be based on something solid, not something insecure and insubstantial. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques): If this amendment were agreed to, I could not call Amendment No. 26.
Lord Evans of Claughton: I should like to say briefly that I support the amendment. We have here another example of the cart being put before the horse. If the Government had proceeded by the more conventional and well-established method of agreeing the substantial reforms first and introducing the interim provisions secondly, with the substantive legislation agreed, they could have gone about dealing with the status of the quorum in the usual way of allowing it to be fixed by the local authority itself. They are now taking the step of putting the transitional provisions first, demonstrating that they cannot trust local councils to behave responsibly, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has indicated.
Surely, this is a prime example of where the Government have got it all wrong. You pass the substantive regulations and conditions first so that you have a body with statutory approval that is able to introduce a quorum and things of that nature, during its term of office. Now we are imposing on a nonexistent council the ability of the Secretary of State to reduce the quorum because it is not known how the interim authority will behave and react. This is a problem of the Government's own making, and they should, in all good will, withdraw this and reconsider the matter in the light of what has happened during the Committee stage of this Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I speak against the amendment. Those who think that this is an outrageous power to take are not correct. They really do not understand how difficult it is at present to maintain a quorum at County Hall. Hardly a meeting goes by without the quorum bell having to be rung. I have known occasions under the present administration in the last few years when the business of the council has had to be adjourned for lack of a quorum. If that situation exists now, when we are supposed to be governing London well, how much greater will be the risk if there is any attempt at deliberate obstruction afterwards?
The present administration of the Greater London Council, after taking power, arbitrarily reduced the numbers on all committees without any consultation, and certainly with no agreement. It might be wrong to say "without any consultation". There might have been minimal consultations; but there was certainly no agreement with the other parties. The membership of all committees was suddenly reduced in number by hall. There have been arbitrary decisions taken. We cannot rely on the common sense of the council in this matter. I believe, therefore, that this power may be

173
necessary. Adequate protection is already built in under subsection (4) whereby the Government would have to justify to Parliament the reason for the need to bring in a different quorum. I think it an important part of the Bill, and I oppose the amendment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Can the noble Baroness give us any idea whether her remarks regarding the Greater London Council apply to the six metropolitan counties? Has she any reason to believe that they are not maintaining a quorum?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I am not able to comment on those councils; I have no direct personal experience. But, again, I believe it is covered by subsection (4), whereby, if the opportunity was taken to make some alteration of the quorum in the metropolitan interim authorities, it would have to be justified through the House at the time. I do not therefore think that there is any danger in that.
Baroness Denington: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for all the information she has given us. I must say that I am horrified by it. But it seems to me that there is no reason for this Committee to act badly simply because one council, whichever council it is, has itself acted badly.
Lord Bellwin: I think the first point to make here is that if it was ever necessary to use this power to adjust a quorum, it would be only in response to obstruction; that would be the only time when it would be necessary. The powers which subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 5 confer on the Secretary of State are a very necessary safeguard. I fully expect constituent councils and their members to behave responsibly. As I said before, if they do, there is no need at all for this power ever to be exercised.
The first amendment would give a group of constituent councils, or a sufficiently large group of like-minded appointees, the ability to prevent a transitional council from transacting any business. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that we do not know, and so forth, and therefore the debate is in that context. But the fact is that appointees would need only to stay away from meetings and they would have a power, in fact, a veto, out of all proportion to their representation.
The local electorate have a right to be protected from such an eventuality; hence the inclusion of the power to reduce the necessary quorum. By removing that power we would leave the transitional council open to disruption. We need the safeguard against such actions which subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 5 provide. I say again that I hope one would never need to use them; but in hoping for the best, one must always prepare for the worst. Amendment No. 26 is unnecessary because any order altering a quorum would be made under the power contained in this Bill, which would recently have been approved fully by Parliament. It is entirely appropriate for such orders to be subject to a negative resolution of either House, and that is what we are providing for.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, said—I wrote it down; he knows that I do that when he or anyone else
174
speaks, if I am to respond—the Government feared that there may be mischievous people who will seek to thwart, and so on. They are on record. These people say that it will be part of the policy to disrupt; there is no secret about that. The noble Lord said that people are entitled democratically to absent themselves, and that what we are contemplating is in the realm of fantasy. Not much fantasy! In fact, these are commitments which are spoken of openly every day by various people, and, to my regret, not just by the GLC leadership. They feel that this is a way in which they could thwart the working of the councils. Therefore, surely it must be right for a Government to protect the situation should that ever arise.
Despite what is said at these moments, I believe that members of the metropolitan county councils, who I know very much better than I know the ones in the GLC, are responsible people. Despite what they say at a time like this, when all the argument is going on, I do not think they would do that when things are in place. But to decide, when we are trying to introduce a Bill that covers all the authorities, not to take any steps to deal with such a situation, should it arise, would be very dangerous for a Government and would be something we really could not accept.
I do not want to go into what people have said, because, as I say, I think they say these things at times like these, and I do not want to make capital out of that. But we would be very wrong to assume that it could not happen and wrong not to take some steps in case it ever did. If it does not happen, then nobody has anything at all to be concerned about.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister talks in terms of the likelihood of something happening, based upon assumptions which he has drawn from statements that have been made. I want to face the Committee with this further reality of the Government's attitude. This is a simple matter of a quorum at a council meeting or a council committee meeting. The Government feel constrained, in a piece of legislation, to deal with the quorum at a council committee meeting. I know the Minister is going to say that enormous consequences could flow from the absence of a quorum—that is, a larger quorum—and it is a question of looking forward.
This is not the first occasion when the Government have said that it is their responsibility to look at every little bit of detail about how local government works, and to anticipate an eventuality. The Secretary of State has discretion as to the number, but I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that, as well, it is going to be some future Secretary of State of a different party. The Government say they believe it is right that, to this extent, power should be aggregated to the centre.
I am saying simply that there are two ways of doing this. If, from the Government's point of view, the worst came to the worst—that is, they have got their legislation, but it was being thwarted—the Government have powers. There are emergencies. There are situations where one comes to the House and says, "This, in actual fact, is what is happening; there is a defiance, and not only defiance but a consequence; and it is an appalling consequence

175
because the government of London, or the Midlands, or Merseyside, cannot continue". Are the Government telling us that, faced with a concrete situation such as that, there is no parliamentary device whereby, in the light of a fait accompli, it is possible for them to say, "We want powers to deal with this emergency situation"?
The Minister has been very fair. He hopes very much that good sense will prevail; that it may not happen; that he may not have to exercise the power; that it may not be necessary. I am prepared to agree with him. I cannot anticipate what colleagues outside will be moved to do, or attempt to do; certainly I have no power to underwrite their threats or statements. All I am saying is that the Committee needs to be very well aware that this is a Government who are prepared not only to anticipate but also to go further and further, as a central Government, into the nitty-gritty of how local councils work. If the Government are saying they have justification, not for setting a quorum but for reserving to themselves the right to set a quorum, for as long as they consider necessary in the future, what else is there left in local government management where this Government will not say at some stage, "We believe this or that can happen and therefore we reserve or we take the right in legislation to look after it"?
We do not intend to press these amendments to votes at this time. Besides the whole uncertainty as to what we are going to be faced with in the next few months, or the next 12 months, until the main legislation is through, there is a very serious principle which the Government are asking the Committee to endorse—that is, that the Secretary of State shall have one further arrow in his armoury to deal with a situation that may or may not arise. We believe that it would be a retrograde step. Before I sit down, I shall allow the noble Lord to use the time-hallowed words, "Before he sits down".
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Please sit down.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am finished.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I want to say only a few words, not as an intervention in the noble Lord's speech, but simply by way of comment. If, in the face of the threats that have been uttered, particularly, let us say, by the leaders of the GLC, the Government did not introduce as a precaution a clause of this kind, or two subsections of this kind, in my view they would be guilty of the grossest negligence. These threats have been uttered. If they were applied, and if no powers had been taken, local government could be paralysed. I think the Government would be very much at fault if they did not take this step.
For the noble Lord opposite to say that this shows a desire by the Government to intervene in the nittygritty—that was his phrase—of local government is the greatest nonsense. If the local authorities concerned behave properly, we shall hear nothing of the exercise of these powers. But if they do not, I am sure that the Government will exercise them. For the noble Lord to say that the Government should wait until this has happened and then look for some either strange or
176
extraordinary power—which the noble Lord did not bother to specify—with which to intervene or introduce the whole process of separate legislation through both Houses, is not a responsible way in which to carry on government. If that is the noble Lord's idea of the way in which to carry on government, one can well understand why the Labour Party got in a mess when they were in power.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord invites the Committee to pass this legislation on the ground that he would assume that councils would behave properly. If they behave properly, legislation will not be necessary. Who is to decide whether a council has behaved properly or improperly? Apparently the Secretary of State. There may be some matters at which the noble Lord would not take offence but at which the Secretary of State would. We have spoken in terms of waiting until the event. I am simply saying that the enormity of the power which the Secretary of State will take unto himself is sufficient for me to be prepared to wait.
The noble Lord asked what kind of action could be taken. I have been a Member of another place when legislation has been passed very quickly, although not without opposition. Normally we went through the proper processes of scrutiny, filibustering, long talks, etc. But when an emergency occurred the Government came to the House and said that there was a matter which could only be dealt with by emergency legislation.
I am not talking about reactivating powers, which is what would happen in this case. We still have a long way to go. It could be as long as 12 months. If matters proceed in the way in which both the Government and this side of the Committee believe they will, the main Bill could very well be before this House about this time next year, and the matter would still not be resolved. Therefore, there is a long way to go.
There will be no compromise. It is the Government's intention to abolish and it is our intention to resist. But atmospheres can change. The Government can reflect on powers and there can be reflections in other places. In my view, the enormity of what the Government want means that we should wait. Apparently it is now proper to consider that where one anticipates events, one actually gets down to determining the quorum of a county council.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, quite rightly pointed to some inabilities in the GLC to keep to a quorum. This certainly has not been by design; it has been by bad management. However small or large the quorum may be, it can apparently be used by people on a council now. So one assumes that when the power is effective and the quorum is reduced, it will then be capable of being manipulated. I believe that it should be the proper function of a council to decide whether or not its quorum is inadequate, and not the function of government.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I believe that it is very much by design now, because it is a deliberate way of attempting to prevent minority business being dealt with.
Lord Bellwin: I do not want to go on about this and I have tried not to overstate the case; I do not want to reel off a whole series of quotations by people, and so on. However, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter put the case so rightly. The Government would be monumentally neglectful if they took no heed at all of all those matters and did not recognise that the statements made are part of an absolute policy to thwart the legislation. I shall not say any more because, if I do, I shall be drawn into the nuts and bolts of the matter and I do not want to do that now, certainly in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said about it. Therefore, on this matter we shall have to agree to differ.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I intend to withdraw this amendment, but this particular Secretary of State, who is in charge of other departments, is no stranger to actions of an arbitrary nature being taken to the courts and challenged. When the noble Lord was a Minister of health he took actions in the exercise of what he considered to be his powers and found that he came adrift when they were challenged in the courts. I am simply saying that this is yet another minefield in which this Secretary of State, let alone this Government, is likely to find himself. I certainly shall not shed any tears if expenditure of public money, time and aggravation is the net result of this legislation. We are far from happy. We are not prepared to let the matter rest, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
5.7 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause:
("Duration
. Part II of this Act shall cease to have effect as from 1st April 1986 and thereupon any enactment repealed by this Act shall revive.").
The noble Baroness said: On Second Reading, at col. 908 of Hansard on 11th June this year, I asked the Minister for a guarantee that the term of these non-elected councillors would not be extended to two years. He did not respond.' I asked him for a very specific reply that the 11 months, which had been stated throughout, would be the real and the actual as well as the notional time limit for these non-elected councillors. As was made clear from the discussions on the first amendment, it is our intention to remove the interim councils from this Bill and, indeed, the whole Bill may turn out to be quite superfluous in a very short time. But we are plugging on and discussing it today and, as we are discussing it, I believe that it is important to highlight some of the points which aggravate what is far from being anything like a good Bill or a good piece of legislation in any case.
The Government have continued to assert that these interim GLC and metropolitan county councillors will last for only 11 months, and in the wider spectrum of what happens about abolition itself it is important to look at the times set by the Government and at what is needed to be done within that time, and to ask the
178
Government whether they recognise that their self-imposed 11-month timetable is totally unrealistic. Certainly they would be wise to do so.
Whether or not there are interim councils, the timetable for the run up to the abolition Bill, which they have threatened to introduce, is of the greatest importance. During that period action will have to be taken, first, to transfer staff to the 67 district and borough councils and the 20 or more joint boards which the Government are talking of setting up, although I must hastily repeat that as no one has had any sight of the proposals and as it does not appear that the Government have yet got down to drafting them—in fact, we do not even know how far they have advanced on the drawing board—this may also be the realms of mythology.
Secondly, they will have to transfer assets, including buildings and equipment, to the district and borough councils and also to the boards or other quangos that are set up. They will have to decide the title to assets. They will have to set up 20 or more new joint boards, each having its own tax-raising power. They will have to appoint the members of these new quangos and appoint their staff.
There will have to be a basis on which they are appointed. Are there going to be extended lists of the great and the good, many of whom will sit on a certain number of boards? Will there be a limit to the number of quangos on which the same person can sit, and rush from one to the other? How are the staff going to be appointed? Will they be taken on from the metropolitan counties, or is it proposed that they try to take on staff from the GLC? They will have to transfer functions to borough and district councils. Boroughs and districts will need to appoint staff dealing with transferred functions or train existing staff.
The Government will have to adjust the rate-support grant system. Existing bodies—for example, the Arts Council, the Historic Buildings Commission, the DoE, and all the other organisations dealing with the world of art, leisure and conservation—will have to be prepared to receive transferred functions. There is the question of all the voluntary bodies and how they will be helped to proceed when in the past they have been dependent on financial help and resources from the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
Even the Government do not appear to believe that these interim councils, to which they still appear to be wedded, will last only 11 months, since in the Bill there is no provision for a final date on which the interim councils will leave office. This means that in theory, and so far as the legislation is concerned, they could go on for ever. This amendment seeks to put in the Bill the deadline of 1st April 1986. In other words, that is what the Government themselves continue to assert.
The amendment approved by the Committee last Thursday ensures that no order cancelling the 1985 elections can be made until Parliament has enacted the main abolition and reorganisation legislation. This can only be right. Despite the claims of precedent for the paving Bill, all the precedents point to the continuation of elections until Parliament has agreed both the new structure and the date when it is to he in place. In other words, when it is to be implemented.
In the 1972 reorganisation, elections continued until the end of 1972 during, and indeed after, the passing of the Local Government Act 1972. That Act saw 1st April 1974 as the start date for the successor authorities, and in the knowledge that they had approved that start date Parliament suspended the 1973 elections and introduced transitional arrangements. But of course the legislation had already gone through. Nothing like that is being proposed in this Bill. The Bill proposes the cancellation of elections before Parliament has approved the new structure.
This basic flaw has now been amended by the passage of Amendment No. 1 last week, but it still proposes transitional arrangements for appointed interim county councils before Parliament has agreed a start date for the new structure; in other words, before we know when the new legislation—if it is passed by both Houses of Parliament and gets Royal Assent—in fact will be implemented.
The 1st April 1986 might be the Government's intention but is not necessarily Parliament's intention. This amendment would take the Government at their word and ensure that the interim councils do not continue beyond the date set by the Government. The benefits of adopting the amendment—although we are speaking throughout this Committee stage partly in reality and partly in complete unreality—are that it avoids the risk that the cancellation of elections may be followed by a failure of the main abolition Bill and appointed county councillors being left in office indefinitely. They could be left there for a four-year term as district councillors, then to be replaced by further district councillors, and so on, with no further obligation in statute on the Secretary of State to restore the existing electoral system.
The amendment would ensure that the appointed county council system really is an interim provision —if that ever sees the light of day—and it guards against enactment of an indefinite, undemocratic system, which the Bill's own Long Title clearly never intended, and ensures that the system proposed is only transitional up to the White Paper's projected abolition date of 1st April 1986.
It is important—particularly in the middle of the situation we are in at the moment, and if we are to discuss this Bill at all—that we should be using this opportunity in order to find out much more about the Government's intentions and get some answers to the many questions which are raised in the minds of many of us whatever party we belong to, so that we know how the Government propose to go about what is a major reorganisation of local government. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: Amendment No. 27 alights on the date of 1st April 1986 as the date by which the whole of Part II of the Bill will be brought to an end. There is no need for this deadline. Clause 1 of the Bill includes a provision for the repeal of interim measures and the restoration of the original situation should the main Bill fail at any stage. If the main Bill fails after Part II has commenced, then Part II will be repealed. If abolition goes ahead, then the transitional councils, in whatever form they may be if they are there, will terminate according to the provisions of the main Bill.
180
To put a specific deadline in this Bill is not only unnecessary but it prejudges Parliament's timetable for considering the main Bill, and prejudges Parliament's consideration of that Bill since it is that Bill which will specify the abolition dates. I take the noble Baroness's point that there is a difficulty in discussing this because there is that which is as yet unresolved and about which we need to know, but in the circumstances as they are I do not think I can add any more to help the noble Baroness. If she says that she wants to ascertain more of the Government's intentions, well, those are the Government's intentions and I have explained—even if in only a few words—why in practical terms this is not an amendment that the Government could accept.
Baroness Birk: The reply is unsatisfactory and shows clearly the difficulties under which the Minister is having to work as well as the difficulties we are in when asking these questions, he being unable to provide the answers. I do not think that the noble Lord is unwilling to provide the answers. I cannot understand why all the way through we are told that the interim councillors will be there for 11 months. I mentioned in moving Amendment 17A what the Secretary of State had said in another place about it not being worth having elections for a few months. The Government seem to have made up their mind, but on the other hand we have no information that there is any substantial infrastructure to these beliefs of theirs that they can in fact complete all this tremendous work, which I am afraid I spelled out in some detail, within the 11 months.
I find it unsatisfactory that one should rely on the repeal order parts of this Bill. Are we going to have a series of repeals every time the Government find that it is literally impossible to be able to come up to the timetable which they are trying to attain? This is going to be extremely unsatisfactory.
If this does not take place, and if there is this long extended period, there will be a number of problems to which we have not had any answers. The answer which the Minister was trying to give does not answer the point that I was making, and does not alter the position at all. I think that he was aware of that.
In the light of the amendment that was passed last week, we are all agreed that this is an unsatisfactory way to deal with the Bill and a useless way to spend our time. Quite frankly, I should rather watch Wimbledon on television—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Or cricket.
Baroness Birk: Or cricket. I should prefer to watch Wimbledon, rather than to discuss these amendments in the political contours in which we are discussing them today. Although it may be, and probably will be, necessary to return to this question on another occasion, I now propose to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Establishment and functions of staff commission]:
5.21 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 5, line 34, leave out from ("such") to ("shall") in line 36 and insert ("relevant authorities, bodies representative of such authorities, and staff employed by them").
The noble Lord said: I should be grateful if, with this amendment, there are considered Amendments Nos. 30 and 31.
Amendment No. 30: Page 5, line 36, leave out ("not later than one month after the passing of this Act").
Amendment No. 31: Page 5, line 37, after ("Act") insert ("if those authorities and bodies consulted under this subsection agree that it shall be expedient to do so").
The first amendment seeks to broaden the consultations which the Secretary of State will be required to undertake before establishing the staff commission and to remove the element of discretion in the consultation he makes. Clause 6(1) requires the Secretary of State to consult such of the local authority associations, or of the local authority unions,
"as appear to him to be concerned".
before establishing the staff commission. This subsection also requires the commission to be established within one month after the enactment of the Bill. Amendment No. 30 tries to deal with removing the requirement for the staff commission to be established within such a short period of the passing of the Bill.
The second amendment proposes to allow sufficient time for serious, in-depth consultation to take place before the establishment of the commission. So far as I am aware, there has so far been no discussion about the type of issues which are likely to arise. The position is so uncertain at the moment, and will be uncertain until the enactment of the main Bill. Already a number of changes have been introduced by the Government, and it seems that one month is far too short a period. It seems that a consultation period of a month cannot be intended by the Government to be extensive, nor to be to any degree a serious consultation process.
There is no requirement to consult the local authorities themselves. These are the bodies which will be most directly concerned and affected by the staffing implications of the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the Greater London Council. The clause defines the GLC, the metropolitan counties, the boroughs, the districts and the common councils as "relevant authorities", but there is apparently to be no opportunity for them to take part in the consultations.
The Secretary of State apparently intends to undertake consultation through the local authority associations. One of those is a body that I am connected with, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which represents all the authorities that are the subject of this paving Bill. The Secretary of State appears to consider, judging from the proposed legislation, that consultations with the AMA is sufficient. I have no criticism to make of the AMA; as such it is an efficient body, and I have the honour to be a vice-president. But since the AMA represents a considerable breadth of varying opinions—it
182
represents metropolitan district councils, metropolitan county councils, and the Greater London Council—the difference in interests of the authorities has always been a problem. As will be recognised, there is a considerable clash of interest among the councils. For instance, the metropolitan district council in whose area I live may favour abolition of the metropolitan county, while the Merseyside County Council, which also covers my area, is very much against abolition. Thus, even with the best will in the world, the AMA will be in great difficulty in representing such disparate interests.
Other associations represent some of the local authorities at regional level—such as the Association of London Authorities, which has recently received recognition—and they will be in a similar position, representing a large number of authorities with differing interests on staffing issues. Associations can be placed in the totally unacceptable position of having to speak for a large number of authorities at a time when the abolition question will be far from settled in the final Bill, which, presumably, we shall not be considering until the next session.
As I have said before, it is important to remember that, since the AMA represents the GLC, the metropolitan boroughs and the metropolitan councils, there is, inevitably, a conflict of interests. Therefore it seems to me that it would be preferable for the authorities directly facing abolition individually to have the opportunity to take part themselves in any discussions, so as to enable local problems to be identified at an early stage. The subsection would allow the Secretary of State discretion to choose which associations to consult. It is claimed by the Government that the staff commission is to be established primarily to look after the interests of local authority employees facing transfer or redundancy following abolition. To allow discretion to the Secretary of State in this instance seems not only unnecessary, but wrong in principle.
The legislation should seek to ensure that everything possible is done to protect the interests of staff who might otherwise be the victims of abolition programmes and who might face considerable hardship in the process. To require the Secretary of State to enter into full consultation with all organisations involved may be inconvenient to the Government, but it would seem to be the minimum form of protection which the legislation should afford. We have spent so much time considering the future of the councils themselves, but it is the individual employees who will be affected by the changes much more perhaps than the electors, the ratepayers and the councillors. They are the people whose jobs depend on the matter being considered in a conscientious and sympathetic way. These amendments seek to make that consideration more sympathetic and they would enable the staff to feel that they and their problems were being taken more seriously. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I hope that the Minister is prepared to consider this series of three amendments in the spirit in which Members on this side of the Committee have considered earlier amendments; that is, that we recognise the difficulties that we are all in at this stage in the light of last week's decision. We have

183
sought to indicate that at this stage we are prepared to press matters not to finality, but to something approaching finality, in regard to a vote on the issues, one way or the other. Here is a group of amendments that we may not be pressing. However, the Minister should say something helpful about his and his colleagues' willingness to consider the seriousness of what has been said so reasonably and authoritatively by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton. His concluding words ought to be taken very much to heart.
At the end of the day we are not simply removing lines from the local government map of this country, we are not simply changing the possibility of political power, but we are actually affecting the professional lives, and life in every way, of literally thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of men and women. Therefore, we ought to reflect. Although what is proposed looks neat and tidy—and from the Government point of view watertight—we nevertheless ought to ask: "What is it that the employees have to say on every bit of mechanism which is forming part of this legislation?" As I understand it, the view of the unions affected—the unions themselves and not the authorities—has not been sought on the nature of a staff commission, the functions of a staff commission, and so on.
I happen, not uniquely I am sure in your Lordships' House, to have been very heavily involved in local government at the time of the reorganisation of London local government in 1963–64, when I was a member of the Enfield authority. I can tell the Minister that it was one of the most traumatic experiences that I have had in local government; because what the staff commission then did and how it did it—and I have no complaints—really meant that when it came to a question of creating posts, of designating posts and slotting people in and hoping that they fitted in was a nightmare for the councillors let alone for the officers who were affected. There were very many distressing situations. That is the size of the problem that we have got.
One of the things that we cannot understand is the Government's unwillingness to consult meaningfully and openly with the people with whom one is going to have to work. The Minister is going to have to work very closely with people in local government. This Minister more than most in your Lordships' House, but not exclusively, is very well versed in local government matters. He must know that the councils who are affected will not want to have their responsibilities for their employees handled once remove. They will want to have an input into the actual mechanics.
What is this series of amendments saying? We are simply saying to the Government that it is much better to get it right than to get it done quickly. The Government intend within one month—and as the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, has said, a month is a terribly short period of time—to have meaningful consultations with the authorities. And there is only one authority, as we see it, which is likely to have a prescriptive right to be consulted; and that is the AMA. Within the AMA, you have got the metropolitan and the London boroughs but, as the
184
noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, pointed out, there are different records to be judged, there are different attitudes and the AMA—and it has the highest regard of the Minister, as I know, for the work that it is doing—will do as good a job as possible to represent what the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, called the disparate nature of the interests that are affected. What we are saying is this. Why provide the AMA with the difficult task of representing the individual authorities? Why not allow the individual authorities to have a direct input in the consultative process? That is the first part of the amendment.
Secondly, we are asking: why tie yourself down to one month? It may take a little longer. It may be possible, if the consultation is proper consultation, to be able to produce the staff commission and its plan within a month. I suggest that it is more likely to be obtained within a month by consultation than without consultation. If it is produced after a month but without the agreement of the authorities, you have a recipe for delay and procrastination.
The third sprig to the trio of suggestions is that nothing should proceed without agreement. I know the Minister will say that here is another device that can be seized upon before we make progress. Well, I am not going to pre-empt the tactics of anyone outside. I am simply going to say this. Is this not a time when the Government ought to be looking for some friends in the reality of the world after the passage or the abandonment of the Bill? This Government have plans, I believe, to continue to have relationships with councils, unions and individuals outside the scope of this Bill. If the Government could say something helpful that we could work on between now and the Report stage I think it would be helpful not only to the Government but also to this Committee.
The case that has been made—and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, will readily admit it—is not merely his own case; it is the collective view of the local authority associations, the collective view of all of them, representing, certainly, 18 million voters. To talk in terms of reality, it is representing thousands of men and women whose future welfare and happiness are going to be affected by the staff commission. The staff commission is needed. We are not arguing about the mechanism. For the very helpful people who served during the London reorganisation I have the highest regard. No one ever queried the authority of what they did. They had permanent civil servants, they had ex-town clerks. They did a wonderful job. I have no doubt that the people who will serve on this commission will be chosen from the same good stables. We are simply saying: let them have a better chance of doing the job by consulting with a wider group of people than appears to be in the mind of the Minister at the moment. I hope the Minister can say something helpful.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I am rather confused. I read Clause 6 quite differently from the noble Lord. I think that this is a protection for those who are employed. This is to set up a commission to look after their interests at the end of the day. The one month is written in to indicate that they have got to get down to looking after the interests of the employees very

185
quickly and not to keep pushing their task under the rug. So, far from this Clause 6 being the terrible thing that the noble Lord seemed to suggest—and I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, seemed to have the same view—this I read as a protection for the employees and as the sort of thing that the employers would rather not have in, if you like. Within one month the staff have got to be looked after and the commission has got to be set up to see that from the outset their interests are properly taken into account. I think that that is a good clause.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I should like to support what was said by my noble friend and by the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches. I was a member of the New Town Staff Commission, which was a very difficult commission. It dealt with the handing over of housing from the new towns to the local authorities, with all the problems of dealing with housing staff in the new towns and with what would happen to them. It was a long and detailed matter. We sat for 15 or 16 months. I think, meeting very regularly and the reports were compiled and available to Government.
What my noble friends on this side of the Committee have said is that the issue is about individual people. It very often comes down to individuals and to what is going to happen to a particular individual. This is going to be a much more difficult commission than the one on which I sat, which concerned a straightforward issue of transfer from a new town to an individual local authority. This will mean that there will be various local authorities who will have portions of the powers now held by the counties and the GLC. It is not just one local authority that is affected; they are all going to be a little jealous about not having too many of the staff because of the rate support grant and all the problems with which that confronts them. Obviously there will be problems from the counties which will be wanting to keep their teams together as far as possible and there will be the conflicting situations with established officers who are in the district and the boroughs. It is a very difficult job.
I can remember distinctly—and this is where I went along with what was said by the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches—the need to understand each of the local authorities' opinions and those of the staff associations in those areas. We made a point on the staff commission that we visited all those persons concerned, we met staff associations and local authority representation in all the areas in which the new town housing had to go over. I would commend the Government, if they have not already done so—and no doubt the noble Lord has already read the report on the passing over of the housing in the GLC area—to study very particularly the recommendations that the commission made. They could then see, if there were any difficulties or problems in the passing over of staff, that they do not occur this time.
The Earl of Kintore: Having gone through the local government reorganisation in Scotland, when the Government succeeded in greatly accelerating the cost to local government, satisfying nobody, I hope that this time they will really look at all points of view. For example, our people who represent COSLA do not
186
really represent more than Glasgow. Therefore, I think there is a great deal of merit behind the suggestions that have been made on the other side and I hope that Government will look into this. I shall say no more, but it is an important point.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Kintore and the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, because they have made several of the points that I wanted to make myself. I think it would be helpful to the Committee if I said first of all that this commission is nothing unusual. In relation to the two reorganisations that we have on the statute book to date, namely the 1963 London Government Act and the 1972 Local Government Act—indeed within certain tolerances which will become obvious as I speak—it is identical to those two staff commissions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham; I think it is common ground that a staff commission of some sort in such circumstances should be set up. But I also think it is important for me to tell the Committee that its main purpose will be to ensure fair treatment to staff affected by the abolition, working by influence and persuasion, in consultation with representative bodies of staff and employers, as well as the authorities concerned. That is one of the points that has been made in this small debate.
The Commission will consider the need for special procedures for recruiting staff by successor bodies, for example the ring fencing of posts, to give the Greater London Council or the metropolitan county council staffs a proper opportunity to obtain posts in the new structure. It will look at any arrangements for the block transfer of staff. It will keep staff informed of matters affecting their interests and the commission will ensure that appeals machinery exists to consider hardship and other relevant appeals, which I am sure the whole Committee would agree is the only right and proper thing to do.
I accept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, has said, that this will take some time to achieve. She spoke of 15 to 16 months on the New Town Staff Commission, of which she was a very distinguished member. I think it is entirely right that the Government are seeking to set up this commission in very good time and that by the planned date of the commencement of the main Bill it is likely to have been in operation for some 20 months, give or take the odd months which cannot be decided upon, as usual, until the main Bill has the total approval of Parliament and is on the statute book.
On the face of it, I must admit that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, were quite a good idea. They really were: and I looked at them, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham, as I always do, with great care. Merely to place a limited constraint on the Secretary of State's duty—and it is a very important duty—to establish a staff commission seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But on further study I found that their effect was really quite different. These three amendments actually achieved something I am sure no member of the Committee would want; namely, to put the very existence of such a commission in jeopardy by requiring the Secretary of State to consult individual staff and authorities, not just their respresentative bodies.

187
These amendments—the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is quite right—would in effect give any one authority or representative body consulted by the Secretary of State the power to veto or delay indefinitely the establishment of a staff commission, irrespective of what any or all of the others think. I really cannot think this is the right way to go about it. Nor, indeed, is it democratic, in my view, or in the best interests of staff. Are noble Lords really saying that they care so little for the interests of the staff concerned that they are prepared to put those interests at risk in this way?
Our intention is to set up a staff commission, as I have already said, along the lines of those established under previous reorganisations. Perhaps I should say that in both the cases that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, one month after the Royal Assent to the relevant Act was the time designated there, and I have not yet been convinced that it should be any different now.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Would the noble Lord address himself to the fact that there is a unique situation here? This legislation is coming through in a paving Bill before the main Act. Would the noble Lord address himself to the situation of 1963 in London and the rest of the country in 1972? To the best of my knowledge, what one had then was, in the main Act, the setting up of the staff commission.
Lord Skelmersdale: I accept that, but I also accept the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, that proper arrangements must be made for the establishment of the staff commission in good time for it to do an effective job of work.
Such commissions, independent commissions, have been widely welcomed and have played a valuable role in ensuring fair treatment for staff. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he intends to see that this commission matches its predecessors, both in standing up for the staff who obviously face an unsettling period, and in having a real understanding of the problems of both new and old employees.
As I have said, it is totally unacceptable to make the existence of such an important safeguard a hostage to what may or may not be politically motivated vetoes. I do not intend to get into that argument, but I must tell the Committee that there is a danger of it. I am sure that the Committee will agree that the commission needs to be in place at the earliest possible opportunity. It must be in the best interests of all the staff concerned that it begins the process of consultation with interested bodies, to provide my right honourable friend with general advice on staffing issues without delay. It is entirely up to the staff commission to consult anybody it wants, and I think that this was probably the clarification that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, was really seeking. Having said that, I hope the Committee will reject these amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Evans, comes back, may we be clear from the Minister that within this period of one month it is the
188
intention to consult with anyone and everyone who wishes to be consulted? If in actual fact we are in that situation—and this is a moot point, I was trying very carefully to listen to the words of the Minister in the early part of his speech where it appeared as if there was no need for the amendments—if there is common ground that our concern is the protection of the rights of employees and the equity of treatment, is the Minister saying that it will be dealt with? I am bound to say and repeat that these amendments have their genesis not just in the authorities who are threatened with abolition but in the trade unions which are affected.
If what the Minister is saying is that there is no need for concern, and that he believes, although they do not, that that month of consultation for everyone who wishes to be consulted will be adequate and meaningful, I would be very grateful if the Minister would confirm that he has a mechanism whereby everyone who wishes to be consulted will be consulted properly.
Lord Skelmersdale: I should be perfectly happy for my right honourable friend to be consulted by whomever wishes to consult with him in the circumstances. The great problem we have had over our entire plan for this Bill is that although consultation has been offered again and again and we have put out a White Paper for the main abolition Bill, consultations and comments on it have been less than forthcoming. But what I in fact said originally was that once the commission is set up it can consult with anybody it likes. Having said that, I go back to what I said in my original answer to the noble Lord. Lord Graham: yes, my right honourable friend will be perfectly happy to consult with those who want to consult him.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister ought not to try to flaunt the unwillingness of authorities to consult hitherto, because the reason is that they were invited to participate in drawing up the plans for their own demise. We are talking about a new situation. We are talking about after there is an Act of Parliament. That is the premise for the proposal of the staff commission. After that, as I see it, there is a terribly limited period for all the people concerned: the authorities, the trade unions and others who can put it forward that they have a genuine interest. I am not talking about anybody at all, but primarily the trade unions.
I take it from the Minister that, if that is the case, then we simply have to say to people outside: the Minister believes that all of this—not the actual resolution of matters but the modus operandi of the commission, because we are talking about the commission starting up and after it has started up—must be within a month. I think the Government ought to be aware that we well understand that part of the problem is that they are boxed in by their own timetable. If in fact that is not so, then the Minister ought to be prepared to look at a longer period than one month, because the people who give us advice say that one month will be inadequate. If there is no problem before the staff commission comes into operation, why not consider a longer period?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Would my noble friend allow me to intervene? I really do think that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is absolutely wrong on this. The effective thing is to have the commission set up, and, the commission having been set up, they can then consult over whatever period they like. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, said, they took time to find out what it was all about. I do feel that he ought to recognise, as my noble friend tried to point out, that with this particular interim measure there has been opposition to it expressed in very direct terms, and if you leave it completely open-ended, where you give the power to certain people to delay it, virtually to have a veto on the setting up of the commission, then you are not being helpful to the staff and the people who will be the victims, or the beneficiaries, of all that flows from the commission.
I am quite certain that one month is about right. As I said in my previous intervention, one month is a protection to the staff. It means that nobody can delay the setting up of machinery to ensure that the staff is properly dealt with; and that is the way in which we, as a Committee, ought to view it.
Lord Skelmersdale: I know it was a genuine comment which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, but so was my own. I endorse every word that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has just said. If the willingness to consult had been really there, then ever since this Bill has been printed and made publicly available consultations could have been held at the instigation of those people about whom we are talking. The suggestion was never made.
Lord Evans of Claughton: Let me make it quite clear to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, if to no one else, that I have no objection to the main thrust of Clause 6, the establishment of a staff commission. I think it has come out in the course of these discussions (at one point the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, actually said he thought there might be something in the amendment which I had moved, which made me wonder whether I had wandered into the right Chamber) that if you are establishing a staff commission to deal with extremely sensitive problems of redundancies, retention of jobs, status of jobs, and so on, it seems very important indeed that the people concerned, the staff themselves, should feel that the commission will deal with them fairly and objectively.
I suspect that a period of one month is not going to enable that feeling of security and satisfaction to come about in the minds of the people most affected. That is my concern; and I really do feel very strongly, as one who has been a member of the AMA, of a metropolitan county council and of a metropolitan borough council, that there is inevitably not only a clash of interest between those two types of body, very often over a whole area of local government, as one has discovered over the years, but also a very considerable potential conflict within the AMA (which they cannot avoid because of the nature of their composition) between the interest of the metropolitan boroughs, many of whom are waiting with great anxiety and enthusiasm for the demise of the county councils, and the metropolitan counties themselves, who take an entirely different view.
190
If you are employed by a metropolitan county council which is going to be abolished, you are saying to yourself, I suspect—indeed, I know this for a fact because it has been said to me already—"What is going to happen to me is that I am going to be given a job by the new metropolitan district. Is my salary going to be protected? It probably is going to be protected, or it may be higher because it was calculated by the metropolitan county on population. So I am going to have a salary at a certain level because it has been protected, but I am going to have a job which is inferior to the job of the metropolitan borough official who will be supervising me, and that is going to be a very difficult and problematical position from my point of view as a former county council employee".
I think there are extremely sensitive and difficult issues here; and if people feel that this staff commission is being imposed on them in the brief period after such consultation as the Secretary of State feels like making, rather than a more in-depth consultation with individual metropolitan counties and the individual unions representing those employees, then the staff commission, with the best will in the world, however efficient, however sensitive and however conscientious it is, will be treated by those people whose future they are dealing with possibly with suspicion and with a lack of willingness to co-operate.
Let us forget the fact that we on this side are opposed to the abolition and that noble Lords on that side are in favour of it. Whatever happens, we are all in favour of trying to ensure that the staff of the new authorities feel happy and confident that they have been treated properly. What I am saying is: for heaven's sake! please be willing to take a little more time and have a little more consultation to make sure that people do not spend the next 10 years of their working lives, or whatever period is left to them until they retire, feeling embittered and that they have had a raw deal.
It was only on that basis that I was proposing this series of amendments. I do not see any purpose in dividing your Lordships' Committee on this; but, with all the sincerity I can muster, I beg the noble Lord the Minister and his colleagues to consider this very serious human problem before this Bill finally passes through your Lordships' Chamber. On that basis, and on that basis only, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): I have to point out that if Amendment No. 33 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 34 and 35.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 6, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I take the point that if Amendment No. 33 is carried then Nos. 34 and 35 cannot be considered, but I think they should be

191
considered as a group. I think that Nos. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38, all on the staff commission, should be considered together.
Amendment No. 34: Page 6, line 10, leave out from ("commission") to end of paragraph (b).
Amendment No. 35: Page 6, line 14, after ("duty") Insert ("as provided for by subsection (2A) below").
Amendment No. 36: Page 6, line 16, at end insert—
("(2A) The duty imposed upon a relevant authority under subsection (2) above shall only rise in respect of any direction given to that authority under that subsection after the passing hereafter by Parliament of the enactment which provides for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils.").
Amendment No. 37: Page 6, line 16, at end insert—
("() No direction under subsection (2) above may be given by the Secretary of State until he has consulted the commission or a relevant authority or bodies representative of staff employed by a relevant authority, as the case may be, as to its proposed terms.")
Amendment No. 38: Page 6, line 18, leave out ("and not recovered from a relevant authority").
Amendments Nos. 34 and 38 I shall withdraw in due course, but I should like to concentrate very briefly, if I may, on Amendments Nos. 33, 35 and 36. Amendment No. 33 would, by the deletion of subsection (2), remove a potentially very sinister power from the Secretary of State. As worded at present, this subsection allows him to give directions to the staff commission and any relevant authority on the furnishing of information requested, and the implementation of advice given, by the commission.
This sweeping power would imply direct Secretary of State rule over all receiving authorities: for example, the London boroughs. Thus a direction to boroughs could legally compel them to accept or refuse to accept any GLC staff, or to impose any particular terms and conditions on them, all with the appearance of safeguarding the interests of the staff, though in fact producing a very different result.
Following what I said in the last debate, the potential here for dividing and ruling, and the danger of the Secretary of State, possibly unconsciously—I am not suggesting that he would deliberately do this—setting people employed in the boroughs against people employed in the counties, or people employed in the London boroughs against people employed in the GLC, is endless and is a further increment of the present Government's apparent desire to introduce centralised Whitehall control at every level.
Moving to Amendments Nos. 35 and 36—since for the purpose of saving time I think that they should all be considered together—the duty of the council and the relevant authorities to comply with directions from the Secretary of State under these amendments would arise only after the enactment of the main abolition Bill. Therefore, I submit that these amendments are entirely in keeping with the views taken by your Lordships' Committee in the decision which was made on Amendment No. 1, and extend that decision—as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, has said we made that quite clearly—to this aspect of staffing matters. I hope the noble Lord the Minister will bear that in mind in dealing with the matter.
Clearly, there would be no logic in directions under Part III being imposed on boroughs or district councils which forced them to take on staff or which for example, froze recruitment to reserve jobs for GLC or
192
metropolitan county council staff until the main abolition dicision had been taken. The abolition costs and efficiency could in no way, in those circumstances, be justified by the Government.
I beg the Government, in the light of the decision made on the first amendment last week, and in the light of the general problems to which we are coming to do with staffing, to take these amendments to heart and perhaps be willing to reconsider the matter. As have several of your Lordships, I am sure, one has had many visits from members of NALGO who are very worried about what the future holds for them, and the circumstances envisaged in the legislation as it now stands in the Bill. I hope that if these amendments or something like them were accepted, it might assist local government officers to feel a little less worried about their future than they do now. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is the noble Lord wishing to put Amendment No. 33?
Lord Evans of Claughton: Yes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The difficulty is that Amendment No. 33 removes the contents of Amendments Nos. 34 and 35. That is why they cannot be moved.
Lord Evans of Claughton: Yes, I accept that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Does the noble Lord wish Amendment No. 33 to be put?
Lord Evans of Claughton: Yes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that Amemdment No. 33 be agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: I was interested in the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that the Secretary of State's apparent desire is to have centralised local government. That is a slight paraphrase of what he said, but I think that it was his intention. Before moving on to this amendment, may I say that I am perfectly happy to read very carefully the small debate on the noble Lord's last amendment. In the constructive spirit with which he has spoken, I shall be perfectly happy to do the same with this series of amendments.
It would be helpful to say that this block of amendments—whether finally moved, withdrawn or whatever—all seek in various ways and to various extents to remove the Secretary of State's power to make directions under subsection (2) of Clause 6 or, in one or two cases, to disable it. It may help if I make clear the reasons for including such a power in the Bill in the first place.
First, let me say that this provision follows exactly the precedent set out in earlier reorganisations. I hope and expect that the commission will work largely by laying down general principles and then, by influence and persuasion, will secure the free acceptance of these by the parties concerned; because, after all, it is working in the interests of the staff. However, some degree of enforcement may be needed and the choice lies between giving a power of direction to the commission and reserving such a power to the

193
Secretary of State to use on the recommendation of the commission. We do not wish to jeopardise the commission's essential role as an advisory body working by encouragement and persuasion. The subsection therefore reserves the power to the Secretary of State and I repeat that this provision is well precedented.
But let me also say that we see the exercise of this power as something of a last resort. Nevertheless, it is necessary if the interests of staff are to be fully safeguarded. Amendment No. 33 removes the duty on relevant authorities to comply with any such direction. The net result would be a toothless tiger. The commission will be concerned to ensure equity of treatment of staff between one authority and another, to ensure that common procedures are adopted and that nobody tries to jump the gun. Without the threat of a power of direction, authorities would be free to accept or ignore the commission's advice as it suited them. That cannot be in the interests of the staff.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 seek to tie the power of direction to the main Bill. Perhaps I could explain why we decided to provide for the establishment of the commission in this Bill, because it is germane to consideration of these amendments. If we had left it until the main Bill, it could not have been set up as a statutory body until the summer or autumn of 1985. That would be too late to begin effectively to protect the interests of the staff—again a point made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher. As my noble friend Lord Bellwin and I have made quite clear, this Bill is not intended to prejudge the principle of abolition and the establishment of the staff commission does not do so.
The staff commission will not begin its work in earnest until such time as Parliament has still to decide. Until then, the commission will make its plans, will make contact with authorities and staff representatives, and will ensure, as I have said, that no one tries to jump the gun. The commission will need to be getting on with its work while the main Bill is still in Parliament. The effect of these amendments would be to ensure that it could not properly begin its job until it was too late to be of benefit to the staff concerned.
Amendment No. 37 would oblige the Secretary of State to consult with relevant authorities about the proposed terms of any direction before he could make it. But since a direction would normally be necessary only because the relevant body had refused to be cooperative or reasonable, one cannot help but wonder what point there would be in such consultations—unless it was a deliberate attempt to delay and frustrate the commissions's efforts on behalf of staff. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, does not want that. There is of course nothing in the subsection as it stands to prevent such consultation, should it seem worthwhile.
Although the noble Lord said that he would not be moving Amendments Nos. 34 and 38, and as a result I do not think I ought to go into any detail on them, I would say in parenthesis that they remove a perfectly fair provision which we have good reasons to include in the Bill. There is nothing new in subsection (2) of Clause 6. It is a tried and tested formula. Therefore, although I shall listen with great respect and read very
194
carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has said in opening, and what he will say in closing on this amendment, I cannot at this moment go along with the argument that he has produced.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said. He has been very careful to use phrases like "the last resort" and "only if necessary" and after virtually the wilful refusal of authorities to act in accordance with the directions, instructions, influence and pleading of the staff commission. I should like the Minister to say a little more about the ultimate powers and to recall that he has advised us that this is all of a piece with the functions of previous staff commissions.
Am I correct in thinking that at the end of the day this means that the Secretary of State can direct Enfield council, for example, to employ such members of the GLC staff as he shall direct them to employ and at such remuneration as he shall direct? If he does not have those powers, I have misread the subsection, which states:
"The Secretary of State may give directions to the staff commission as to their procedure and to any relevant authority".
A relevant authority is a component part of the GLC. The GLC is in the process of being abolished. Enfield Borough Council is a relevant authority and can be given directions by the Secretary of State to furnish any information that is requested and to implement any advice which is given. We are talking about the Secretary of State saying, "You have been advised to take on so many GLC architects, so many GLC roadsweepers and so many GLC clerks" and Enfield council saying, "We have very good reasons for not taking them on, not least because we cannot afford to do so". Or they may say that they do not want to afford to take on the extra staff, or that there are no vacancies.
Am I to understand that it is not intended that Enfield council shall be made to implement the advice which is given to them by the staff commission? The advice from the staff commission could be, "In equity, we want you to take your share". If, however, they decided not to take their share, what are we talking about? There are 32 authorities in London, all of which may hold different views and may resist in different ways the advice which they are given. Are we talking ultimately in terms of dictatorial powers being held by the Secretary of State in order to implement advice which may not be acceptable to those 32 authorities?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: This is the group of clauses which caused me to sit in on this Committee stage. I have a very clear view of this matter. As my noble friend said, there are precedents for it, in normal circumstances. The precedents are quite clear. Who is likely to disrupt the proper working of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, arising out of what has happened, and not because of any prejudice? I have a feeling that certain relevant councils may want to disrupt its working for political reasons. It is much more likely that this will happen, rather than that the Minister will be dictatorial. This is the Minister's Bill. Since he will want it to work, he is unlikely to do stupid things by forcing upon Enfield council, or any other council, people they do not want to employ.

195
However, in view of what has happened over the last few months—the virulent objection to the Bill and the steps which various authorities and people have taken to prevent the abolition of these authorities, as evidenced by the placard at the top of County Hall and the money which has been spent upon propaganda—I appreciate that people feel deeply about it. I do not object to that, but their reaction to their no doubt genuine feelings is such that in order for this Bill, when it becomes an Act, to work properly somebody must have Parliament's authority to make a final decision. The person to make that final decision is clearly the Secretary of State, whoever he may be. This is the Government's Bill. They will want it to work and they are more likely to be reasonable, I would suggest, than those who have gone to extreme lengths in order to try to prevent it becoming law.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, would concede that Amendment No. 33 would leave the matter completely open and would remove any outside control at all. Therefore, it would be possible for all the relevant authorities to kill the operation of the movements which should flow from the Bill. This is one occasion when we must not only look at the reasonableness of the argument, as it seems on paper; we must also take into account the surrounding atmosphere which we have all experienced. That atmosphere is very recent, and it continues today.
I intervene in order to support my noble friend who is speaking for his right honourable friend. He has shown every indication of wanting to be very upright on this matter. His whole manner, his words—and he is getting the sympathy of the Committee and of the Benches opposite—are commendable and make him a good Minister. But I do not want him to be so upright that he leans over backwards to the point where the whole reason for doing this will be completely sabotaged by those who have a "gut" feeling that they want to kill the Bill at all costs. I have more faith in the Secretary of State having the power, because he would want to make the Bill work, than I have in those who would want to disrupt the Bill, as evidenced by the actions they have taken over the last four to five months.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: In some ways I support my noble friend who has just spoken, in that I oppose this very sweeping amendment. But I am very concerned as to what the three words "any advice given" mean. I would query those three words, and I should like to know what the extent of that advice would be.
In supporting the Government, I must emphasise very strongly the need for information. Whatever may be done in terms of reorganisation, there must be information. If information is not made available and is deliberately withheld, it is extremely difficult to do your best. I hope that I am not repeating points which were made by other speakers when I was not in the Chamber while the last amendment was being dealt with. We are all very concerned about the GLC staff at County Hall, for whom we have the greatest respect. They have been splendid in the exercise of their duties.
196
When housing, as a function, was transferred from the GLC to the boroughs there was quite a difficult situation. Different rates of pay were operated by the two authorities. The local authorities found that they had to accept GLC officers at rates of pay which were above those they were paying to their own staff. This created difficulty for the local authorities. Pressure was put upon them by their own staff to upgrade the rates of pay to match the other rates. When the health service was reorganised there was what amounted almost to a scandal because people received redundancy pay and were afterwards re-employed in almost identical posts. It cost the Government £45 million more than had been anticipated.
Therefore it is very important to ensure that we obtain the best possible deal for the staff. We must ensure that as far as possible they will be able in the authorities to which the various duties will be transferred to carry on with the jobs they are now doing. I am a great believer in giving as much power as possible to the boroughs.
It is also very important that the interests of ratepayers and taxpayers should be safeguarded. We do not want to end up by paying out vast sums of money in redundancy pay—money which is then wasted because those who are made redundant go and get other jobs. This is a very difficult question. I strongly support the subsection and believe that information should be furnished. I also support paragraph (b) of subsection (2). However, the way the paragraph is worded could mean that the Government could give a directive that an authority must employ Mr. A. or Mr. X. May I have clarification, please, of the phrase "any advice given"? I oppose the amendment, but I seek clarification of that point.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: The question of the giving of information is one of the greatest causes of concern to the staff at present employed. If the Bill goes through and abolition takes place, then at this stage the staff do not know where they will be going. Information must be provided by both sides. As soon as the Government have made their decisions, that information should be given to the staff.
Many of the powers will not be going to boroughs but to quangos, to standing committees, or to other bodies. In the West Midlands—which I cite because I know that area—we do not know what will happen in respect of the police, the fire brigade or consumer services. It is that kind of ignorance which the staff find worrying. If they knew that after reorganisation they would all have comparable jobs, then they would not feel quite so concerned.
We know very well that the Government have said that the abolition of the metropolitan county authorities must save money. Unless one is going to cut services, the best way of saving money is by getting rid of staff. Information must come from the Government as well as the metropolitan authorities being asked by the Government to provide information about what they are going to do.
Lord Skelmersdale: Obviously I did not make myself clear the first time around. The only reason for this power of direction relates to those who are affected by it when they, for one reason or another, make the

197
commission's work inoperable. I do not want to single out—as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, keeps doing—the London Borough of Enfield, but it happens to be a convenient London borough that comes to mind. But if in some unenvisagable circumstances—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord leaves me speechless from time to time, too.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the noble Lord. If in some unenvisagable circumstances the London Borough of Enfield were to say quite firmly, "No, this is something up with which we will not put", but then 31 other London boroughs all agreed and had discussions with the staff commission, then that may well be the sort of circumstance in which the Secretary of State might threaten a direction.
In the past, such a power of direction has been given but it has never needed to be used. The mere threat of the use of a power of direction has been sufficient. But it has always been considered wise to have this ultimate fall-back power and I believe it is right and proper that it should he there in the present case as well.
Lord Evans of Claughton: I appreciate the difficulty I have posed the Committee in my attempts to save time when moving Amendment No. 33, which would make it necessary to withdraw Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 if it were passed. I have become so embittered in the period I have been here that I realised Amendment No. 33 probably would not be carried and so I spoke to Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 at the same time.
The discussion has been useful because the problems we must face have been underlined in a number of speeches. I was particularly impressed by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, because she drew attention to the whole series of problems we are likely to encounter as we go through with this Bill. That process will be made more difficult by the fact that many decisions have to be made before the decision has been made as to whether or not county councils will be abolished. The period of difficulty, uncertainty and agony for the staff has been extended. Indeed, as the noble Baroness quite rightly said, there is also the uncertainty of whether the ratepayers will be confronted with having to pay augmented salaries to people doing broadly the same jobs as before.
Many of us remember with some bitterness (and there are many people living fairly luxuriously who benefited from it) those who are performing in the county councils' set-up a very similar job to that which they were doing in the county boroughs but perhaps at a salary one-third more than that which they were receiving before. Or they received such generous terms for early retirement that they have been able to reduce their golf handicap by leaps and bounds ever since. There are two angles to this—there is also the protection of the ratepayers to be considered.
I must say, before we reach the next Bill, that in setting up quangos, we are probably setting up bodies that will give every encouragement to people to seek
198
huge salary increases which they would not have received under the examination of an elected body. But the discussion has been useful—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he appreciate also the additional dimension which is present this time around as opposed to 1963 and 1972? I am speaking of the fact that the Government's policy in respect of rate capping and in respect of the control on local government expenditure will be bound to heighten the resistance of not just one council but of a group of councils taking one view or another. It will not be a question of just one council standing out: there will be a real hiatus in every metropolitan authority where the direction, if it has to be given, will have to be given to many and not just to one council.
Lord Evans of Claughton: I am obliged to the noble Lord for pointing that out. It is indeed very much in one's mind when looking at this matter. However, the real problem is the extent to which elected local authorities will have officials or staff imposed upon them.
Lord Skelmersdale: Please will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? The staff commissions will not impose anything on anybody. They will only be seeing to it that there is a fair deal for the staff. Earlier I gave a list of the commissions' responsibilities. At this eleventh hour, it might be appropriate if I told the Committee what a staff commission will not do.
A commission will not play any part in setting wages, salaries, gradings or other conditions of service. It will not set the staff structure and complements of successor bodies. It will not decide who gets jobs in the new structure and who does not. It will not set the terms of compensation for redundancy or detriment. In all these cases, the commission will simply want to ensure that adequate arrangements exist for considering such matters in the period of reorganisation and that staff are treated equitably. Nor will the commission be involved in investigating allegations that staff have been given unjustified increases in salary, enhanced conditions or upgradings prior to reorganisation. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asks, "Who will?". That will be the responsibility of a separate body to be provided for under the main abolition Bill.
Lord Evans of Claughton: If I may say so, that is very reassuring and one is inclined to believe that what felt like hours but probably was only a shorter period of time spent in debating this matter has been well worth while. The noble Lord has provided a very interesting and useful piece of information. There are still some matters I am not happy about, but I nevertheless beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 33 because I can cover them under a subsequent amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 not moved.]
6.28 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No. 37:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the other objections that I expressed when moving the earlier amendment. I must say that I am very impressed by the touching faith in human nature and in the Government shown by the person who prepared my brief, because in it appear the words:
"In the unlikely event of the earlier amendment failing, this amendment seeks at least to ensure that the Secretary of State's powers to give directions shall only be examined after consultation with the commission".
I had a suspicion that the earlier amendments would fail. As the Committee will see from the form in which this amendment is set out, it seeks to provide that no direction under subsection (2), which the Committee has supported,
"may be given by the Secretary of State until he has consulted the commission or a relevant authority or bodies representative of staff employed by a relevant authority as the case may be, as to its proposed terms".
I would hope that the Government, if not actually agreeing to this amendment, might give some more hope based on what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, during the discussion on the last amendment. If he does not concede the value of such consultations, he is really saying that he is not only omniscient but that the Secretary of State must also be all-powerful. I do not think that anyone on any side of your Lordships' Committee would want to support that kind of attitude. The experts in the commission, who will be appointed by the Secretary of State—the professional staffs in the receiving authority with their very deep knowledge of the organisational industrial relations and management realities, and the trade unions representing the staff—would all have valuable comments to offer which would save the Secretary of State from potential pitfalls.
I concede that these consultations would take a little time but from the way the noble Lord the Minister and the Government have reassured themselves that they can set up the commission within a month, surely this kind of consultation which I am proposing in Amendment No. 37 could also be carried out by definition in a similarly brief period. I should have thought it was well worth doing this in order to try to ensure the pitfalls that we have been debating and discussing over some time now could be avoided by this consultation taking place by the Secretary of State and not relying completely on his own information and his own knowledge. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I suppose it is par for the course! I am not really doing very well this afternoon, am I? I sought to explain in my original response to this set of amendments that Amendment No. 37 would oblige the Secretary of State to consult with relevant authorities about the proposed terms of any direction before he could make it, but since a direction by definition would normally only be necessary because the relevant body had refused to be co-operative or reasonable I really cannot envisage a circumstance in which there would be any point in such consultations unless it was a deliberate attempt to delay and frustrate the Commission's efforts on behalf of the staff.
It might be appropriate—I accept from the noble Lord—for the Secretary of State to say, "Look, I have
200
been considering making this direction. What are your reasons for your behaving so out of step with other authorities?" or whatever the situation might be. There is absolutely nothing in the subsection as it stands to prevent such consultation should it seem worth while. But to enforce it by including—I can only use the noble Lords' phrases that they have used on me—such a draconian means is quite inappropriate.
Lord Evans of Claughton: I approach from a different point of view fairly obviously since I am endeavouring to get the Government to try to see the light. I concede that the direction would only be used under unusual circumstances. What I am suggesting is that if there is written into the legislation this right for the representative bodies—the local authorities, trade unions, and so on—to have a say before a direction is made, then it might make the transition that is going to be a very painful one for very many people, including the Ministers of the Government and civil servants, a little easier to bear. But since the noble Lord the Minister is insistent upon pursuing his draconian, omniscient, and all-powerful course of action, all I can say when in due course he has trouble on his hands, is, "I told you so". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 39:
Before Clause 7, insert the following clause:
("Information about Cmnd. 9063.
. Within one month of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall publish all the responses he has received in response to the proposals included in the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" (Cmnd. 9063).").
The noble Baroness said: This new clause says something very simple and, I would have thought, completely acceptable to any government. Within one month of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish in such form as he thinks fit all the responses he has received in response to the proposals included in the White Paper Streamlining the Cities.
What this does is completely self-explanatory. In October 1983 the Government published their White Paper on the future of the GLC and the metropolitan counties and invited views; this was so far so good, and the right way to go about things and to behave. As I understand it, almost 5,000 responses have been received; but 10 months later the Government have not seen fit to publish or list these responses. As I also understand it, the Department of the Environment have not listed or made a detailed analysis of all these detailed responses. If they have, then none of us has had the benefit of the opportunity to see these. Instead the department have produced one list of responses received from local authorities and major national organisations in February without any analysis and a further analysis of responses in May without putting names to them. The named lists represent fewer than 14 per cent. of the total responses. From the department's own summary analysis, there is an overwhelming rejection of the White Paper proposals. I do not think that there is any dispute over that. Only 8½ per cent. of approximately 1,200 responses showed

201
a clear view in support of proposals to abolish the metropolitan county councils, and 6 per cent. of approximately 1,500 responses supported the proposals to abolish the GLC.
It is clear from the analysis that the Government received virtually no support from major national organisations or from local authorities outside the metropolitan areas. Indeed, the analysis shows that the only significant element of support for the Government's proposal comes from a limited number of GLC boroughs and metropolitan district councils. Not unnaturally the number of respondents expressing support approximates rather exactly to the number of Conservative-controlled GLC boroughs and metropolitan councils—that is quite right; there is no reason why they should not—and overall 72 per cent. of the metropolitan districts did not support the Government's proposals. The analysis, such as it was, produced by the DoE in May showed consistently in all categories that the majority of replies were against the Government proposals. Their figures are, however, distorted by the large number who were categorised as expressing no overall view. For example, it was claimed that there were 219 responses in favour of a directly elected ILEA; 13 against; and 2,301 who expressed no overall view.
The details of this are interesting as giving some idea of a picture of how people, organisations and local authorities have received the suggestions put forward by the Government for consultation—because that is what the White Paper is all about. What is important is that these replies should be made public. It does not matter in this instance—and should never matter—whether they are in favour of the Government proposals or largely against the Government proposals. They should be published so that everybody has the opportunity to see them, to read them, to understand them, and to take them in. First of all, that should be done. It is only right and proper that it should be done. If it is done properly then any of the interpretations that have been put on what has emanated so far from the DoE, would be more accurate and fairer to the Government and to the department.
At this particular time, when we are all concerned about freedom of information, this is an area about which there should be no doubt and there should be no need for delay or endless discussion as to whether it is right or wrong. There are no security issues involved. This is something which will affect the lives of millions of people and it is essential that there should be public participation. Surely that was the intention of the Government when they put out their White Paper, Streamlining the Cities. There is not much benefit in putting out a White Paper and then being very coy or dilatory about properly analysing the results and making them available for people to read and understand and, if they wish, to comment on further directly to Ministers or to the department.
Therefore, whether or not this particular Bill goes forward, it is still important and essential, now that the Government are coming to the run-up to considering how they are to go about their main piece of legislation—the abolition legislation—that they not only take account of comments, replies and responses they have received, but also make them available to
202
everybody who is interested and who wants to know what is happening and what, for example, local authorities think of it. An enormous number of organisations will be greatly affected by the abolition proposals. People will want to know how they react.
One would expect that the Government want to make the best possible job of implementing their abolition proposals. If they do, they must want to get the widest possible publicity. They can do that only by publicising the findings as soon as possible. Although the amendment is drafted in this particular form, the Minister may say that he intends to publish very much sooner. Whenever the information is available is, I suggest, the time when the public should have the right to know. In this case they have a right to know. I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: When purporting to read her amendment the noble Baroness said:
"The Secretary of State shall publish all the responses as he thinks fit.
The printed amendment we have states;
"the Secretary of State shall publish all the responses".
Each is very different in its emphasis. Which does the noble Baroness wish us to consider?
Baroness Birk: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I was going from the original amendment, and it is true that I changed the drafting. It is the later amendment to which I am speaking. However, what I said was applicable to both. If not, I will, if I may, right it. I thank the noble Lord, and I apologise.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The Committee is dealing with the revised, rather than the orthodox, version of the text. When I saw this amendment on the Marshalled List I thought that the noble Baroness was indulging in a joke. That seemed to be the only rational explanation for this quite extraordinary proposal. The amendment states—again, perhaps it was in another version—that publication has to take place,
"Within one month of the passing of this Act".
Therefore, it is not even possible to argue that the opinions expressed would assist your Lordships in reaching a decision because it would only be within a month of passing that publication would take place.
However, broader than that, it is an extraordinary suggestion—
Baroness Birk: The responses to Streamlining the Cities refer to the abolition legislation. Therefore, it is not just a post facto situation. We are not asking the Government to publish information applying to this Bill after it has been enacted. We are talking about the abolition proposals.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Baroness need not have troubled herself to intervene. That is obvious from the reading of the amendment. The only purpose in going ahead with this measure is to clear the way and make preparations for the next Bill. If it is suggested that these responses are such that the Government should suddenly, as it were, look a little faint and say, "We have got it wrong" and drop

203
everything, it would be much more appropriate if they did so at an earlier stage and did not put your Lordships to the trouble of debating this measure, though your Lordships seem so much to enjoy debating it at such length.
It is a most extraordinary suggestion that apparently thousands of representations from all kinds of people—obscure or distinguished, official or private—should solemnly, and expensively, be published. I cannot conceive of a greater waste of public money, particularly in an area where public money is already being conspicuously wasted. The Greater London Council is spending millions of pounds of ratepayers' money in putting forward its views about the proposal for its abolition—millions of pounds about which the ratepayers have never been consulted. In addition, it is suggested that the Government should waste some of the taxpayers' money reproducing opinions which, good, bad, wise, or sensible, are really not relevant to our discussion, and that confirms my view that it is not only a joke, but a bad joke.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter who, in his own most effective way said much, if not all, of what I wanted to say. The new clause would serve no useful purpose. The Government have conducted an extensive consultation exercise on their proposals and there has been wide public discussion of them. We have already moved forward from those orginal proposals in the light of consultation and debate, but to publish all the views submitted to us last January would be pointless and, as my noble friend says, an absolute waste of resources. That is a consideration that does weigh with some of us. We must decide whether such an expensive contribution to historical research would be justifiable.
There is, however, a fundamental and overriding reason for asking the Committee to reject this new clause. Consultation on a White Paper is not a public inquiry. All those who sent views to us were, and are, entitled to expect that those views were put in confidence. Of course, many have wished to make their comments public, and they are perfectly at liberty to do so, and they have done. In recognition of the great interest in our proposals the Secretary of State made available to the House, and generally, a summary report of the views that have been put to us. This, in itself, goes well beyond anything done previously. I am not trying to keep confidential material which ought to be in the public domain. I am simply saying that it is not for the Government to tell other bodies, least of all individuals, that they must speak up in public. Parliament has a perfect right to do so, if it wishes.
This clause would retrospectively change the nature of the exercise and require that all the thousands of letters sent in should be published, whether or not their authors wish it. We are sure it would be wrong to do so and I am sure that to do so would contribute nothing to the public debate. That is the main reason why, in addition to the other points made, we cannot accept this new clause.
204
I remind your Lordships before I sit down that we made available a summary analysis of the main points in two stages: a general summary on 9th April and more detailed aspects on 4th May. They have both been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House, and will be sent to anyone requesting them. I think that is fair and reasonable, and certainly as far as anyone would be expected to go. It would be unprecedented to make public the views submitted by individuals or organisations in response to an invitation to comment on the White Paper and the associated consultation documents.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: May I put a final question to the noble Baroness, who is very experienced as well as being very charming? Does she really think that any body which wished its response to be published would not itself have already published it? Is that not the way things work? People who want their response to be published will take jolly good care to see that it is made public. There is no need to put the state or the local authorities to the expense of doing what those bodies will already have done themselves.
Baroness Birk: A great deal of excitement has been generated about something which seems to me to be perfectly normal. I say right away that the drafting of the amendment could have been better. What we are really discussing is the substance of it.
I do not see anything extraordinary about publishing that number of responses. It is a comparatively small number: 5,000 is not a large number. We are talking about a complete upheaval of local government in this country. Noble Lords talk about the expense of publishing the information. It is already in the Libraries here and in another place. If it is put in Libraries, presumably individuals and organisations interested could be charged for copies of it. I was not suggesting that the information should be handed out as a "freebie" everywhere.
What I am concerned about, and what the Minister has not dealt with, is the inadequate publication since Streamlining the Cities, and the responses which were asked for. In our view, and in the view of many other people and organisations, there has not been sufficient analysis and explanation. What the Government suggest not only affects local government organisations, voluntary organisations, arts organisations and other organisations with which people are more familiar: it will affect all sorts of economic organisations, too. There will be technical and scientific effects. To treat it as an amateurish exercise is not good enough. The Government, in setting out to do this, are in very big business. They should behave in that way and not in this amateur way.
The amendment could probably be worded in a better way, and I do not intend to press it in this form. We shall consider another form for a later stage. But I think it is depressing that the Government take what I think is an extremely casual view of a very important matter. At this point, however. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): Before I put the next amendment, I should have put the Question, That Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Information in connection with proposals for abolition of authorities]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 6, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—
("(1) This section has effect where an enactment has been passed by Parliament which provides—").
The noble Baroness said: There is a series of amendments which deal with information. They are to limit the duty on councils and officers to provide the information needed to implement the proposals, once approved by Parliament. The clause places a duty on the GLC, MCCs and their officers to supply information to the Secretary of State and to the borough and district councils. As drafted, the duty is not limited to the provision of information to give effect to the abolition of the respective councils. I agree that that would be understandable. It requires the GLC and the MCCs to facilitate the formulation of proposals for their own abolition. That seems to be taking things rather far.
The view has consistently been expressed since the proposals were first announced that any changes in the structure of local government should be preceded by a proper inquiry in accordance with well accepted custom and practice. It is well known that academics and commentators on local government, and various other experts in that field, who have no political axe to grind, argue that, with such important issues at stake, the public has a right to the kind of impartial committee of inquiry which has traditionally accompanied past changes of this nature.
We raised this matter in a different form on the rate capping Bill and on the Second Reading of this Bill. When undertakings of this immensity are contemplated, there ought to be very much more research into what it all means and what its effects are. This fact was stressed by both Francis Pym and Edward Heath during the Second Reading debate in the other place. In commenting on the publication of the Bill, the Secretary of State said that it did not prejudice the main issue of abolition. Notwithstanding that statement, the opening words of Clause 7(1) make it absolutely clear that that is precisely what the clause is intended to do.
One of the main planks of the manifesto commitment, and one of the reasons that the Secretary of State puts forward, is the amount of savings, but he has so far significantly failed to quantify those. One reason he gives is that the staff of the GLC and MCCs are required to co-operate: but they are being required to co-operate in the possible extinction of their jobs. That is an extremely onerous duty to lay on any employee, as has been said in another place. It is wrong to ask for that provision before the substantive measure has been debated and has become law. Only when the abolition of the MCCs is a reality can the requirement to provide information be seen to be reasonable. The powers included in this clause are an affront to the
206
parliamentary process. It is for that reason that this amendment is being moved from these Benches. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: The amendment seeks to frustrate the operation of Clause 7 of this Bill. Clause 7 is an integral part of the measures we are taking to pave the way to abolition. The principal object of the Bill is to allow the successor authorities every opportunity to prepare for their new responsibilities and for a smooth transfer of functions. In order to be able to do that they need information, and they need it as soon as possible. That is why we have included Clause 7 in this Bill. It does not prejudge the main abolition issue at all; it prepares for that eventuality. It does so by extending existing powers under Section 230 of the Local Government Act 1972. It is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate paving measure.
This amendment would prevent Clause 7 from being used until the main abolition Bill had been passed. The clause as it stands makes it explicit that its purpose is to facilitate the formulation of proposals to abolish the GLC and MCCs, as well as to implement such proposals in the event of their being approved by Parliament. So in drafting this clause we have been at great pains to show that the clause does not prejudge the main Bill and to explain why the provision is needed in advance of it. This amendment would undermine one of the Bill's most important interim measures and I urge the Committee not to accept it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: This is Amendment No. 1 all over again. That is precisely what it boils down to. It is undermining the movement towards what is the main intention for which the Government have a mandate. It is the same argument all over again in another form. I congratulate the Opposition party on being persistent. However, on this occasion I think they are being too tenacious in view of the success that they think they had the other day on Amendment No. 1.
Baroness Birk: It was not a success we thought we had; it was a success we did have. The figures are there. This is not an imaginary success. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, very charmingly and engagingly keeps referring back to Amendment No. 1, as though if he mentions Amendment No. 1 enough it will just go away. He had better realise that it will not go away.
This amendment has nothing at all to do with Amendment No. 1. The noble Lord really ought to understand that Amendment No. 1 was to do with this Bill and how it fitted into the scenario of the plans for abolition. The amendment about which we are now talking is entirely to do with information to be sought from the metropolitan county councils and the GLC functions. There was nothing in Amendment No. 1 about information. They are two entirely different aspects of not even the same subject. One is entirely to do with abolition in a more detailed way; the other is to do with constitutional principles, democracy and the whole question of elections.
However, the trouble that faces the Government over these amendments—and I did not expect the Minister to agree to this amendment—is that they are going about this whole thing in such a way that they

207
are not setting out to get the confidence of anybody, any organisation or any individual. So all the time all they can do is, through legislation, try to batter people on the head until they get the result they want. Without getting the confidence of the people with whom they want to consult or whose help they want, they cannot expect the results they want. They cannot expect to get those results if there is a confrontational situation over this—which there is all the time. It then becomes almost a dead end and the Government will find, and are finding, themselves in great difficulties.
This is why the Secretary of State says that it is impossible to quantify the cost of the whole exercise—because they cannot get the information. Yet they have the sheer brass to come to the public and say they are going ahead with this, without even knowing what it is going to cost. Far from the whole exercise going to be costing less, the only reputable information that has come forward so far is the analysis that was done by Coopers and Lybrand, who came out with the result that they thought it would probably cost more in the future than the counties in existence at the moment are costing at the present time. So the Government have got themselves into a cleft stick entirely through their own handling of the whole operation, starting right from the beginning. I am afraid this will continue until they start all over again, go back to the drawing board, think things out differently, think in terms of a committee of inquiry, and behave properly and responsibly. Having said that, and expressed how we feel about what is in Clause 7, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 44 not moved.]
7.5 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 7, line 1, leave out ("and its officers").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 45 is the one that lays a duty on not just the councils but also the officers of the councils to furnish the Secretary of State with all such information relating to the council and its functions. I want the Minister to listen very carefully.
Lord Bellwin: I always listen carefully.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Well, I want the Minister to listen with even more care because there may be some premise in my argument that may cause the Minister and his advisers to look again at the necessity of including the officers in this particular point. As the Committee is aware, Clause 7(2) and (3) impose a duty not just on the councils but on the officers as well. In a Court of Appeal decision in 1932—Rex v. The City of Birmingham—Lord Donaldson made the point,
"As I have already said, all relevant information acquired by a local authority's social workers in the course of their duties, whether or not it be confidential, is acquired on behalf of the local authority, and becomes the authority's information".
As such the point has now been clearly established that all information relating to a local authority belongs to the local authority and not to any one or more of its
208
officers. How that information is to be treated 'and to whom it is made available is a matter for the authority alone to decide.
I think the departmental advisers might have taken note of the purport of that decision because when the latest Housing and Building Control Act was received there was a remarkable difference between that and the earlier Act. Section 23(5) of the Housing Act of 1980 laid a duty upon the officers to comply with a notice from the Secretary of State to produce a document. Yet in the later Act, the Act that has just received its Royal Assent, on 26th June, that duty upon an officer—not upon the council but upon an officer—had been deleted: it was deleted from the Bill. For an officer to deal with information outside the terms of his employment renders him at risk of being in breach of his duty to his employers. As such it cannot be appropriate to impose a duty directly upon any officer to make information available to another officer, because the duty must clearly be that of the authority and not of the officer.
If the Minister can tell us that we have it wrong—he has done that so often that it may be automatic, but if he can tell us in this instance that we have it wrong—and that the premise upon which our argument rests is not valid in these circumstances, then there will be justification for asking us to withdraw the amendment. So I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about the argument we have produced. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: I listened particularly carefully to the noble Lord who, as always, presents his arguments very clearly. It is not at all difficult to follow them. Clause 7 is vital to ensure that the necessary information is available to assist in formulating and, should Parliament approve, implementing proposals for abolition and for the smooth transfer of functions. The clause clarifies and extends the existing information requirements of Section 230 of the 1972 Local Government Act. One way in which Clause 7 extends Section 230 is that, as the noble Lord told us, it places a duty on officers of the GLC and the MCCs as well as on the councils themselves to supply information. It is that duty which these amendments seek to remove.
The noble Lord has said that the provision would place officers in an invidious and difficult position. If I heard him aright and understood him, he said that it would mean that they would perhaps have to choose between obeying the law and obeying their employers. I think he also said—I have certainly heard it said—that an officer who complied with the duty and perhaps thereby defied his authority's instructions could even be in breach of contract of his employment.
The duty is a protection for the officers concerned. Its effect is to leave no doubt as to the obligations which will be placed on officers. Without it, the officers could be in a very difficult position indeed. There could be conflicting demands made by their employers and by the Government on lower tier authorities with no guidance about which course to take. I do not pretend that it would necessarily always be easy for the officers concerned. I must, however, make clear that such a situation would be the creation of the employing authority and no one else.

209
The statutory duty to provide information is imposed by Parliament. No one, not even the more vociferous of the authorities with whom we are concerned here, has the right to defy Parliament's wishes. The duty imposed in subsections (2) and (3) leaves no doubt as to the course that individual officers must take. Above all, I would have thought that they wanted to know where they stand. They must know where they stand.
I want to reassure the Committee that if an officer had to provide information despite his authority's wishes, there would be no question of his being in breach of contract of his employment. It is an implied term in every contract of service that an employee may not be required to do an unlawful act or to refrain from carrying out a legal duty. In fact, officers will not be in breach of contract if they go against their employer's wishes in this respect. I am not sure that I can say much more to help the noble Lord. I understand clearly his concern which I have seen expressed elsewhere. At the end of the day, this is really about enabling legislation, if it is approved by Parliament and goes forward, to achieve an objective which has been previously specified by the Government.
I understand the feeling that was expressed earlier about whether there was a dilemma for officers perhaps acquiescing in their own demise in individual situations. Yes, I understand that. I did not become involved in the debate about the staff position, but I feel strongly about it because I happen to get round the country more than most to the areas in question. I see the great numbers of demonstrations and banners. I often talk to those involved and find that the great concern that they express, quite rightly, is about their own position. What is to happen to them? That would be my first question—"What is to happen to me? Will I go to the new authority? If not, where will I go? What will be the terms and conditions? Who will look after my interest in those situations?"
I suggest to them—it is apposite to this amendment—that these are the things that should be discussed. By saying that you acquiesce in a policy, you forfeit, and abdicate from, an input into that. This is a fair point. I shall not say invariably, because that would he too strong, hut almost always, the people concerned agree with that, and have some difficulty. Here, it is not quite the same. It is not about terms of employment, I agree. Nevertheless, the basic intention to withhold information and so on, which seems to be of such concern to the authorities concerned, will not at the end of the day help the people. Quite the opposite. All right, if the Government have to make their decisions without certain access to information, then they will have to do so. They will make their assumptions. But the forfeiting of the right to have an input into that and to contribute to that, I do not regard as a constructive action to take, as I have told those who are my erstwhile, I hope, still, to some extent, friends in the associations. They know that this is my view.
Viscount Simon: Can the noble Lord tell the Committee whether there is any precedent for an obligation placed on a corporate body being equally placed on all the employees of the corporate body?
Lord Bellwin: I am pretty sure that there are a great number of precedents of that kind. I do not have a list before me, but I gladly undertake to send such a list to the noble Viscount.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Is the noble Lord aware that there is a little disquiet regarding information in the hands of lawyers who are employed by the metropolitan county councils? There are many such lawyers who are subject to the Official Secrets Act because they are serving the metropolitan police authorities and act on behalf of the police in civil matters, very often in connection with claims against the police and that kind of thing.
Is the Minister aware that there is concern regarding this group of people because of the giving of information that will no doubt, as the Minister has explained, only be for the purpose of formulating future policy on the police authorities. They are concerned especially through being bound by the Official Secrets Act. We know that there already have been difficulties facing the Government in regard to the Official Secrets Act. It is therefore important that the Minister's attention should be drawn to the concern of lawyers in that category.
Lord Auckland: Althought it has become apparent that I am no friend of the Bill, I believe that the amendment is on the whole a sound one. I address the Committee as one who has had no practical experience in local government. However, it strikes me that the officers of the council are the permanent executive officials. Therefore, they should be empowered under the clause to supply the information required as well as members of the council.
I should like to put one question to my noble friend the Minister. The amendment seems to be somewhat widely drawn. Officers vary from council to council both in numbers and in their functions. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister—I ask him this out of pure ignorance—can tell the Committee which officers specifically are involved. Is it the chief executive and his deputy? Will it be the senior officers of the council? Or will any employee of the council be required under the clause to supply information?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My noble friend who has just spoken was probably speaking against the amendment rather than in favour of it. I shall, however, leave it to him to clarify the point. My noble friend seemed to be speaking in favour of the officers being obliged to provide information. If so, that is against the amendment rather than in favour of it. I wish to speak strongly against the amendment. I consider that the clause as drafted is essential to protect officers of the Greater London Council. I think that at the present time they are under a clear instruction to supply no information whatever.
Whether or not they would wish to be helpful to their colleagues looking for other jobs and to the whole reorganisation of London, they must at present follow the instructions of the elected majority of the council whose clear policy is to provide as little information as possible. At council meetings, we are able to drag out a little bit of information in response to a question. But information is very slow in coming. I put on 13th June

211
to the chairman of finance of the Greater London Council a question concerning a number of grants. It was not until 25th June that I received a letter back from him in which he gave no information but quite a lot of abuse. In the end, he said that if I come back with a more detailed request, he might look into it. This means that either he is incapable of putting his hand on the information, or he does not want to put his hand on it. I know that if I had followed up these points with officers who had not been instructed to prevent information from being available, this information would readily have become available. Indeed, it should be available virtually to the general public, never mind to the people who are requesting it for the purposes of the very important job of winding up and re-allocating the responsibility for running London.
I feel most strongly that information is the whole key to whatever is to happen. Whatever decisions are to be made must be based on correct, detailed knowledge and information. If those officers who could, or would, supply such information were to be at risk, and perhaps he blackballed in the future for the jobs they were going to, this way, with this provision built into the Bill, they will know that it will be their legal duty and that they will have the protection of the law in taking whatever action is necessary to supply information. I think it is very important that we do not accept this amendment.
Lord Bellwin: May I say to my noble friend Lady Gardner that I saw the letter to which she referred. I am bound to say that it was one of the most abusive letters I have ever seen any member of a council write to another member of the same council who had only asked for information. All right; perhaps that is what one comes to expect these days in certain situations.
The answer to my noble friend Lord Auckland is that it would apply to any officer who may have the specific information that may be required. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, raised an interesting point. If she looks carefully at Clause 7, she will see that it is focused rather narrowly. I should not have thought that the scenario she painted would have been one of difficulty, but I want to think about what she said. We shall have a look at that, and I will be in touch with her about it. The point she raised was important.
In general, what my noble friend Lady Gardner said is quite right. Officers need to know where they are and they, too, need protection. In no way is it attacking them or making life more difficult for them; quite the contrary—it makes it clear where they stand. For this reason I am sure that when the proposers of the amendment think carefully about it, they will go along with that.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My noble friend was asked whether there are any precedents for this. I want to suggest to him that, whether or not there are precedents, the circumstances would justify setting a precedent if he is not able to produce any others.
Lord Bellwin: I am grateful to my noble friend. Perhaps I ought to have said to the noble Viscount, to whom I have said I shall write, that there is a similar,
212
albeit not an exact, precedent in Section 23(5) of the Housing Act 1980, which requires officers of the local authorities concerned to supply information without instructions from the local authority. It was designed to cover a somewhat similar situation of political obstruction, but this time without instructions. Actually, it does not go far enough, so there is a difference. I do not want to confuse the noble Viscount.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: That is very helpful. This is a step just a little further along than the example the noble Lord has given, but the circumstances would justify it. Officers deserve the protection that this clause gives them. Without it, they are in a very invidious position.
Lord Tordoff: Did I not understand the noble Lord. Lord Graham, to say that that provision had been repealed in an Act which received Royal Assent in June of this year?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If it helps the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I would point out that what I said was that in Section 23(5) of the Housing Act 1980 there was a duty on officers to comply with a notice from the Secretary of State to produce a document. I am advised—the Minister is much closer to the detail of the legislation—that that was repealed in the Housing and Building Control Act, which was given Royal Assent last week. Am I talking about the same thing, or is it possible to misinterpret it differently to suit one's purpose?
Lord Bellwin: This is something which together we shall clear up for the noble Lord, outside the Committee.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is fine. We need clarification. I do not intend to press the matter to a Division. I rest my case on the basis that this refers to all the information that the Minister would want. The Minister was very careful not to specify the kind of information that could not be obtained from a council, unless it was withheld wilfully; that is a different matter. If we are talking about a case where the officer has no information that is not in the possession of the council, or where all information in the possession of the officer is the council's information—that was the purport of the Birmingham case which I quoted—then what we are saying is that there is no new information or separate information. We are talking about two sources of information—one, the council, and the other the recipient of the council's information; that is, the officer.
We are talking about a circumstance which may or may not arise, because this Bill may or may not emerge in the form it is now in, or the main abolition Bill may or may not come about. At some time in the future the Government might feel that they want information which is in the possession of the council (the corporate body) and the council might decline to give it. Then, what the Government are saying is that under this Bill they are going to have power to say to an officer, "Knowing that your employers don't want

213
to give this information, we are going to demand it and take steps to get it".
I think that is a reprehensible step, because the Government are going to place those officers—not the authority—in an invidious situation. At the end of the day the Secretary of State says that what he wants is so powerful, so strong, that he wishes to place officers in that wretched position. Quite frankly, it is a very weak and indefensible proposition. It is aimed at the political opponents of the Government, or the political opponents who are controlling the council which refuses to give the information.
The Government feel it is quite all right to say, in those circumstances, that where their will is being thwarted by the political will of another political body, they are now going to involve the individual officers, not only those at the top, but also those in all grades. That is the kind of proposal we ought not to allow to pass easily. I should be interested to hear from the Minister—there are other stages of the Bill—what are the views of the associations of chief officers and the trade unions.
I note the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. The Minister spoke about the level of the correspondence into which the noble Baroness was drawn, apparently in asking an innocent and reasonable question. I should like to see not only the answer, but the question as well. Clearly we are not in the business—and I hope the Minister is not—of involving professionals who have difficulties which are not of their making. They arise because of the political initiatives of either the Minister or his colleagues. I am going to withdraw the amendment, but I think that the Minister wants to say a word before I do so.
Lord Bellwin: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. If one thinks through in depth what we are talking about, one sees that really it is all very sad. After all, all the information we are talking about is information that is there and should be available to everybody, to the public. In my own time on councils I always had an absolute policy that everyone should have access to everything. This is information that is in the public domain. If one is an elected member representing people, one has to make available information. That is not the same as being part of the decision-taking process, where one needs to weigh up pros and cons, consider alternatives, and all the rest of it.
If it comes to statistical facts and information which is there, it is the right of people to have that information and to seek to deny it to anybody—to a ratepayer, to a citizen—is something that I should never condone. Therefore, as I say, I think it is rather sad that we have to deal with the situation in this way, but it is necessary to do so.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I know that when I move a freedom of information Bill in the future it will be seconded by the noble Lord the Minister. In other words, there should be access by everyone to everything, excluding the decision-making process, the policy-making process. As I say, there should be access by everyone to everything. In the strictest context, that means a freedom of information Bill nexus. However, we shall return to these matters at another stage. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness: This, perhaps, is a convenient time to resume the House, and in moving the Motion may I say that I think it is agreed that we should not return to this Committee stage before 8.30 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Health and Social Security Bill
7.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): 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 Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]
Clause 16 [Constitution of panels for social security appeal tribunals]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am advised that if Amendment No. 59C is agreed to then I cannot call Amendment No. 59D.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 59C:
Page 20, leave out lines 4 to 11 and insert—
("persons who appear to the President to represent employed earners; persons who appear to the President to represent employers and earners other than employed earners and persons who appear to the President to have knowledge or experience of conditions in the area concerned and of the problems of people living on low incomes.
(2A) Before appointing members of a panel the President shall take into consideration recommendations from such local committees representing employers or employed earners or both, from organisations concerned with the interests of employers or employer earners or from such other organisations as he considers appropriate.
(2B) There should be on each Tribunal, drawn from the appropriate panel, one person' nominated to that panel by an organisation or local committee concerned with the interests of employed earners.".").
The noble Lord said: On the last occasion that your Lordships' House sat in Committee on this particular Bill I rose and commenced to move this amendment. Because of the time factor, I have no desire to take too much time in rehashing the argument that I advanced on that particular evening. However, the facts are that the Bill as at present drafted amalgamates the two panels from which people have been drawn—the supplementary benefits appeal tribunal and the national insurance appeal tribunal. My case is that the Bill as at present drafted removes from the legislation the historical right that has been granted to the trade union movement to be part of those panels.
In his reply the Minister may say that the Bill says:
"The panel for an area shall be composed of persons appearing to the President to have knowledge or experience of conditions in the area and to be representative of persons living or working in the area".
The subsequent sub-paragraph says:
"Before appointing members of a panel, the President shall take into consideration any recommendations from such organisations or persons as he considers appropriate".
It is my contention, and it is certainly the contention of those with whom I have discussed this matter, who have had this right in the past, that the Bill as at present drafted carries no such guarantee. If a president is appointed, or placed in position, by the Secretary of State and has anti-trade union leanings (which is not unknown in this day and age), it may well be that in a particular area the trade union input and the right to protect the working class at that particular level would be totally removed on the whim of the president of the area.
When I questioned the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, on this particular matter some time ago in this Chamber, he said that in the past difficulty had been experienced in certain areas receiving an adequate number of trade union nominations. I understand from the trade unions involved that there has been the odd local difficulty, but in the main those difficulties have been overcome, and can be overcome. On that basis, I look forward to the response of the noble Lord to the fact that this appeal is being made: that people at that particular level can have the protection that has historically been granted to them through the trade union movement in general or by people associated with it. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I can respond to the noble Lord by taking the amendment in two parts. First, perhaps I can explain that the provisions in subparagraphs (2) and (2A) in this amendment are superfluous. It is a condition in Clause 16 that the panel as a whole should be representative of the area for which it sits. It is, therefore, implicit that the groups mentioned in the noble Lord's amendment should be included on the panels and should be able to put forward nominations for members. Therefore, we recognise the points that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, makes, but we consider that those points have already been met.
Secondly, in effect, this amendment would restore the provision in existing legislation which makes it compulsory for one member of every tribunal to be a trade union nominee. Clause 16 abolishes this requirement, not because we want to reduce the number of trade union members sitting on tribunals but because we want to broaden the representation to include other groups, such as the disabled and single parents.
Members nominated by the trade unions have, of course, proved invaluable over the years in their knowledge of local working conditions; I do not think that anyone would deny that. I hope that in the future the president of social security appeal tribunals will be able to rely on trade unions for a substantial proportion of panel members. I know that the president is concerned to retain the co-operation of unions, and he has met TUC representatives on more
216
than one occasion. We do, however, attach importance to creating a single panel of members. Although the president wishes to draw members from as wide a background as possible, once they are sitting it is important for them to remember that they all have the same aim, which is to ensure that a correct decision is given, and that the two lay members are not intended to represent opposing groups in any way.
A single panel also allows greater flexibility in calling tribunal sessions without delays in the event of there being shortage of any particular category of member. I hope that I can assure the noble Lord that this is no attempt at all to step on the rights or privileges of trade union members, or in any way to inhibit the important role that trade unions play. I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord on that point, that I have allayed some of his fears, and that he will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I thank the noble Lord for his response. He said that he would deal with the amendment in two parts, and I am grateful to him for his response to the first part. However, when we debated this amendment a couple of weeks ago my main thrust was that inherent in the proposals was the fact that we could see the day coming very soon when a tribunal of three is drawn up with no trade union representative on it. That is the major reason for the amendment, and as far as I am cncerned that is the most damaging part of this clause. On that basis, I do not think that the Minister has gone far enough. Because the Government are altering what has become custom and practice, I am bound to say that I want to divide the Committee, and I so move.
Baroness Jeger: In support of my noble friend, we appreciate the Minister's explanation but it does not answer all the queries. The noble Minister said that it was not the Government's intention to reduce trade union representation but to increase representation for disabled people and single-parent families. I cannot understand why disabled people and single-parent families cannot be members of trade unions. This chopping up of people into separate divisions is not helpful.
One of the problems here is that Clause 16 states that such "persons as he considers appropriate" may be on the tribunal. I sat on tribunals many years ago and I am conscious of the fact that one feels on a different side of the table. There are two sides to these tables, and it would be a great mistake if the present Bill made it less easy for trade union members to have a seat as of right on these tribunals.
It is easy to be on a tribunal if you are fairly well off, if you are in the sort of job where you can get time off and life is fairly comfortable for you. It is much more difficult if you are working as a wage earner in some job to get put on to a tribunal unless you have some authority behind you so that you can say to your employer, "I have been asked by the Minister to be on this tribunal as a trade union representative".
Lords Glenarthur: The noble Baroness stresses the importance of being a member as of right. I hope she would also agree that it is important for the panels to be representative, too. If she feels that because they are

217
not going to be members by right the panels will become unrepresentative, I think she will realise that the clause specifically provides for the panels to be representative of the areas that they cover. The president is under a legal obligation to ensure that the panels do not become unbalanced by either having too few trade union members, or indeed too many.
Baroness Jeger: I thank the noble Lord for his courteous intervention but I have to ask him what is meant by "area"? What is meant by "persons living or working in the area"? With the amount of commuting that there is in present days—and we have been talking a lot about the GLC in your Lordships' House recently and there are 32 London boroughs—is where you live relevant or where you work?
Suppose you are on a tribunal because you are working in a certain area, wherever it is, and then you become unemployed? Unemployment is not just happening to the poorest manual workers; it is happening up and down the whole scale of our society. As the Bill stands at the moment it seems to suggest that if someone loses their job they would no longer be eligible to sit on a tribunal unless they also live in the area. Increasingly fewer people live and work in the same place.
If you are on a tribunal by virtue of working in a place, and then you become unemployed, it looks to me as though it might be possible for you to lose your place on that tribunal at a time when it is increasingly important that those who are unemployed—especially the long-term unemployed—should have a place on the other side of the table at these tribunals. We have too many unemployed and impoverished people coming before tribunals and feeling that they look only at the better off and more comfortable people, and that they do not have a friend on the other side of the table.
I do not think that that is the intention of the noble Lord, who has a great deal of sympathy for all these points, but it is a fear that is real to many people. The point of my noble friend Lord Dean's amendment is to try to bring these things together so that an unemployed man coming before this tribunal does not feel that he is just sitting opposite a collection of "fat cats" who are well employed, who are well off, and who have never lived on social security and have never been out of work. It is important that this consideration should be before your Lordships.
It might well be that because people are out of work, because they are retired—and there is no mention in the clause about retired people—they might have more time to give to this sort of work. I have to ask the noble Lord whether pensioners' organisations will be encouraged to put names forward? They are a relevant group in this situation.
The whole question seems to us to be bringing the tribunals within a very didactic appointment system. The idea of such persons as the "Minister considers appropriate" does not suggest the widest spectrum of people in the social life of our country. I support my noble friend Lord Dean in trying to put this amendment into the Bill. I cannot see why the Government should oppose it because it would reinforce everything that the noble Lord has said. I hope that the Committee will support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Mottistone: Speaking from this side of the Committee, may I suggest to the noble Baroness that the key words are:
"representative of persons living or working in the area"?
We are talking about a panel for an area. I cannot see that it could be any more explicit than that and give a wider basis for the very kind of people whom the noble Baroness wishes to get onto the panel.
I should have thought that Lord Dean's amendment is much narrower and much less likely to get people who are representative of persons living —and that includes those who are unemployed and those who are disabled and cannot work—or working—and that includes people represented by trade unions and those who are not—in the area. I should have thought that the existing provision is an ideal general way of putting it in order to get the best possible balance to achieve exactly what the noble Baroness wants. I would hope that your Lordships would agree that the Bill as it stands is the right way of putting that point.
Baroness Jeger: May I answer the noble Lord, because he put a question to me? I tried to make the point that "living or working" is the crux of this whole matter. One might be living in Westminister and working in Camden and be on a tribunal in Camden. Then one loses one's job. Then one is neither living nor working in Camden. I hope the noble Lord will make clear when he replies what an area is. Is it a county? Is it a borough? Where is it? In parts of the country it might be a very wide area.
Until we know what an area is in the context of this Bill it is difficult to go along with the noble Lord, whose points I very much appreciate. I hope that I have answered his question in that one can live somewhere and work somewhere else, and then lose one's place on the tribunal because one loses one's job.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Collison: I shall be extremely brief. I want to support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick. I do this because, as I think your Lordships know, I have been a life-long trade unionist and a past member of the General Council of the TUC, and its chairman—too long ago now—in 1965. It is essential that we should have trade union representation on these panels. I know that the TUC feel this to be so.
I shall not go into all the arguments again. Trade union representatives represent the people who are working, or have been working, and they understand the interests of the working people. It is not a question of this side against that side, as the noble Lord the Minister has said; it is a question of having people there who can understand and make any points that need to be made on behalf of trade union people and those associated with trade unions, and indeed workers and others in any sphere.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I wish to be brief. My amendment was specifically designed to retain the historical right and role that the trade unions have had under the old system of the two sets of appeal panels from which the tribunals were drawn. My amendment is designed to convey that custom and practice into the

219
one panel that will be drawn up under this Bill. It is not about other groups. They have their own way and their own arguments. My amendment is specific, but I want to see the trade union movement given that facility and retaining that facility that successive governments have granted. It has worked well and I can see no possible justification in the Minister's answer either at this stage, in the earlier Committee stage or in the Committee stage of the Bill in another place. That is what my motive is and I move accordingly.
Lord Northfield: May I ask the noble Lord a question? I did not understand what he said properly. He said that the statutory right of a trade unionist appointee needs to be removed to make way for single parents, disabled people and so on. Why does one have to remove a right to bring other people on to the panel?
Lord Glenarthur: The point that I made is that we want to broaden representation. That is why I suggested that there were other groups such as the disabled, single parents and others who could equally well be part of the group. I do not for a moment imagine that I shall change the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Dean. I am sure that he will divide the Committee on this, but there are one or two points on this that I can usefully make.
The key point which answers the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, is that the tribunal areas, of which there are 150 in all, will have members drawn from that area. They will be representative of that area and will not actually have to live or to work there, but will be representative of that area, as I understand it. I do not see how the question of losing a job comes into the matter. All groups will be taken into account.
As I said earlier, we appreciate the contribution which trade union members have made. I sincerely hope that they will be able to play their full part in the future, but I share the view of my noble friend Lord Mottistone that trade unions do not have a monopoly of experience with people living on low incomes or having any other way of life. We want others to be able to contribute their knowledge as well.
7.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 59C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 108.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Avebury, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Banks, L.

Ennals, L.

Barnett, L.

Ezra, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Falkender, B.

Birk, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Bottomley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Glenamara, L.

Caradon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Chandos, V.

Grimond, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hanworth, V.

Collison, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

220

Hooson, L.

Simon, V.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stallard, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kagan, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stone, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Tordoff, L.

Nicol, B.

Underhill, L.

Northfield, L.

Wade, L.

Phillips, B.

Whaddon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

White, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Raglan, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Rhodes, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Serota, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Auckland, L.

Kemsley, V.

Avon, E.

Kilmany, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bellwin, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Beloff, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Belstead, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Blake, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Burton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Mar, C.

Caithness, E. [Teller.]

Margadale, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Carnock, L.

Chelwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mersey, V.

Colwyn, L.

Middleton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Monson, L.

Craigavon, V.

Morris, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mottistone, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V.

Norfolk, D.

Denham, L.

Onslow, E.

Digby, L.

Orkney, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Peel, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Eccles, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Elibank, L.

Quinton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrers, E.

Reigate, L.

Ferrier, L.

Renton, L.

Forester, L.

Rochdale, V.

Fortescue, E.

Rugby, L.

Gainford, L.

Savile, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Gibson-Watt, L.

Suffield, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swinfen, L.

Glanusk, L.

Swinton, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Teynham, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Tranmire, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Halsbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hayter, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Henley, L.

Westbury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Windlesham, L.

Ilchester, E.

Wise, L.

Inglewood, L.

Wynford, L.

Ingrow, L.

Young, B.

Ironside, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 59D not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 20 agreed to.
8 p.m.
Schedule 6 [Protection of pensions]:
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 57, line 27, at end insert—
("(9) Sections 41A and 41B do not apply to pensions, relevant sums, guaranteed minimum pensions or additions which have accrued in respect of periods of an earner's employment which is or was contracted-out by reference to an occupational pension scheme prior to 31st December 1984.").
The noble Lord said: One of the reasons which attracted my support to the Conservative Party rather than to any other party was the certain knowledge that the Conservative Party was the party of principle and the party with principles. It comes as a sad surprise that Her Majesty's Government should support a device for curing the admitted harm of franking by means of a remedy which, in itself does harm. It is neither necessary, nor discriminate. In my submission there are no means of knowing the extent of the harm.
The purpose of the legislation is to prevent occupational pension schemes from franking; that is to say, counting pension in excess of the guaranteed minimum pension at the date of leaving towards the revaluation of the guaranteed minimum pension in line with inflation during the period after leaving until state pension age. This is not unreasonable, since the contracting-out terms allowed for such revaluation of the guaranteed minimum pension in the case of early leavers. It is therefore open to schemes to increase their future contributions, to reduce their future-service benefits, or to cease contracting-out in order to meet the cost involved for future-service benefits.
What is quite unreasonable and wrong in principle is to make the change retrospective to 1978. This must be wrong in principle since it undermines the whole partnership between the state and occupational pension schemes established as recently as 1978.
It is not necessarily possible for a pension scheme to take action to meet the cost of compulsorily-improved past-service benefits in the same way as for improved future-service benefits. In particular, in the case of a closed pension scheme, if additional pensions have to be provided for contributors who leave service prematurely, there will be less money in the fund to meet the cost of pensions already in payment of the contingent cost of the pension for those who stay. In other words, they will set the early leavers against the late stayers. At the margin this could tip a poorly-funded scheme into insolvency. With some 90,000 schemes, many of them insured, there are potentially numerous cases of this kind.
Even for an open pension scheme, the additional cost of retrospection may not be affordable. It would be wrong, as Her Majesty's Government might maintain, to suppose that the cost would be afforded out of the contracting-out rebate since 1978 since this money will almost certainly have been committed in other ways. Bearing this in mind, can Her Majesty's Government give me an assurance—and this is a simple question—that the legislative change proposed would not result in anyone's pension being reduced?
I believe that in practice, without statutory compulsion, most schemes would act retrospectively of their own volition, so that, in other words, it is not necessary, in my view, to make this compulsory. Certainly, those who could afford it, would do so and
222
would accept the administrative convenience of so doing. It is Parliament's responsibility, however, to act in the best interests of all threatened pension funds. The important point is that there should be a choice and the opportunity of a decision in the light of the circumstances of the fund.
The Government have recently accepted as right that pension funds should operate under trust law. The imposition of retrospective burdens is bound to make it difficult to assert that justice is being done.
I know that I am speaking to willing listeners, but noble Lords will recall that during consideration of the Telecommunications Bill Her Majesty's Government very strongly argued against the retrospective nature of an amendment which I moved, and which happened to be successful. It was a point which was taken up with great eloquence by noble Lords of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. They fought this point very strongly and it was met in the other place. I absolutely accept that point. So I feel sure that Her Majesty's Government will be concerned about this particular matter. Indeed, I know that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and all my noble friends on the Front Bench go to bed with the ringing words of Lord Coke, in his second Institutes, at page 292, when he said that it is,
"a rule and law of Parliament that regularly, nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet, non præteritis",
which, as we all know, means that a new law ought to be prospective, not retrospective, in its operation.
The common law defines retrospective legislation as such an anathema that it has been, even back to the statutes of Gloucester, a rule of construction that new laws should be looked at in this light; or, to put it another way, retrospective laws are, as a rule, of questionable policy and contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated ought to deal with future acts and ought not to change the character of past transactions carried upon the face of the then existing law. Accordingly, it has been said that every statute which takes away or impairs a vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already passed, must he deemed retrospective in its operation and opposed to the sound principles of legislation. This rule, which is in effect that enactments in a statute are generally to be construed to be prospective and intended to regulate the future conduct of persons is deeply founded in good sense and strict justice and has been acted upon in many cases.
It is for these reasons that I believe it to be of crucial importance that Her Majesty's Government—and, indeed, I beseech them to do so—have another look at this particular issue. I believe most sincerely that no harm will come from the absolutely correct principle to abolish franking. But the means by which they have gone about it could cause some considerable harm. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: I should like to say a short word of support for this amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that franking should be abolished. I think it is wrong that when the guaranteed minimum pension in a paid-up pension under a contracted-out

223
occupational scheme is increased, as it has to be by statute to take account of inflation, the remaining pension benefit should be correspondingly reduced. I am glad that that will no longer be possible. Higher pensions will be paid to some early leavers as a consequence, and in so far as this refers to future years, it can be funded over those years.
But, as the noble Lord says, the Bill makes it retrospective to 1978 and this will put an immediate burden on some occupational schemes to fund these accrued rights. This, as the noble Lord said, could prove very hard for some schemes and might push some of them into insolvency. I think he is right to suggest that if there is once a statutory obligation for the future, most occupational schemes will make it retrospective, if they can afford it. As it is, there is a danger, as the noble Lord said, that higher pensions for some may mean lower pensions for others. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give that assurance for which the noble Lord, Lord Moms asked and that he will also agree that retrospective legislation is always bad.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: No one is more aware than I am of the view that your Lordships have expressed on numerous occasions—let us hope not too numerous—when retrospective legislation was discussed. I am afraid that I cannot match my noble friend Lord Morris with his mastery of Latin; but the noble Lord has explained in moving the amendment that it is concerned with that part of the Bill that would abolish the practice of franking as adopted by some occupational pension schemes.
Perhaps I can begin by reminding the Committee of the general impression of franking. I am not in the habit of quoting what I said at Second Reading; but on that occasion I said that franking is a term used to describe the practice whereby the statutory revaluation of a guaranteed minimum pension is achieved by eroding other scheme benefits payable. It is an abuse, and as such it has been widely criticised.
May I also remind your Lordships that the Occupational Pensions Board in their 1981 report on early leavers recommended the abolition of franking. The noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, the chairman of the Occupational Pensions Board at that time, when he addressed the national conference of the National Association of Pension Funds in May 1981, said that the board's propsals on early leavers should be applied in such a way that early leavers would receive the full benefit of the board's recommendations in addition to the contracting out requirements.
I am sure we can all agree that franking as such should cease. It is a practice which cannot be defended; once its effect is appreciated it can be seen to have a damaging effect on the eventual rate of pension which would otherwise be paid. The amendment proposed by my noble friend is concerned with the restricting of the effect of the abolition, so it would only apply to future guaranteed minimium pension rights. This drastically reduces the benefits of the abolition for future early leavers.
As the Bill stands, any member leaving or retiring
224
after a future date—which has yet to be specified —would find that that scheme would be prevented from eroding his pension in excess of the guaranteed minimum pension, to meet the future revaluation of his whole guaranteed minimum earned since April 1978. The amendment would permit such erosion to cover revaluation of previous guaranteed minimium pension rights. Its justification has been expressed also by my noble friend Lord Morris. But he primarily objects to the retrospective nature of the Government's proposals.
I suggest that retrospection here is not only fully justified but it is absolutely necessary. Among other things, contracted-out occupational pension schemes have to guarantee that the eventual pension paid to a member at state pension age would not be less than the so-called guaranteed minimum pension. That guaranteed minimum pension is broadly the equivalent of the state scheme additional component. The employer and employee pay reduced national insurance contributions because of the scheme undertaking to pay part of the additional earnings-related pension.
That reduction in national insurance contributions is designed to match the liability undertaken by the scheme to provide a guaranteed minimum pension revalued to state pension age. The scheme therefore which practices franking is reducing other benefits to cover the cost of providing the revalued minimum pension, yet that is already allowed for in the reduction in national insurance contributions.
I suggest to the Committee that as that reduction has been given since April 1978 to members and employers in contracted-out schemes, there is every justification for the legislation having effect from the same date.
My noble friend asked me for an insurance that this legislation—
Lord Morris: An assurance!
Lord Glenarthur: I apologise to my noble friend. He asked for an assurance that the legislative change would not result in anyone's pension being reduced. I say to him that if the scheme is properly funded then no one will suffer. If the scheme is not properly funded, then all will suffer.
My noble friend has described the difficulties and feelings that retrospection is alleged to be likely to cause, and indeed the feelings that your Lordships have. I have to say that I remain unsympathetic to his remarks. I understand them, but I hope your Lordships will agree that all members of occupational pension schemes need the full protection against franking that the Bill in its current form provides. This amendment, I have to say, is not desirable and in the interests of ensuring a fair deal for future early leavers, I hope my noble friend will withdraw it.
Lord Morris: I am most grateful to my noble friend for reading his brief so beautifully and clearly. However, he suggested that my major argument against the Bill as it stands and in favour of the amendment was on the retrospective element. If he had listened with care, he would have realised that the

225
major argument was on the grounds of necessity and of natural justice, because his rebuttal to my argument also really ran to the root of the drafting or the effect of my amendment as it stands. I take no credit for that at all, and I would accept that the amendment as drafted might be unsatisfactory. But all I ask my noble friend is if he would consider the principle not only of retrospection but of the harm this will cause.
He really let the cat out of the bag when he used the phrase "If the funds were properly funded then there would be no problem", which I accept, "But if the fund is not properly funded …" It is here the danger lies, because I made particular play with regard to the closed fund when no more funds would be coming in. There lies the danger. The only way in which the fund can provide for the proper benefit for the early leavers is to take funds away from those who leave at the late time. Now who is going to provide the funds? I do not think Her Majesty's Government will. Yet they pass legislation without giving the provision. I am certainly not suggesting in any way whatsoever that the Government should do that but this is the injustice that they are in danger of perpetrating. The awful thing is that nobody, least of all Her Majesty's Government—and not even for instance the National Association of Pension Funds which covers the whole of the United Kingdom—had any idea of the extent of the harm, and the harm is not necessary, I am absolutely certain of that. Again, I beseech my noble friend, since this is such an important matter of principle, that he reconsider it so that discussions can go on before we reach the next stage.
Lord Glenarthur: I hope that my noble friend has understood one point about it. I appreciate, as he does, that it is an extremely complex area and I must confess that I do not even know whether my noble friend is total master of it; I am not sure that I am myself. But I think the point is that the legislation we are talking about affects future early leavers only. It is retrospective only for their benefits which were understood to be provided as part of the contracting-out arrangements, and it does not put a burden on schemes for past leavers. I hope that is some reassurance for my noble friend.
Lord Banks: Would the noble Lord answer the point about the closed fund, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morris?
Lord Glenarthur: Would my noble friend remind me precisely what that point was? Would that be the reduction in pension that I referred to? Does he want me to elaborate on that?
Lord Morris: The closed fund is one where there is no likelihood whatsoever of any new funds coming into the fund. For instance, it may be the pension fund of a company which has gone into voluntary liquidation and the fund is still existing because there are beneficiaries still alive and well. But there are no new funds coming in, and although the persons may not have reached their pensionsble age they decide to withdraw their interests in the fund early and, as such their rights would be affected. I beg your Lordships' pardon—those who stay in the fund to their full
226
pensionable age will lose out because the early leavers will have to be benefited in accordance with the legislation, and the only way that funds can be found for this is at the cost of those who stay in the fund to the full termination.
Lord Glenarthur: I think I follow the noble Lord, but I do not think I can usefully add to what I have already said on this matter. I think it would be best if I studied my noble friend's remarks and wrote to him about this. I am afraid that I stand by what I said earlier, and I hope that, with the assurance that I will write to explain matters, my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris: My noble friend is absolutely right in deducing with remarkable sagacity that I know very little about the subject I am talking about. I am comforted by the fact that I know he is extremely concerned about the subject as well. I would have thought it more gracious to allow me what I ask: namely, to reconsider this point. But as he has said that he will write to me on this point, I am most happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
8.20 p.m.
Schedule 7 [Miscellaneous social security amendments]:
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 58, line 14, at end insert—
(" . In subsection (1) of section 125 (Duty to increase rate of certain benefits) of the Social Security Act 1975, after the final "of", there shall be inserted the words "earnings or".")
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to restore the link with earnings so far as long-term benefits are concerned so that benefits are raised in line with whichever is the higher of the increase in earnings and prices, which was the original formula under the 1975 Act. At the moment, every time there is a greater increase in earnings than in prices the pensioners fall further behind. The breaking of the link with earnings has cost single pensioners over £2 per week and married couples over £3 per week.
There are two questions I should like to put to the noble Lord the Minister. First, how can pensioners share at all in increased prosperity unless, when earnings rise faster than prices, they receive an increase larger than the increase in prices itself would dictate? That was the first question. The second question is: how can they share equally unless they receive an increase equal to that which a total link with earnings would dictate?
The link with prices takes care of the subsistence level by ensuring that the real value of the pension cannot fall, and the link with earnings would prevent the pensioners dropping behind those in work. So what I am really asking is: what is the Government's attitude towards the relationship which ought to exist between the pension and average national earnings? The document, Population, Pension Costs and Pensioners' Incomes, which was published last week by the Department of Health and Social Security, includes a paper on future pension costs by the

227
Government Actuary's Department. That assumes an annual increase in earnings in excess of the increase in prices by 1½ per cent. In other words, the assumption is that earnings will always increase faster than prices.
I want to ask whether the Government accept that assumption and whether their planning for the future is based on that assumption, because, if that happens, the pension will steadily decline as a percentage of national average earnings, even if its purchasing power is maintained. Are the Government happy about that? In other words, the value of the basic pension will gradually be eroded until, as the paper says, the total pension will be largely composed of the earnings-related portion, that is to say, the comparable value of the basic pension as opposed to average earnings. Are the Government happy about that?
It would of course cost more to provide earnings-related basic pensions on the assumption made by the Government Actuary's Department, if that should prove correct; and it would cost a bit more still under the dual formula suggested in this amendment if, although earnings overall increased more than prices, nevertheless in some years the reverse were true. This is due to the so-called "ratchet effect". But if the future cost burden is too high, would it not be sensible to do what I have already suggested to the Minister; namely, abolish the earnings-related pension put everyone on contracted-in contributions, increase the basic pension by, say, 20 to 25 per cent. and link it to prices or earnings, as proposed in this amendment? Obviously, I do not expect the noble Lord to reply to that last question tonight, with the Fowler Inquiry still going on; but I should like to hear what the Government's view is on the relationship which ought to exist between the basic retirement pension and earnings. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: To save your Lordships' time, I would say only that we strongly support the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. My economical use of time this evening might not be repeated on another occasion; but I want to make it clear that we support the noble Lord's amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, the amendment would restore the link with prices or earnings and would mean that over time pensions and other benefits would rise faster than both prices and earnings. That would mean a growing burden on the economy that could only be met through higher contributions and higher taxes. Each 1 per cent. increase in pensions and other long-term benefits costs about £320 million in public expenditure. Over time, therefore, the extra costs that would result from this amendment would be very substantial indeed. In the Government's view, it would be irresponsible to legislate for automatic increases in expenditure in this way, irrespective of the country's ability to afford them.
The Government are pledged to maintain the value of retirement pensions and associated long-term benefits. This has been more than achieved: the retirement pension will have been increased by 83·6 per cent. between November 1978 and November
228
1984, while prices rose by only 76·4 per cent. over the same period. It is open to the Government to go beyond the statutory requirement of a prices uprating where they consider that affordable—and I should remind your Lordships that the Prime Minister has said that we intend to do the best we can to ensure that pensioners will share in the prosperity that will be brought with the country's economic recovery.
It is also relevant to mention that many of those newly retiring are already benefiting from the provisions of the new pensions scheme. By September 1983 nearly 1 million pensioners were receiving an earnings-related additional pension of some £2.60 a week on average, while those who have retired more recently have received about £4.65 on average. When the new pensions scheme matures in 1998 it will provide the average earner who has a full contribution record with a pension of about 40 per cent. of average male earnings for a single person and over 50 per cent. for a married couple—equivalent to nearly twice the present basic rate in real terms. Therefore, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pensioners will of course share in the rise in prosperity, because the Government have promised an increase by more than prices when resources permit. I hope that with that reply the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: May I say briefly that I hope the Government will hurry up and reduce inflation below 3 per cent., so that one of my occupational pensions does not start to erode?
Lord Banks: I am grateful to the noble Earl for presenting an answer to my various questions, but he did not in fact deal with any of the questions that I put to him. He did not deal with the question about how it was possible to share without having an increase in the pension which exceeded prices, on the assumption that earnings will always be higher than prices. He did not say what the relationship should be and what he felt about the possibility that the assumption in the paper published by the Department of Health and Social Security was right. He did not say whether that assumption was accepted by the Government, or whether the Government are happy about the implications of having a basic pension which is related only to prices when earnings are increasing every year faster than prices, with the result that the basic pension will ultimately become so small in relation to the earnings related pension that the whole scheme as now cast will be thrown entirely lopsided. It would be interesting to have an answer to these various points, but in order to allow the noble Earl to think about them a little further I will at this stage beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61A not moved.]
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Transitional]:
8.33 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne Lord Cullen of Ashbourne moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 28, line 28, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Lord said: This amendment brings us back to the optical front. These subsections were introduced by the Government during the passage of the Bill in another place. The objective of these provisions appears to be to enable unqualified and unregistered persons to enter into contract with family practitioner committees to dispense NHS spectacles, even although they are not qualified dispensing opticians. These provisions are extremely retrograde, and it is difficult to think of any precedent for permitting family practitioner committees to contract with people who are not professionally qualified to provide professional services.
These provisions are going back further than the Opticians Act 1958, since from the inception of the NHS in 1948, under what were known as the supplementary ophthalmic services, only opticians holding recognised academic qualifications could be admitted to the ophthalmic list of family practitioner committees. In effect, these provisions are deeming unqualified persons to be qualified dispensing opticians capable of undertaking NHS dispensing.
The Government may like to say that they do not regard ophthalmic dispensing, whether done privately or under the NHS, as involving any health matter; but the fact is that it has been so regarded and accepted by Governments of every colour since 1948. The Government certainly so regarded it when I was a spokesman for the DHSS, before the report from the OFT. It is, I am sure, a slavish following by Her Majesty's Government of that report to such a large degree that has caused such a profound change in view. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Clause 1 contains general proposals to liberalise the present restrictions on who can supply glasses. That clause liberalises the private market. These subsections of the transitional clause take parallel action in respect of the general ophthalmic service. We are being totally consistent in this matter. If alternative suppliers are to be allowed to sell to the public, there is no reason why they should not be GOS contractors. We propose that they contract on the same terms and under the same obligations as dispensing opticians, but they will of course be limited to serving adults by the terms of Clause 1. If contractors come forward who are prepared to operate on this basis, we see no reason at all why they should be excluded.
We have an inconsistency of argument to counter. Many existing opticians claim that GOS work is unremunerative. They claim that it is subsidised by their private work. Why, therefore, can there by any objection to bona fide suppliers being allowed to contract for this allegedly unremunerative chore which the amendment seeks to prevent? Could it be that it is not so unattractive after all?
We have sought this power for three principal reasons: first, because it is consistent with our approach to a future private optical market under
230
Clause 1; secondly, because we wish to secure an alternative source of supplies, should insufficient opticians be interested in continuing to do the residual GOS work; and, finally, because we expect such contractors to be more efficient and less costly, and their lower level of costs will become reflected in the factual inquiry about costs which underpins fee negotiations. We believe that these are good and sufficient reasons for this part of the clause and its deletion would be injurious to the public as both GOS users and, ultimately, GOS paymasters. I hope that my noble friend, having noted that the Committee has agreed to Clause 1, will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I should like to support this amendment. I do not know what my noble friend will do. I think that may noble friend the Minister has been speaking a little aggressively in the circumstances. I hope very much that my noble friend Lord Cullen and the other noble Lords who support him will come back on this general subject at the next stage of the Bill, when I shall be delighted to support them. The whole principle of the unqualified dispenser is one on which I have not been satisfied with the Government's arguments. I think that they are barking up the wrong tree, and I hope that they will have another thought when we come back at the next stage.
Lord Northfield: I do not want to start a debate on this amendment but it should be recognised that what the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, is doing is going back to Clause 1 and Second Reading. He is really saying that it is wrong to allow unqualified people to provide spectacles: not to do testing, not to do the professional work, but to do the commercial job of selling spectacles. We have had this out time and again on Second Reading and in the debates on Clause 1. I suggest that that argument is now past and that this is a very late stage at which to introduce this great principle all over again as an argument.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and I do not agree on these matters, as we well know. This has been going on for quite a long time. I would not have come back to this matter had it not been for the fact that this debate was not finished on the occasion when we had put down a whole lot of amendments. This is one of a series that went together. I was not going to withdraw it this evening because I still feel very strongly that it is not right that unqualified people should be given the same facilities as qualified people to deal with the public. Nothing will change my view, although I know that the noble Lord has held very different views over many years.
My noble friend suggested that what he said was quite consistent. He is indeed entirely consistent. What I do not agree with is the Government's philosophy. It will be no surprise to me if, in a few years' time, the legislation which is now going through your Lordships' House has to be changed. I may well come back to this matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Citation]:
Lord Ferrier Lord Ferrier moved Amendment No. 62A:
Page 29, line 1, after ("Health") insert (", Optical Appliances").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 62A. Your Lordships will recall that by Amendment No. 1, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne on 12th June, which has already been referred to this evening, we sought to leave out subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill. During that debate I contended that if the Committee decided to retain the said subsection, the Short Title might require to be amended. Your Lordships rejected my noble friend's amendment. Consequently, I suggest that, as the matter stands, the Short Title requires suitable amendment.
Your Lordships will see that the opening words of the Long Title are:
"An Act to amend the Opticians Act 1958".
The existing Clause 1 seeks to do just that. My contention, therefore, is that it would be prudent for the Short Title to be amended accordingly. Indeed, more than prudent, I feel that it is essential that the Short Title should be so worded that Hansard carries, if only for the purpose of its index, an indication that this enactment will in fact amount to an amendment of the Opticians Act and its consequent association with the provisions of the National Health Act.
It is not necessary to go over again the contention which the Committee rejected: that this Bill now varies the provisions of that Act. Be that as it may, I move that the Short Title should be amended to read:
"Health, Optical Appliances and Social Security Act 1984".
In some respects, this is a rag-bag of a Bill. It is as well to remember that when the other place divided on its Third Reading, which they carried by a majority of 96, The Times pointed out that out of the Opposition's 207 available Members, 192 were missing. This fact is an indication of the way that the Bill has been pushed through. I am inclined to agree with what my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne has said: that the Bill may have to be revised again in future years. My heart goes out to my noble friends who have had to undertake the work.
If what I have said makes sense, I should be the last to contend that the wording that I have set out in the amendment is the best way of putting it and that it may be possible to word it in some other way. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: I support the amendment. In discussing the Bill with many people, I have found that the fact that the Title of the Bill is "Health and Social Security" has not conveyed to the members of the public the information that it has anything to do with optical appliances or optical services. As the Long Title of the Bill states that it is an Act to amend the Opticians Act 1958, I can see no possible objection to the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Mottistone: I, too, support the amendment. I would suggest to my noble friend the Minister that one of the main arguments that the Government advanced for supporting the first four clauses of the Bill was that
232
they do not affect health. The argument is that you do not harm people's eyes if they have the wrong specs. Health is therefore not affected. That is the whole argument of all those who say that they want cheap, off-the-shelf specs to be made available. Therefore, it is bogus to put this under the general heading of health. Even if the Government cannot immediately accept the amendment, the least they could do would be to take the point away and say that they will think about it. It makes much more logical sense to have my noble friend Lord Ferrier's amendment in the Bill.
Lord Monson: As somebody who has made several unsuccessful attempts recently to make the Short Titles of various Bills more self-explanatory so as to assist the legal profession and the general public, I warmly welcome the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, will have more success than I did.
Lord Glenarthur: I fully accept the strong views of my noble friend Lord Ferrier and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to say nothing of the Opposition Front Bench, so far as this particular amendment is concerned, but the fact is that it would be a mistake to adopt this course, innocuous as it does in fact seem, because the words which form the Short Title of any Bill do not have any particularly special significance. The Short Title is not intended to detail all the contents of a Bill. As the noble Lord described when he moved the amendment, the Long Title covers a great many other aspects of a Bill.
My noble friend says that the Bill is a rag-bag of a Bill. I am afraid that unfortunately it is a fact of life that we have, in the very complex field of both health and social security, rather a lot of Bills which involve the alteration or improvement of a great many conditions. The Short Title is merely a convenient label for the purpose of identification. That being the case, there is quite a lot of merit in keeping that Short Title as short as possible. If we were to accept the principle of expanding the Short Title it would be difficult to stop at the amendment which we are now considering, because it has not been universally accepted in all quarters of your Lordships' House that the clauses dealing with the supply of optical appliances form the most important part of the Bill. There are many of your Lordships who would argue that the bits for which they have spoken are as important, if not more important. Those noble Lords who have regarded other clauses as being of greater or equal significance might legitimately argue that these, too, should be reflected in the Short Title. And where would we stop?
The fact is, as my noble friend described, that this part of the Bill amends primarily the Opticians Act 1958. It also amends to a lesser extent other Acts. What I am sure my noble friend will understand is that statutes in force will in due course reflect the changes which are being made to the Opticians Act 1958 by this Bill. They are available in the Library. People who want to see what changes have been made, particularly to the Opticians Act, will look at statutes in force rather more than at the Health and Social Security Act 1984 as it may become.

233
The reference to health in the Short Title, as at present drafted, neatly encapsulates the fact that the Bill makes a number of reforms in diverse areas connected with health and the provision of health services. I do not think that the proposed amendment would result in greater clarity or would more accurately reflect the position. I hope that what I have said about the statutes in force clarifies the position for my noble friend and that he will not press the amendment.
Lord Ferrier: It would be foolish of me to press the amendment at this juncture. However, I have had such support from all sides of the Committee and, indeed, from my noble friend who has just sat down, who pointed out that the Short Title as it stands is misleading, that I must ask him to reconsider the matter and raise it at a later stage.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall most certainly examine the matter again, although I am afraid I shall probably find, as my noble friend will expect, that a great many other Bills have passed through your Lordships' House over the years which do not in their Short Title encapsulate every part of the Bill which is encapsulated in the Long Title. The fact is that the Long Title is the fully descriptive title of the Bill. I will certainly examine what my noble friend has said, but the title "Health and Social Security Bill" is for reference purposes, and it is not designed to include every item which the Bill proposes.
Opticians are just one aspect, and FPCs are another. There are dozens of other matters dealt with in the Bill, including franking, so one might call it the Health and Social Security, Opticians and Franking Bill. One could go on for ever. I am well aware of the strength of feeling which my noble friends and others express on this particular issue, but I should like to stress that it is for reference purposes that the Bill has a Short Title such as this.
The subject of health is included in the Bill, and so is that of opticians. My noble friend Lord Mottistone argued about the fact that we said earlier that wearing the wrong glasses cannot damage one's health. I think that is a bit of a red herring, but the fact is that the Long Title describes the purposes of the Bill quite fully.
Lord Ferrier: It would be wrong for me to press this matter but I am not at all satisfied with my noble friend's reply. I hope he will return to this matter again. Under protest, in view of the late hour and the important business which will shortly be before us, I will ask the permission of Committee to withdraw the amendment—despite the support I have received from all sides.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill
8.52 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 7.
[Amendments Nos. 49 to 59 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No. 61:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Report on financial consequences of abolition.
.Within three months of the date on which this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report on the financial consequences of abolishing the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils and transferring functions from those councils to any other body or bodies, specifying in particular what difference, if any, is likely to occur in public expenditure.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to require the Government to produce reliable information on the vital issue of abolition in time for Parliament's consideration of the main abolition Bill. It imposes a deadline of three months from the passage of this Bill.
During the general election, Government spokesmen widely claimed that savings of £120 million per annum and 9,000 jobs could be achieved by the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the Greater London Council. Since the magic period of the general election, the Government have consistently declined to publish details of the savings they claim will be made. Further, when introducing the Bill on Second Reading the noble Lord the Minister said:
"It has even been suggested there will be no savings. There are bound to be transitional costs. But can anyone doubt that the elimination of a whole tier of government will not lead to savings…?"—[Official Report, 11/11/84; col. 892.]
I do not pretend that I have delivered those words with the same emotion or sincerity that the Minister used when he said them, but those were his words.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I recognise them.
Lord Evans of Claughton: The noble Lord says that he recognises them. As far as I can detect, no estimate has been given of the transitional costs referred to by the noble Lord the Minister. So far as I know, no evidence has been adduced to support the plea that eventual savings must follow, although I concede that one might expect there to be savings from the abolition of a tier of local government.
Nevertheless, one might have that anecdotal view, but the evidence, such as it is, points to the opposite direction. In fact, the Government do not propose the elimination of a whole tier of government. The functions of the Greater London Council and of the metropolitan counties are not being abolished but are merely being redistributed to other bodies—to district councils, to London boroughs, and to quangos. In my submission, the likely effect will be that the costs arising from duplication and overlapping may increase as a result of the substantial number of members of the additional bodies that will be created under the proposed legislation.

235
I pray in aid the independent study of likely costs commissioned by the metropolitan counties from the consultant group Coopers and Lybrand. I regret to say that the Secretary of State declined to give information or evidence to Coopers and Lybrand, but their study concludes:
"There are unlikely to be any net savings as a result of the structural changes proposed by the Government and there coud be significant extra costs".
Those extra costs were calculated by Coopers and Lybrand as being between £36 million and £61 million.
Next, and understandably, I suppose, the noble Lord the Minister and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State have preferred to give more credence to studies produced by the metropolitan district councils, who, of course, as I said earlier in our debates in Committee, have a strong interest in disposing of the metropolitan counties. The metropolitan district councils have produced studies, but, in my submission, without detailed knowledge of the services provided by the metropolitan counties.
The most recent study they commissioned was by Price Waterhouse, and it was a conglomeration of previous and discredited studies. It was produced for the Conservative-controlled district councils in the West Midlands. This report was compiled in the very brief period of three weeks, based on a collection of information that took only four days to produce. Although it incorporates information provided by only six of the 36 metropolitan districts, it arrives at a figure for savings claimed to be across the whole of the metropolitan counties. The report was rushed out two days before the 1984 municipal elections for some reason which I am sure more sophisticated Members of the Committee could explain.
The report, in commenting on the level of its own evidence, states:
"Much of this information is often insufficient, either for the purposes of apportioning services which will become the responsibility of the participating authorities on an individual basis or for the purposes of understanding, for example, how certain central establishment costs or overheads are allocated or apportioned to the relevant services".
From this, it seems that a study was carried out without the necessary level of detailed information as to how the services of metropolitan counties are organised. The Greater London Council believes that if abolition takes place, rates will have to rise in 25 out of the 32 boroughs to maintain the existing level of services.
I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister from his happy smile will be suggesting that perhaps this is an exaggeration and that the existing level of services will not be maintained. The stockbrokers, Fielding Newson Smith, have also shown that abolition will probably cost London ratepayers at least £10 million a year more as the cost of borrowing for capital schemes by the 32 boroughs, would be greater than borrowing the same money by one authority; namely, the Greater London Council.
The evidence suggests as things stand at present that such savings as might be made would only be made at the cost of services. No other conclusion seems possible unless the Minister can show how £120
236
million every year and 9,000 jobs can be reduced by redistributing existing functions to other bodies without a loss of the quality of the services. I am the first to concede that some of the services that may be provided at the moment are services which would not be provided and would not be needed perhaps by the residents of the Greater London Council area and by the metropolitan counties.
However, I submit that such savings of that kind—about which much play has been made in your Lordships' House and in this Committee about unnecessary services to various groups which have been outlined from time to time, on services to prostitutes and lesbian and other groups—are minuscule quite frankly in the overall cost of local government. I know of no case in the period in which I have been involved in local government where reorganisation has proceeded without some much more reliable investigation of the likely cost and savings.
I do not believe that this Government can have much confidence in expecting that Parliament will be satisfied that their claims are well justified since they have not produced evidence nor have they sought to release or seek further information as to how the savings claimed by the noble Lord the Minister and his right honourable and noble friends, made in the general election, can be substantiated. The Association of Chambers of Commerce, for instance, said on 9th April this year when they challenged the Secretary of State to provide a detailed breakdown of savings:
"Only if such evidence and guidance is forthcoming can the continued support of the business community for abolition be counted upon."
These are the kinds of criticism which a Conservative Government should take very seriously.
In my opinion—and I am quite happy to accept such evidence if it is provided—if reliable, independent information is provided of the saving in costs that can be made from abolition then I think that I and a great number of my noble friends—and I am sure members of the Labour Party—would be willing to take the claims of the Government more seriously. But such evidence as is so far available suggests that costs will rise while services will suffer. So far as I know, no evidence exists to justify the proposals for abolition. In my submission therefore it would be irresponsible to proceed further without furnishing proper information to your Lordships' Committee or to Parliament itself to enable it to consider the full implications of the proposals.
In other words, what we are saying is that really the Government should put much more seriousness into detailing the claims it makes for the savings both in terms of personnel and of cash before they can be expected to be taken seriously in the claims made in the heat of a general election and now that such material saving can be made. So far, in my submission, that evidence has not been produced. I believe that it will be very difficult for the noble Lord the Minister to produce it but I beg of him, if he wants us to consider this matter seriously, to try to produce details of how such savings can be made, in what way they can be made and what evidence he has to support such proposals. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: Throughout our debates on this Bill I have acknowledged at all times the legitimate interest of your Lordships in the financial consequences of our proposals. I have made clear that demands for precise and detailed estimates are premature, because the fact is that whatever is said or is not said, much depends upon the decisions that will be taken by the successor bodies throughout 1985 and early 1986. The fact is that until the boroughs and districts have access to the detailed information about the existing GLC and MCC services, and until the planning cycle leading up to 1986–87 begins, it will be impossible to make a comprehensive assessment of the financial consequences of abolition. Although some matters lie within the control of central government, it really is the local decisions that matter. The Government will be able to do no more than report to the House such information as comes to the Secretary of State about those decisions.
The Secretary of State has given a firm undertaking that we will keep Parliament fully informed on the costs and savings from this change. In particular the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum on the main abolition Bill will state the expected effects on public expenditure.
I repeat that assurance now. There is no purpose in placing a clause in this paving Bill to produce an unnecessary report before useful information is likely to be available. The time to debate this is during the proceedings on the main Bill, by that time I hope that information will have been made available to the boroughs and districts and that further indications will be forthcoming of the likely plans of those councils. If I may just comment on some of the observations that the noble Lord made—although I am bound to say again that they are really relevant to the main Bill and not to this Bill—the Coopers and Lybrand report was based on certain assumptions which they chose to make, but that is all that it was. It was based on assumptions. It depends where you start as to how you finish, if you make other assumptions. It is not good enough to simply say, that because Price Waterhouse's study was certainly a much less in-depth study their conclusions are of less value; because there again you have a firm of at least equal stature. No one would claim otherwise. They would not put their name to something which they did not think was valid but they, too, had to make assumptions. The same criticisms could be made of their conclusions because they also had to make assumptions. Therefore, one cannot build a whole case on that.
I attach much more credence to the conclusions by those metropolitan districts or London boroughs who were prepared to make their own assessments in conjunction with their offices, and so on. Their conclusions actually came to much more, in terms of saving, than anything we had ever said. If your Lordships consider the sheer logistics of the whole exercise it is a fact that it will take a whole tier out. Of course, that does not mean that everybody in that tier goes. The overheads, or most of them, go. There are people who are duplicating work. It is what one wants to put on by way of a number. I was about to refer again to the GLC, but I do not want to keep doing so as it is unfair. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, is not in the Committee as she objects to us
238
always quoting the GLC and not the metropolitan counties. Of course, she is right.
I do not want to build a case on the policy decision. The noble Lord could fairly have said that the policy decisions which are taken would be taken differently by another party in power. I have always said that I do not want to make this whole case on the fact that enormous savings would be likely if different policy decisions were made. Nevertheless, it is true. There would be some explaining to do on how there are all these millions to spend on these things. Your Lordships must not say that it is minuscule. I do not consider £9 million spent on a women's committee as minuscule—not that it does not do some good work, but £9 million! The GLC has spent £6 million on propaganda. Where did the money come from? On what grounds was it raised in the first place? It had to say it needed this money for something. It did not say it needed it for these purposes, but it got the money. One might fairly ask: from whom have they got the money and why? Yet we are talking here of tens of millions of pounds as if it were minuscule. It is not; it is massive.
Having said that, I do not want to build a whole case on that. The case must rest on the savings in administrative costs, overheads and other things. That will depend very largely on what the boroughs and districts decide in making decisions. Certainly it does not have to mean that savings will be at the cost of service levels. I smiled, it is true, when the noble Lord said, "The GLC believes". Well, they would, wouldn't they!
I say again that I have said more than I should on a subject which ought to be debated on the main abolition Bill. Nevertheless, I feel that this is an amendment, of all the amendments in his name—and there are many—which the noble Lord would not say is his number one priority. I hope he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Evans of Claughton: Whether it is my number one priority amendment or not is very difficult to say, because as the Committee stage goes on my priorities change. Possibly the Government have made too much claim on the savings to be made without being able to substantiate them.
I remember in my days in local government that it was a great thing for my Liberal colleagues in the City of Liverpool to go rushing round saying what terrible amounts of money were being wasted by the Conservative, and then Labour, controlled city council on the Lord Mayor and on balls and other entertainments. It was a good thing and won votes. With the greatest respect to the Government, I suspect they are pursuing the same course. If one takes the global figures for local government expenditure, these expenditures—which we will be discussing under Amendment No. 67 and in the Title of the Bill on Amendment No. 103—are comparatively minor.
If the noble Lord the Minister is saying, "You are spoiling my strategy by insisting on discussing this now; it should be discussed under the main Bill" I say in response to him that if we are to take a sensible view about the main Bill, if we ever reach it, we must know on what he bases these claims about enormous potential savings. They are huge savings—9,000

239
employees and millions of pounds. The Government have not yet produced the figures, but since the Minister tells us that he will have the figures for us—and I like his confidence that we will be satisfied
240
with his explanation when we come to the main Bill—I will await that with eager anticipation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Postponement of exercise of functions]:
9.14 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 7, line 13, at beginning insert—
("() This section shall come into force when an enactment has been passed by Parliament which provides for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils and the transfer of the functions.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to omit Clause 8 in order to enable development plan reviews, boundary reviews and other necessary activities until the substantive abolition proposals are enacted. We are back to the real or unreal nature of tonight's debate. We are literally anticipating, or not anticipating, a statement which may or may not be made. We do not know what we shall be faced with when the Government have made their decision. I am speaking to this amendment because it is a logical consequence of the decision of the Committee on Amendment No. 1.
During the debate in another place Conservative Members of Parliament criticised the Government for gerrymandering, funking elections and threatening the good name of the Conservative Party. None of us on this side of the Committee will object to that or to the veracity of what they were saying. In particular, a former Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, commenting specifically on Clause 8, thought it unnecessary for the operation of the Local Government Boundary Commission to be suspended.
Under Clause 8 the Secretary of State for the Environment will cease to be under a duty to consider alterations to structure plans. Structure plans are fundamental in the work of the MCCs and the GLC and aim to guide investment in a sensible way. This aim is achieved by a set of policies which offer statutory guidance to district councils in order to harness the resources of the whole area to deal with common problems. Clause 8 also suspends work on, and approvals to, revisions of boundaries.
Subsection (3) removes from the Secretary of State a long-standing duty to consider proposals for transferring functions for co-ordinating recreation on the Thames and other rivers to the GLC. This seems to me to be an unnecessary part of the abolition process brought into the paving Bill. It is no good the Minister saying, as he did in the previous debate, that we are bringing parts of the abolition argument into the paving Bill. In my view that is exactly what the Government are doing with Clause 8, and particularly subsection (3).
Subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to vary the date of introduction of safety provisions in respect of reservoirs in different parts of the county. This raises the danger that the more vulnerable areas—the densely populated metropolitan areas—will not have the benefit of these safety provisions until after shire areas. The introduction of these provisions is already overdue. The Government should not be bringing forward such provisions in a paving Bill.
During the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place neither the Secretary of State for the Environment nor the Under-Secretary made any
242
reference to Clause 8. It would seem, therefore, that this clause is unnecessary and of no value to the objectives of the Bill.
This is the main basis of our argument. Although the clause itself is unsatisfactory, we are also concerned with the concept of "good housekeeping" —the "good housekeeping" provisions contained in the Government's paving Bill prior to the abolition of the GLC and the MCCs. The Government constantly use the offensive term "good housekeeping". Particularly in respect of Clause 8 we believe that that term is used to conceal a profoundly undemocratic measure, which will bring chaos to London's planning over the next decade.
I should like to draw the Committee's attention particularly to Clause 8(1). This will allow the Secretary of State to halt the further consideration of much needed alterations to the Greater London development plan—the statutory planning framework for London. We have all this ballyhoo surrounding the paving Bill's cancellation of the GLC elections. This clause is really part of the main legislation. I repeat that the Government chide us for bringing main legislation matters into debates on the paving Bill. In our view the Government are doing exactly the same here. We should not let that pass unnoticed.
A great deal needs to be said, and will be said, if not tonight, once the Government have made up their mind and when the Minister has been told what is in their mind. We keep hearing about statements made on the radio, not just this afternoon but also tonight. I promise the Minister that as soon as I hear anything I shall let him know. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Baroness Lockwood: I should like to support my noble friend on the Front Bench, particularly in his reference to the effect that this amendment would have on subsection (1) of Clause 8. I do so not in relation to the GLC but in relation to West Yorkshire, because this is a clause which is going to affect all the metropolitan counties. As I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will be aware, it will have very real repercussions on West Yorkshire.
Like my noble friend, I do not want to trespass too much on the main Bill, but this clause gives the Secretary of State powers to hold up some very important structure plans. In relation to West Yorkshire, the last structure plan went through in 1980. It had been under discussion and debate for some time, so it is now more than four years out of date. Plans are already well in hand to put revised proposals forward. These revised proposals are going very greatly to affect the housing provisions and the preservation of the green belt in an urban conurbation. These are very important and very essential to the amentities of the county as a whole, and not just to individual metropolitan district councils.
Again as the Minister will be very well aware, West Yorkshire covers part of the mining industry. There are very important proposals to be revised in relation to mineral and waste disposal. These are proposals of the kind that cannot be held up just because of the passing of this paving Bill. Therefore, I feel it is indeed essential that we have something along the lines of the amendment that has been moved, to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay to these important proposals.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am somewhat confused by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I understood that it had been arranged that we would take Amendments Nos. 62, 63, 64, 65 and 66 separately. He then appeared to go ahead and speak to the whole lot. I am quite happy to fit in with his plans as long as the Committee understand that that is what we are doing at the moment.
There is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is perfectly correct that, taken together, this series of amendments is (I think in his own words) intended to kill the clause. He called this a logicial extension of the Committee's conclusion on Amendment No. 1. I do not think it is, because these are much needed provisions in an interim situation. The Government have announced their intention to bring in the main Bill and to have it in full operation by 1st April 1986. In that case, like it or not, we are in an interim period, so it is right and proper that we should now make plans for that interim period. Of course I accept that the timing of some of the proposals for the interim may be affected by the decision of the Committee on Amendment No. 1. However, irrespective of that, the interim period exists.
So we are now considering a paving Bill designed to make interim provisions leading up to the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils and the transfer of functions to the lower tier. As part of these measures Clause 8 (and I make no apology for saying it again) makes some straightforward, good housekeeping provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, cast some aspersions on this phraseology, but I hope to show that the clause as a whole is a perfectly right and proper way to proceed.
The sole purpose of these provisions is to avoid abortive and wasteful work being carried out during the whole of that interim period. It does not prevent useful and worthwhile work from continuing; and it most certainly does not prejudge abolition. If we are to avoid waste during the whole of the interim period, these provisions must be included in the paving Bill. However, if we were to accept this amendment—that is to say, the first amendment, No. 62—then we might just as well leave the whole clause out of the paving Bill altogether and introduce it as part of the main abolition Bill. In the meantime, the Secretary of State and other bodies would continue to be obliged, instead of simply able, to undertake this work, however abortive and wasteful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, referred to West Yorkshire. I can give her an assurance that if the work to which she has referred is not going to prove to be abortive and wasteful then of course my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will carry on in exactly the same way as he has under previous legislation. Under this clause, he will not be obliged to, but he will be able to, taking account of the circumstances. I believe that this is the proper way to proceed. The best that I can say about the first amendment in the group is that it is illogical. On that ground, I would ask the Committee to think again.
Amendment No. 63 deals with structure planning. There is at present an approved structure plan in force in Greater London and each of the metropolitan
244
counties. However, the GLC and the county planning authorities are expected to keep their plans under review. Under Section 10 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, they may submit to the Secretary of State such alterations as they consider expedient. The Secretary of State may then hold an examination in public under Section 9 of the 1971 Act before taking a decision on any alterations.
The effect of Amendment No. 63 would be to maintain the Secretary of State's duty to consider proposals submitted to him for the alteration of the Greater London development plan or of a metropolitan county structure plan. That would clearly be absurd. It would be a waste of time, money and effort to have to consider alterations that could not be processed before abolition takes place. Amendment No. 69, however, which is part of this group, would take matters one stage further. Its effect would be that any alterations to the Greater London development plan or to a metropolitan county structure plan which had been submitted to the Secretary of State and consideration of which had been postponed under Section 8(1) would be automatically approved at the time that Section 8(1) was repealed. This idea fills me with total horror. It is wholly inappropriate. What we are being asked to put the stamp of Parliament on is a procedure, sight unseen, to override a decision by the Secretary of State. If abolition was not proceeded with, submitted alterations to the GLDP or to a metropolitan county structure plan should be dealt with as if Section 8(1) of the paving Bill had not been in force. The Secretary of State would need to consider the alterations and follow the statutory procedures including probably the holding of an examination in public before deciding whether to approve the alterations, with or without modifications, or to reject them.
Amendment No. 65 seeks to maintain the Secretary of State's duty to consider proposals submitted to him on the transfer of recreation and amenity functions from the Thames Water Authority to the GLC. Subsection (3) is there again to avoid abortive work and unnecessary expense in the transitional period leading up to abolition. Suspending this duty is entirely reasonable. There would be no point in transferring to the GLC a function which, some months later, would revert to the Thames Water Authority or by changing its course go somewhere else if the GLC is abolished. Although the duty is being suspended, the Secretary of State will still be able, if he deems it expedient, to consider proposals; and should abolition fail, this provision would be repealed by order under Clause 1. The transfer of these functions has been under discussion between the Thames Water Authority and the GLC since as long ago as 1975. It is sensible now to suspend the Secretary of State's duty at least until Parliament has decided the main abolition issue.
The final amendment in this group of amendments concerns the Reservoirs Act. I do not think that the noble Lord actually referred to it, so perhaps he intends to move that amendment separately?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: No, I do not.
Lord Skelmersdale: Would the Committee find it useful if I was to refer to it?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do not think so.
Lord Skelmersdale: In that case, I shall take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, on a previous occasion, and shut up.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord read his brief on Amendment No. 63 at breakneck speed, and I can see why. He can only have hoped that we would not notice the fundamental illogicality of what he says. I do not believe that this lame duck Committee stage is the appropriate time to make a long speech. But it is necessary to point out that, under any regime in London and in the metropolitan counties, there will have to be something other than district and local plans. There will have to be some continuation of strategic land use planning, and that I believe is recognised in the Government's own intentions and in streamlining the cities. I believe there is talk of a planning commission which would fulfil those functions.
At present the position in London is that the GLC has been spending three years on producing amendments to the Greater London development plan, which I remind the Committee was drawn up in the 1960s—20 years ago. Those amendments are to be submitted to the Secretary of State in mid-August of this year. If this Bill is passed with Clause 8(1) incorporated in it, it will be this Bill which creates an interregnum during which the Secretary of State is not obliged to consider the submissions of the GLC. Whatever one may think about a Government-appointed planning commission as a way of keeping a structure plan in trim after it has been produced, surely when a democratically-elected GLC has been spending three years on producing it, it is absurd to suggest that there should be this period of time when this Bill is in force when no consideration whatsoever is given to the conclusions which the GLC has reached.
It is not as if this is an un-thought-out matter. The Secretary of State had to be reminded by the High Court that the department was under an obligation to consider amendments. As I understand it, the Secretary of State announced that he was going to see to it that the law which obliged him to consider the amendments to the Greater London development plan would be changed. Clause 8(1) presumably is the legislation which is being put forward to codify that defiance of the High Court's decision.
It is not good enough for the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to suggest that it is proper to have this period, however long it may be—none of us yet knows that—in which this Bill is in force and in which no action whatsoever is taken to bring up to date a development plan which already is 20 years out of date. In effect, what he is saying is that by the time we go through all the procedures the Greater London development plan will be 30 years out of date. I suggest that that is not acceptable.
Lord Skelmersdale: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—of course, his experience of Greater
246
London is very much greater than mine—I should like to say that my understanding of the situation is that the GLC was charged in 1965 with creating a plan for London. Subsequently this became the structure plan under the 1971 Act. This plan for London was presented in 1969. Then there was an inquiry under Sir Frank Layfield, until 1972, and it was approved finally in 1976 with the label, if one likes, of a structure plan. As the noble Lord says, quite rightly, it is already out of date. I have no doubt that work is going on in the GLC, and that discussions are going on with the boroughs, on updating it.
But the question is whether in this period of time the Secretary of State should retain the duty to look at it, if indeed it is presented to him. I am quite sure that the noble Lord knows no more than I do as to whether it will be presented to him. But, as is well known, the Government intend to set up a planning commission for London. Again, I have no doubt that it may very well want to look at this whole subject; and there is no earthly reason why it should not.
Although it has not been mentioned yet, in regard to the simplified arrangement that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced the other day, I should like to point out that he has suggested that the right thing to do would be to have a local plan in each area, covering the whole borough, as the local structure plan. Again, this is something that I am quite sure the planning commission will want to look at.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord's protestations of ignorance and innocence are very affecting. But he ought to have been briefed adequately with the firm knowledge that he is to be presented with substantial amendments to the Greater London development plan, to the structure plan; and that the GLC had to take the Department of the Environment to court within the past 12 months in order to get it to fulfil its statutory duty to consider such amendments. When it came to court, Mr. Justice Hodgson made some very unflattering remarks about the Department of the Environment and said that the department's behaviour was less than might have been expected of a great department of state. In saying that, I do not claim to quote the actual words.
The issue of local plans and district plans is really a red herring. The boroughs will continue, and they will continue to produce their borough plans, which will contain district and local plans. The point about which we are arguing is the structure plan—the Greater London development plan as a whole. The point that we are trying to make—clearly, with no success whatever—is that as long as there is a democratically elected government for London, surely the procedures laid down by law for co-operation between central Government and that democratically elected GLC to revise the structure plan (which, as the noble Lord conceded, is based on the ideas of the 1960s and is therefore out of date) ought to be continued and there ought not to be a gap.
Lord Skelmersdale: This clause does not prevent them from doing that. It simply stops the Secretary of State having a duty, which is what I have sought to explain all along.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has ineffectively wriggled away from the main point, which is that there is no need for Clause 8(1) if the Government do not intend to be malicious in their actions in respect of not only the GLC, but also the metropolitan areas on this particular point. The updating of the Greater London development plan has been going on for two or three years and its timetable was agreed by the Department of the Environment. My information is that it will be deposited with the department in July, though in fact mid-August has been mentioned. There will be a period of about two years, until after April 1986, during which the matter can proceed. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government think that it is better to have 32 separate structure plans for the 32 boroughs, instead of one structure plan for the whole of London.
I should like to quote a ruling given in a recent case involving the Westminster district plan. It may very well have been the same judge as my noble friend quoted. An appeal court judge ruled:
"The sense of having the two plans"—
a structure plan and a local plan—
"is obvious in that someone must look at London as a whole, and it is impossible to plan for Greater London strictly borough by borough".
If the Government have their way and Clause 8(1) stands, we are very much afraid that there will be a great deal of abortive work. Quite frankly, there is nothing political—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: If the noble Lord will give way, I think that that is a point which I must dispute.
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I have not given way. I am not too sure how I am out of order if I am asked to give way and do not give way. So the cry of "Order, order" was directed at the noble Baroness. Of course I shall give way at an appropriate time, unless the noble Baroness wants to point out that the Government's motive is political. If the case is to be made that it is a political act and not a legislative or planning act, then we would be moving a little closer to a real argument on the matter. I am not raising this from the point of view of the political content of the structure plan; I am simply arguing that Clause 8(1) is unnecessary. Of course I shall give way.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The point that I wish briefly to make is that there was no form of consensus whatever on the new amended plan and it has a very much greater political content than the previous Greater London development plan. That is why the minority party at County Hall has objected very strongly to it. That is one point, which is of passing interest. The other point, which is of greater relevance, is that if all these matters are to go to the borough, surely the borough plans will be the more important.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do not doubt for a moment that in the preparation and completion of a structure plan there will be differences even on party
248
lines as to the land zone use of the area under review. I can appreciate divisions on party lines. However, I am not looking at this as a matter which has a political nexus one way or the other. This is where we and the Government fall out, as we consider that there are roles to be played by an overall London authority which can best be performed in unity, rather than in 32 separate pieces.
There are not that many roles, but there are a number. One of them is to over-view how the planning, reshaping, and reconstruction of London ought best to take place. There are many people wanting to make good speeches on this matter; good speeches are there to be made, and the good briefs are there to be read. So far as we are concerned it is not a matter that we want to leave alone. We are sad that the Government are intent on ignoring the realities for a purpose.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Of course, there already exists a Greater London plan. The subsection refers only to any alteration to it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If the existing structure plan is many years old and will not be altered for many years to come, if Londoners are satisfied that the overview of how Greater London ought to be planned should be left in that way until the 32 separate boroughs come to their 32 separate ways of planning their 32 separate bits, and if that is what we mean by local democracy, then that may satisfy the people, but the result may be something which historians will look back on and consider a disgrace from a land-use planning point of view. In view of the situation and the unsatisfactory nature of the Government reply, I give notice that at a more appropriate time we intend to come back and vigorously pursue these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 7, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, and unusually, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, I beg to move an amendment, on which there is obviously all-party agreement, to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 8. When drafting the Bill it seemed to the Government that there would be little point in reviewing arrangements for authorities which were shortly to be abolished. We have, however, reflected on the matter, and one consideration in particular has weighed heavily with us. If abolition did not go ahead, it would be necessary to reinstate the May 1985 elections to those councils—and to do so as quickly as possible. However, if the Local Government Boundary Commission was stopped from carrying out its present programme of reviews, a very unsatisfactory situation would arise, for the reviews could not then be re-activated and completed in time for the reinstated elections. On reflection, therefore, we have come to the view that subsection (2) ought to be deleted, and I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Lady Birk: There is not much to say on this, except that it is a rare moment when we are all of the same opinion. We are glad that the Government saw that what was originally in the Bill was a little hasty, and that what is now to be in the Bill—I do not suppose there will be any difference of opinion on it, as we are all on the same side; it would be only the Alliance, or the Cross-Benchers, who could perhaps be against us on this matter—will prevent waste of time and money, and will be more equitable. Apart from it being an indication of the problems of this rather unpopular Bill, this improvement is to be welcomed. I welcome and support the amendment which is in all our names.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 67:
After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
("Control of general expenditure powers.
.—(1) Except with the consent of the Secretary of State neither the Greater London Council nor a metropolitan county council shall on or after 1st April 1985 incur any expenditure under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 (power to incur expenditure for purposes not otherwise authorised).
(2) The expenditure to which subsection (1) applies includes expenditure after the date mentioned in that subsection in respect of contractual liabilities entered into before that date but not earlier than 26th June 1984.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not give his consent under this section in respect of any expenditure unless he is satisfied that it is expedient for the council in question to incur it and, as respects expenditure under subsection (1) of the said section 137, that the expenditure is in the interests of the council's area or any part of it or of all or some of its inhabitants.
(4) Any consent under this section may be given either in respect of particular expenditure or in respect of expenditure of any class or description.
(5) Expenditure incurred in contravention of this section shall be treated as contrary to law for the purposes of section 19 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 (powers of court in respect of unlawful expenditure by local authorities) but, save as aforesaid, this section shall not invalidate any payment, contract or other transaction.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is to make expenditure under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils from 1st April 1985 subject to the consent of the Secretary of State.
Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 empowers a local authority to incur expenditure equivalent to the product of the 2p rate for the benefit of its area or the inhabitants of its area for purposes not otherwise authorised. It also enables local authorities to incur expenditure in making contributions to the funds of certain bodies and in respect of certain appeals to the public.
Many—indeed most—authorities use this power sensibly for laudable and worthwhile purposes. It has, for example, been used in conjunction with urban development grant to get many imaginative and valuable projects off the ground in our run-down inner city areas. It provides the channel for much of the local authority support for many worthwhile voluntary bodies and charitable organisations. Used responsibly,
250
Section 137 is a discretionary power which can provide much benefit for local communities.
The Government have no wish to put the stopper on the responsible use of Section 137, particularly in the voluntary sector, to which we all attach so much importance. But I have to say that there are increasing fears that in the specific context of abolition the current leadership of the GLC and MCCs may be planning to use this power in other ways so as deliberately to cause serious damage both to successor authorities and ratepayers.
We have always recognised the potential for obstruction by the outgoing leadership of the authorities which are to be abolished. The Bill currently before your Lordships' Committee already includes provisions designed to inhibit obstructive or irresponsible actions on the part of the abolition authorities. In particular Clause 7 requires the GLC and the MCCs to provide information about the authorities and their functions; while Clause 9 provides for districts and London boroughs to have the right to challenge the accounts of the abolition authorities from 1983–84 and to be consulted about their expenditure, and so on.
But Section 137 presents new possibilities. Fears have been expressed that an authority may try to deprive itself of major assets, particularly land and buildings, before it is abolished. It is thought that the tactic might be to sell assets to a convenient, independent body such as one of the so-called enterprise hoards, which would then repay the council from grants made to it by the authority itself under Section 137. Ratepayers' money would thus have been used to finance the disposal of publicly-owned assets with no benefit to ratepayers at all.
The Government naturally hope that the authorities concerned will not seek to obstruct the Government's intention in this way. But I have to tell your Lordships that the omens are not good.
Take, for example, a recent letter to the Daily Telegraph from the leader of Westminster City Council—one of the authorities that will be directly involved in picking up many of the GLC's functions on abolition. She wrote:
"To those of us on the ground it is clear that Mr. Livingstone and his cronies are now single-mindedly and deliberately booby-trapping the future.
Undoubtedly (they) wish to mortgage London's future by committing successor authorities to reckless spending which cannot be avoided in subsequent years.
My fear is that the new transitional council may find the cupboard is bare when they arrive at County Hall and all they will inherit will be the shell of the present GLC organisation from which the assets have been stripped".
The leader of Westminister City Council has good reason to be concerned. Almost daily now we see statements from representatives of the GLC and MCCs and their political masters which give a clear indication of the stance they intend to adopt. A recent report of an interview with one of the Labour Party's environment spokesmen said:
"non co-operation is central to Labour's campaign to frustrate Government policy".
On a number of occasions the leadership of the GLC have made it clear that they have every intention of resisting the implementation of abolition. A recent

251
interview with the leader of the GLC revealed, interestingly, that the Greater London Enterprise Board is now the only major beneficiary of funds which the council can spend under Section 137. Let there be no doubt about it; we are talking about big money. The GLC and MCCs are huge authorities with enormous tax bases at their disposal. The product of a 2p rate which the GLC is entitled to spend under Section 137 amounts to almost £40 million. Against this background the Government would be failing in their duty if they were not to provide some protection for the successor authorities and ratepayers against such action. The Government therefore propose that all expenditure under Section 137 by the GLC and the MCCs from 1st April 1985 should be subject to the Secretary of State's consent.
Subsection (1) of the new clause provides that the Secretary of State's consent will be required for any expenditure which the GLC or a metropolitan county council incurs under Section 137 after 1st April 1985. For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (2) makes it clear that this expenditure includes expenditure in respect of contractual liability entered into before 1st April 1985 but not earlier than the date upon which the new clause is tabled (26th June). If this expenditure were not included it would represent a loophole, and a large loophole, in the protection which we envisage. On the other hand, it would be unreasonable to extend the period of retrospection back beyond the date of tabling of the new clause.
Subsection (3) provides that the Secretary of State shall not give his consent to this expenditure unless he is satisfied that it would be expedient for the council in question to incur it. In addition, as regards expenditure under subsection (1) of Section 137, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the expenditure is in the interests of the local authority's area or the inhabitants of its area. This is the test which already applies to local authority expenditure under this subsection. But the expediency criterion is new. Under this criterion the Secretary of State can have regard to the interests of a local authority's ratepayers as well as its desire to promote the interests of the body or persons in respect of whom it proposes to incur expenditure. So while it may not be unlawful for an authority to incur a particular item of expenditure, it may be expedient for it to do so. For example, it may be inexpedient to make a very large payment to one particular body having regard to requests for financial assistance under the section from other bodies having similar objects, the purpose for which the payments are to be made, or the total amount of expenditure which the authority is free to incur under the section.
Second, let there be no doubt that the Government are powerfully committed to the voluntary sector. Evidence of that commitment—if evidence were needed—is the £150 million a year we currently give to the voluntary sector and our stated determination to ensure that adequate funding arrangements are made for the period after abolition. With regard to the new clause before your Lordships today, I commend to you what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said on 26th June in another place:
"Much of the expenditure under Section 137 goes to supporting valuable activities, for example, in the voluntary sector. The
252
Government's commitment to a responsible and effective voluntary sector is beyond doubt and I wish to make it clear that it is certainly not the Government's intention to use the new power, if enacted, to restrict the work of worthwhile voluntary sector activities."
I hope that this will reassure your Lordships that worthwhile voluntary organisations having nothing to fear from the new clause. I urge your Lordships to accept the clause.
9.54 p.m.
Baroness Birk: The noble Lord said that much of this expenditure goes to supporting valuable activities and so on, and that there was nothing to fear from it. I am frankly quite appalled at this. One may talk about using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but this is really the most appalling incursion in this Bill. First of all, the question I should ask is this. What is it doing in this Bill anyhow? The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, at the beginning of the proceedings last Thursday raised the point about the inclusion in the Bill at this point and the Long Title being stretched like a piece of elastic in order to encompass it. The Minister in moving just now talked about the specific context of abolition and the obstruction by outgoing leadership. He quoted for us as evidence the leader of the Westminster Council. It was not evidence he was quoting at all; he was quoting a letter of opinion. Lady Porter is entitled to her opinion about this, the same as everybody else, but to call that evidence is nonsense, in the same way as was the quote the noble Lord gave from somebody who, he said, was concerned with Labour's campaign.
As the Minister knows, or I think he has said, this is a section which empowers any local authority to incur expenditure which in their opinion is in the interest of their area or any part of it, or some or all of its inhabitants up to the limit of the product of a rate of 2p in the pound. One of the problems in the past up to now has been either the inability or the unwillingness of many local authorities to use this amount in order to improve the quality of life in their areas. Now the Government are seeking to add a sort of hurdle to this, an obstacle race, which will make it extremely difficult for many of the things which are important to the quality of life of the area to be done at all.
At present the power is protected against misuse by the ability of any ratepayer to challenge the propriety of any decision by a council to spend money under this section by action in the courts. In 1978 the Tory-controlled Greater Manchester County Council introduced a scheme of providing bursaries to enable children in the county to obtain an independent school education. The House of Lords Judicial Committee upheld the power of the Greater Manchester Council to incur expenditure under Section 137 for that purpose when it was challenged. So it was challenged and heard, and the decision was made by the Judicial Committee and not by the local authority itself.
It is recognised that Section 137 permits a local authority to incur expense for a purpose which may be controversial. This, it seems to us, is absolutely essential for our democracy. To put everything down and tie it up and constrict it in this way is a further incursion into the autonomy—which has become almost a laughable word—of local authorities.
The effect of the new clause, in the case of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan

253
councils, will be to prevent the use of Section 137 unless the Secretary of State's consent can be obtained. This means two things: it means a very long-winded procedure in the first place; and secondly, that the local authorities are again handing everything over and having to throw their hands up, willingly or unwillingly, for the Secretary of State to take the decision. It is an absolute outright denial of the discretion which was conferred upon local authorities by Parliament in 1972. The examples given by the Minister, so far as I can see, obviously all refer to the GLC. There did not seem to be any instances which he could bring to mind or which he could bring to bear of anything that the other metropolitan county councils had done in order to merit this sort of treatment or behaviour.
Now Section 137 is the power which the metropolitan county councils use to enable them to make grants to bodies such as marriage guidance councils, citizens' advice bureaux and all the various councils of voluntary service and a multitude of bodies which it would really take far too long to read out or think of. They are aided in this way, through this particular section. Also—and this is very important and often forgotten—it aids economic development, frequently combined with funds from the private sector, from the Government and also from the EEC. So the action taken in the new clause moved by the Minister is of tremendous importance, of great severity and absolutely draconian.
We know very well, of course, what set this up. The Minister said they were concerned about what would happen between the passing of this Bill and the implementation of the measure on abolition if it gets through both Houses of Parliament. This is another example of the Government having to twist past legislation and present practice in order to bring about in advance a certain result. In order to put right something which they have not done, they therefore take action in prospect instead of in retrospect, or instead of trying to do something which will work in with local government practice at the moment and not undermine in this very drastic way something which has been cosseted and guarded by Governments of both sides up to now, in that local authorities have been encouraged to use Section 137 to provide some of these services and the other things which otherwise would not have been provided. I think that to bang it on the head like this is quite outrageous and will cause tremendous hardship in the various communities.
What the Government have been concerned about up to now is what has been a very small proportion of the expenditure by the Greater London Council on what are peripheral activities which are unpopular among many people. But out of the budget that they have—I think it is something like £38 million that they are spending on the whole range of their activities, many of which I am sure the Minister must applaud and support—it is a very small amount that is spent on things of which they would disapprove. It is certainly less than 3 per cent., and it really is a very small amount taking the whole budget of the council.
The lead this will give to authorities everywhere is very retrogressive. For example, when I was a Minister in the department in which the noble Lord is now a
254
Minister we were trying very hard to encourage local authorities to use this 2p rate to do things of the sort which Government could not do separately and which they could not get done by private enterprise. That was very important, and I think the Minister will agree with me that it was very hard to get this working at all. He must accept, as a local government man himself, that this is such a discouraging and retrogressive step to put to local government.
In addition, as he has quite rightly and fairly pointed out, subsection (3) says:
"…it is expedient for the council in question to incur it and… that the expenditure is in the interests of the council's area or any part of it or of all or some of its inhabitants."
That seems to be a very dangerous concept. This is going to be a matter of subjective opinion for the Secretary of State and not for the local authority. It can be argued that a local authority may well use some of its funds raised under Section 137 for activities which are unpopular in that area as regards the majority of people, or which are not liked. But those people have the opportunity and the right to vote out of office those councils which are promoting these things. What can they do here? They will have to wait for a general election! And what will they do when it is all left to the Secretary of State to decide? In any case, that can be as subjective as it need be in the areas. Whether this was something done as a panic move I do not know, but it does not seem to me to have had the proper consideration, either in its drafting or in the thinking behind it, that it should have had.
The discussion tonight should be taken as an example. I hope that we shall hear from other noble Lords who may not hold the same political opinions, but who also feel very worried about these very serious incursions into the Section 137 grants. It is something which, without any doubt, the Government should take back and say, "We have made our point that we are concerned about expenditure. But we agree that maybe this is not the right way to do it and we will have another look at it".
Lord Tordoff: It is a little difficult to know where to start on this amendment and I do not think I was very much helped by what the Minister said. It seemed to me that he was painting a picture of wild expenditure way outside the provisions of Section 137, because when we really look at the facts the truth of the matter is that the majority of the Section 137 expenditure is already committed for the period about which we are talking.
For example, if we take the Greater Manchester Council, I understand—although I may be wrong—that their proposed expenditure already committed for the 1984–85 period is of the order of £7·85 million, which compares with a maximum of £8·6 million which they can raise under a 2p rate. Let us not forget that there is a ceiling on this expenditure and the ceiling is a 2p rate. So far as the Greater London Council are concerned, it has been said that they can spend this vast sum of £40 million or thereabouts. Of course they can, but the majority of that is already committed for the coming year and a lot of it is committed on a running basis.
A great deal of the expenditure is attaching to what I was rather sad to hear the Minister describe as "so-

255
called enterprise agencies". I must say that I took the phrase "so-called" slightly amiss coming from the Minister, who I really thought had a belief in enterprise agencies as having done a great deal in helping small businesses—
Lord Bellwin: We are not talking about enterprise agencies at all. We are talking about enterprise boards, which are a totally different matter. I shall be glad to elaborate later if the noble Lord wishes.
Lord Tordoff: I should be interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say on that at a later stage. But the fact is that a great deal of this money is committed to enterprise agencies already, and there is not so much loose money lashing around from the 2p rate that there can now be sudden wild spending in directions which the Greater London Council have not already thought of.
We are all aware that the press and members of the party opposite have made great play of some of the expenditure going to causes which would not be funded if members of my own party were in charge. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, the whole point about this Section 137 expenditure is that there is a certain amount of risk in allowing local authorities to spend according to their own lights.
People are making plans on the basis of expenditure over a period of more than one year. Many voluntary organisations must do that. Many of the good causes, about which I am sure we agree, need to have some assurance for the future. There is no question that, unless the Secretary of State is prepared to lay down some criteria as to what he thinks are good causes, compared with what the existing authority think are good causes, then the voluntary organisations and all the other people will be in a state of considerable doubt as to whether their funding will continue into the future.
Perhaps the most worrying point is that there is a precedent being set here by the Government taking away this power from the metropolitan counties, and from the GLC. Of course, it is directed mainly at the GLC and it is perhaps unfair on the metropolitan counties, particularly, to get caught in this net, because of the rather foolish activities on a very small scale of Mr. Livingstone and his friends.
How far does this go down the line? What can the lower tier authorities expect in the future if a party of a different political complexion comes into power with a different set of criteria and a different set of priorities? Let us assume, for instance, that that party does not like a voluntary organisation of which the present Government approve. What kind of area are we moving into? The whole purpose of this Section 137 expenditure was to give power to local authorities to use their initiative and their own criteria. That power is being destroyed in principle.
I object also to the fact that this clause is suddenly included in the Bill on the eve of the Marshalled List being produced. It totally changes the shape of the Bill and makes it not only an interim provisions Bill but a local government expenditure Bill to such an extent that the Long Title has to be stretched enormously.
256
However, we shall probably come to that point in a few minutes.
It seems to me that this is a very bad measure to introduce into the Bill at this time. The Government have taken fright for no very good reason, as a result of fantasies which are of their own making. Because of the commitments which have already been made and because of the expenditure which has already been committed, I hope that the Government will take this clause back and think about it.
Lord Mottistone: A great deal has been said from the Benches opposite which misses the point. We have here an example of one of the authorities already acting in a rebellious sense against this country's elected central government, and it has declared its intention to be even more rebellious. My noble friend Lord Bellwin gave examples of that. It is very important indeed that there should be measures to curtail it. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that powers were being removed. Powers are not being removed. They are being checked up on. They are still there. My noble friend did not mention any of the metropolitan county councils, perhaps because he has not detected the rebellious spirit which is present in the GLC. There is no doubt about it. Your Lordships should not be at all fooled by it. There is a rebellious spirit which must be curtailed and contained.
Lord Tordoff: Does not the noble Lord accept that this applies to the metropolitan county councils as well and that all their expenditure will have to be vetted by the Secretary of State?
Lord Mottistone: Yes, indeed; and if their expenditure is reasonable, the Secretary of State will approve it. It is as simple as that.
Lord Tordoff: Does the noble Lord know, from this amendment, what is meant by "reasonable"?
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps one could read it from the fact that my noble friend on the Front Bench did not mention the other metroplitan county councils when he gave examples of why this is necessary. Many of the points which the noble Baroness made were off the point of what the amendment is about. It is to make sure that there is a measure of control. That is in the interests of the ratepayers of London, because they are the potential sufferers from mis-spending by a wild group of people who feel that their days are ended. The ratepayers of London will be the sufferers. The whole point of this legislation is to protect the ratepayers in the areas concerned. I very much trust that my noble friends and those on other Benches will support this amendment, which I believe to be very necessary in the circumstances. It is sad that it should have to be necessary. I hope that everybody will support the amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Birk: The noble Lord said that the ratepayers of London will suffer. He also said that I missed the point. I did not miss the point. I was concerned about the control, not about the right of local authorities to exercise their autonomy. The noble

257
Lord restricted his closing remarks to the GLC. If he is arguing that this applies only to the GLC, or that it should apply only to them, and that the "mets" are brought in to make it more even, then would he not agree that in that case the Government should come out into the open and say, "Okay, this should be vetted just for the GLC"? If that is what the Government mean, why do they not say so? Is that what the noble Lord would prefer?
Lord Mottistone: It is not for me to tell the Government how to write their amendment. The fact is that this particular Bill is all about not only the GLC, but also the other vast county councils. Therefore, there must be equality of treatment throughout. This particular amendment is so worded that if any of those bodies behave in a sensible fashion, the new clause is not something that need worry them.
Baroness Lockwood: I was appalled at the way in which the Minister moved this amendment. I am not going to defend the GLC because my noble friend Lord McIntosh will, I am sure, be able to do that very competently. But this Bill is not about the GLC; it is about the GLC and the six metropolitan counties. But in moving the amendment the Minister made all his comments from the point of view of the GLC and he pleaded in aid of his arguments some of the peripheral activities of the GLC which are controversial. But it is not just the GLC that will be affected.
The Minister himself said that he accepted that some expenditure was very worthwhile. He went on to comment that it would no doubt be supported by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The fact remains that the authorities will now have to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to carry out that which they had been authorised to do under previous legislation.
The Minister mentioned the sum of £40 million which the GLC has to spend in this way. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, made the point that the metropolitan counties have a much smaller amount of money to spend, and it is often spent in very small sums. What kind of structure are we going to have? What kind of bureaucracy will the Minister build into the system when everything that the metropolitan counties want to do must be referred to the Secretary of State? Many of the counties support local employment policies, sometimes in co-operation with the European Economic Community. They first have to go through that bureaucracy and now they will have to go through another bureaucracy in order to have their plans approved. This is a nonsense. I believe that the Minister is over-reacting to some of the things that may have been said in debate and is posing them in the form of threats which I am sure will not arise—certainly not in some of the metropolitan counties.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am glad that I shall not be in the shoes of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, if this amendment is passed. I do not believe he has any conception of the depth of the Heffalump trap that he is digging for himself. He will have two problems that he has not even started to appreciate. First, there is the problem of actually policing this new clause. I do not
258
think he realised that the giving of grants under Section 137 is an extremely complicated and detailed matter, requiring a great deal of local knowledge, which involves a considerable amount of staff time. Is he suggesting that all this work will have to be duplicated by his own civil servants in Marsham Street? I do not think he has any idea of the amount of work involved and of the inadequacy of the information available to the officials in Marsham Street for the purpose of performing this responsibility.
The second trap is that the Minister has put himself right in the firing line for all the voluntary organisations. It does not do him any good to give general assurances. The fact is that literally thousands of voluntary organisations receive money under Section 137. Their applications for next year, from 1st April, are coming in now. There may be no contracts signed before 26th June, but they are coming in now. If the voluntary organisations are told, as they have been told tonight, that any application made from now on for next year's funding is subject to approval not only by the GLC or the metropolitan counties, but also by Marsham Street, then they will go "spare". The amount of correspondence that the Minister will get from those voluntary organisations—not just the Minister but Members of Parliament and Members of your Lordships' House—and the amount of very effective pressure from these voluntary organisations, which are simply concerned about the lack of security, will be huge. He will be overwhelmed.
The Countess of Mar: I would like to support these Members for two very good reasons. First of all, we have had a great drama about the spending of the GLC. What about Islington Borough Council and a rather dubious newspaper they supported and the gay groups they supported? I have no interest in London—that is, I do not live in London; I come here three days a week to attend your Lordships' House. I suppose I am interested in London really when it comes down to it. But these are the people to whom the powers are being handed over. They are behaving in exactly the same way, as far as I can see, as an outside observer, as the GLC is behaving. They are helping their ratepayers. The minority groups in a great many circumstances feel that they are left out of society because nobody is helping them. Again, from what I can see, the GLC and the local borough councils are supporting these groups.
The other reason why I am not very happy about this—I am very pleased that the noble Lord the Minister qualified it—concerns the enterprise board. I heard that the expenditure of the GLC under Section 137 was £40 million a year. I understand, for example, the Greater London Enterprise Board receives a grant from the GLC of £35 million a year. I visited their headquarters the other day and was very impressed with the work that they are doing, not only to save industries that are now in trouble, but to provide new jobs. If every time they want a few pennies these people are to have to go to the Minister, they will be in a dubious state. I believe they have only been in existence for two or perhaps two and a half years. They will not know whether they will be able to go on for the next six months or the next 10 years. They need some sort of certainty if they are to provide businesses of stability. I am very concerned about this amendment.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: I have not agreed with every paragraph or detail of this Bill, but this particular clause I regard as absolutely essential to the transitional arrangements. One has only to look at one's postbag over the last 14 days to a month to see the number of people who have appealed to you to retain the GLC in its present stage and to know, when reading the reason why they want it retained, that it is because they are one of a number of freeloaders—freeloaders who have had money given to them by the GLC which they never should have had. The GLC Labour administration in County Hall at the moment has shown an irresponsibility in dealing with this discretionary allowance which has never been experienced by any previous administration at County Hall, either Labour or Conservative.
I feel that the time has come for a brake to be put upon it. To say that the power is within the electorate to vote it out of office is to disregard the facts. The fact is that there are so many people now in receipt of these freeloading subsidies that they will vote in anybody who will continue it, or indeed hope to increase it. I hope that this clause goes through as put forward by the noble Lord the Minister.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I too would like to support this amendment. I think in this debate we are losing sight of the fact that this is simply an interim provision that we are discussing. This is simply to be for the one year which we believe it will take to complete the abolition of these authorities. Great reference has been made to the Greater London Enterprise Board. I was interested in the council agenda from last week's Greater London Council meeting. The report from the leader of the council—he was discussing the activities of the Greater London Enterprise Board—said:
"Local authorities have not normally taken this sort of action. Its procedures"—
meaning local government procedures—
"were not shaped to intervene in the local economy. However, this administration of the GLC has adapted the institutions of local government".
That is a most euphemistic way of saying that they have taken ratepayers' money to create a very small number of somewhat illusory jobs; and that is where most of the Section 137 money has gone to.
The report goes on for seven pages and during that time it emphasises how most of the Greater London Enterprise Board activity has been in setting up information centres with trade unions and conducting public inquiries, campaigns drawing wider attention to the social implications of what is happening in industry—not jobs, just the wider social implications—and generating debate. That is what it has done more than anything else: generate a great deal of talk. That covers the point about the Greater London Enterprise Board.
I am concerned that the limitation on Section 137 will not really do very much to solve the problem of overspending and extravagance at County Hall. Pretty well all the total expenditure of Section 137—as was mentioned, £35 million—goes to the Greater London Enterprise Board. That leaves only just over £3 million, and in this Chamber tonight we have heard that discounted as such a trifling amount we should not bother about it. To me it is not trifling and if one is a ratepayer producing that money it often represents
260
a loss of jobs in London at those big firms who are also paying those rates.
The smaller authorities would love to have even that £3 million extra to spend. The discourtesy and casualness with which the GLC throws this money away is hard to believe. One noble Lord said that subjective judgment will be required on the part of the Minister. What is being required now? Last week on the Women's Committee the financial adviser to the council advised that a grant should be repayable if the concern being given the grant became profitable. The chairman asked the committee to ignore the advice from the financial adviser and to rule it out. Of course, that was done. That is the sort of example that I believe is very important. If the Greater London Council has a financial adviser and he produces a financial report concurrent with grants advising something of that nature, or advising refusal, his advice should be considered. There are other instances. The financial adviser might recommend that a property should be let at the market rent instead of £1 a year, but the committee says, "Let us go for £1 a year although the financial adviser says otherwise". That is going on all the time.
I also mention that a great many grants are given out to all sorts of other projects. There are so many powers under the Local Government Act in which money can be handed out that this Section 137 will not touch very many people. A lot of money is handed out under the National Health Service Acts and under agency agreements with the borough councils. That is a very important point which people do not appreciate. There was an instance with Hackney Council—a grant of £151,000 which would be delegated to the borough council under Section 101 of the Local Government Act.
Lord Tordoff: I thought we were debating Section 137 powers, not any sort of overspending by the GLC. We should confine ourselves to the 2p rate and then we will not get ourselves confused.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: With respect to the noble Lord, I do not think it is fair to consider it in that sense. The 2p rate is being diverted almost totally to the Greater London Enterprise Board, but people are believing that when we are talking about Section 137 we are talking about the voluntary bodies that are coming for the money. On the whole, the voluntary bodies are not getting the money under Section 137 and, therefore, they will not be as adversely affected as one would expect by this amendment. If they are genuinely deserving causes, I believe that they will get the money.
Conditions are set up whereby money is given through other borough councils to local projects. In the report it is said that, although the GLC is meant to be a strategic authority covering the whole of London, it feels quite entitled to hand out £150,000 to one particular borough, and, incidentally, that borough has done all the research on the grant. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is important. He said that a great deal of time and effort is devoted to preparing these reports. At the moment reports are being prepared by other boroughs to send to the GLC. If the reports are already in such detailed preparation,

261
it will not require very much effort to pass them on in their present form.
The grants being considered by the GLC are often so extensive that there is not time even to look at them. On the agenda of last week's Women's Committee were 60 items for consideration for grant. The pile of papers which arrives on Saturday costs about £12 to post. The people handing out the money cannot possibly have time to study the grants properly. Recent reports of the research that is done indicate that due consideration is not being given even by the officers' department. Again we are seeing a situation where commitments are already being made for 1985, 1986 and thereafter. I notice that the police committee has money committed for the next two or three years. The contingency fund already has £18 million committed.
We cannot view it as a simple matter which can be lightly brushed aside. We have to realise this. The GLC is not a health authority, although it is funding health projects; it is not a police authority; but in the past few years it has spent nearly £1½ million on antipolice activities. It takes on duties that are nothing to do with its statutory responsibilities. It is wrong for money to be taken from London ratepayers as a whole to be spent in that way.
I shall just give the Committee a final quote. Talking of how the Government had plans to watch his money, the Leader of the GLC said on 26th June:
"We committed all our capital spending as soon as we heard of the Government's plans to limit expenditure".
He went on to say that he had lots of reserve projects ready to go, because he is going to make sure that he has, and spends, every penny he can.
We must not underestimate the determination of the GLC to redistribute the London ratepayers' money in the way that it, but not necessarily other people, believe is right. I strongly support this amendment.
10.33 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Not for the first time the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has put her finger on the argument. It is that the GLC and other authorities are doing things which they ought not be to doing: for instance, they ought not to be helping to create jobs. She would say that that is somebody else's job; it is not the job of local government. It ought not—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I did not say that. I said that it was not succeeding in doing that.
Lord Mottistone: The noble Lord is talking nonsense. My noble friend did not make that point.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: She said that local government was spending money on things on which it ought not to be spending money.
The majority of the money spent by the GLC out of its £38 million (which is not £35 million but £26 million) is on grants to the Greater London Enterprise Board. The Minister's sneering observations about the "so-called" enterprise board set the tone; but he was talking not only about the Greater London one but about the whole concept. Particularly in the past five years, local government
262
has been driven into this. It has had to look at the shortfall in national provision by the Government and to say that there are things that it believes need to be done.
It is appalling that the Minister and the Government have decided to act in what I consider to be a punitive, shoddy and shabby way. Section 137 concerns discretion. They see an authority exercising its discretion in what it believes to be the best interests of its ratepayers. We can all criticise, but the ratepayers elected those people. We are not talking about every ratepayer knowing every jot and tittle and every element of the programme, but those people have said, "We have an opportunity", and they have decided to exercise it.
The Minister has chosen to selectively quote some of the activities of authorities like the Greater London Council and—in my view very selectively and unfairly—point out some of the activities that they are supporting. Let me go through the budget of the Greater London Council. The Minister must have it. Certainly the noble Baroness must have it. She mistakenly quoted £35 million. She ought to have known better. I am sure she did. She could have corrected that figure. It is not £35 million. I have the GLC budget as far as Section 137 expenditure is concerned. It is £26 million to industry and employment. For public health and safety, which is one of the elements that was mentioned, there is £100,000. Regarding transport, Members opposite would say that this is not a proper use of Section 137 money and there are a number of other things that they are doing as far as that is concerned.
However, let us look at some of the other groups, which it is simply said are good and will not be affected: There are: the mentally handicapped; the Spastics Society; hostels for the single homeless; Age Concern; Pensioners' Link; the National Council for One Parent Families; the national child care campaign; housing action centres; Cancerlink; the association to aid the victims of medical accidents; community care; day nurseries; créches; pre-school playgroups; latch-key schemes; the Greater London alcoholics advisory service; the Greater London Citizens' Advice Bureaux; the local citizens' advice bureaux, and the like.
If we are really arguing about a tiny proportion, a sledge-hammer is being used to crack a nut. That is an expression that has been used. If the Minister is not going to merely express a view but is going to check and to challenge, it is a pity and a shame. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who said that we have a very dangerous situation; there is a rebellious spirit in Greater London which needs to be curbed. Apparently in 1984 it is a crime in local government to have a rebellious spirit against central government. That is what local democracy is all about. What does the noble Lord want in local democracy? Does he want compliance? Does he simply want acquiescence; no challenge; no rebellion and no voice saying, "We do not believe in what the Minister is going to do"?
Lord Mottistone: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Not at the moment. I will give way when I am ready. I did not understand

263
that it was automatic. I will give way when it suits my case. There are some things which this freely democratically elected council has decided to do under the proper statutes and which it has the provisions to do. The noble Lord has said. "I do not like what they are doing". Any other council which carries out activities will find a check and a challenge on matters of that kind.
Reference has also been made to the metropolitan authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, drew attention to the activities of the Greater Manchester Council. I have here a list of the ways in which the Greater Manchester Council have been exercising their rights. No doubt the Minister will say, as the noble Lord Mottistone said, "All I want to do is to check, to scrutinise and to make sure that every penny that the council wishes to spend is money which I approve". Because if the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the Government at the end of the day are going to say, "Every penny that you spend has my imprimatur", it really means that they need to have a system.
Whether the noble Lord likes it or not, although the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, will know a great deal more about it than I do, I understand that the Greater London Council go through some fairly strong vetting and approval procedures before the money is given out. When it is given out it may not be given out to the sources which the noble Baroness wishes.
This is all going to be taken on board by the Minister and by his civil servants. This is at a time when the Minister tells us that there is a shortage of money, that there is a shortage of staff and that there are a great many priorities that need to be undertaken. Yet this again will take away from local government something that it apparently has the right to do but that it is doing in the wrong way.
This is another example of the Government wishing to go down the very dangerous road of eventually saying that there is very little left to the discretion of local councils. In the view of this side of the Committee, this is a retrograde amendment. It is certainly one that we are not prepared to accept. We shall have to consider what decision to take in the light of it and especially in the light of the Minister's reply.
Lord Hooson: I wish to mention briefly Amendment No. 103 which is to be heard with Amendment No. 67. It is a change to the Long Title of the Bill. So rarely is the title of a Bill ever changed that even the page is not numbered. If one wishes to find to what the amendment applies, one is not assisted by numbering. An important point is raised here. I do not know whether the noble Lord can tell us how often or when the Long Title of a Bill has been amended in this House. It does not suggest that the Government have thought out their strategy on the Bill.
The Bill has been through the other place. The Long Title encompassed everything that was then contained in the Bill. A Bill has to be covered by its Long Title to be effective. It seems to me that a highly uneasy precedent has again been set. It suggests that the Government have not thought out their strategy and now have to incorporate the words,
"to control the general expenditure powers of those authorities".
264
The only reason I can suggest is that the Government have had to re-think their strategy when the Bill has gone through one place and has emerged in another. It suggests that the Government would be wise to reconsider their whole position and study whether they have really thought out their long term purpose. A possible explanation for the extension of the Long Title is surely that the Government, by extending the life of the GLC and the other authorities, will be giving them power without authority and without responsibility because they will not have to face an election at the end of it. That seems the inevitable consequence if the Government change their strategy on this point. It is difficult to justify this strange procedure.
Lord Bellwin: I should begin, I believe, by making one or two things again clear. I should perhaps have made them clear originally. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, raised some points that were particularly irrelevant. We are taking action here to control Section 137 spending only in 1985–86, not 1984–85 expenditure. There may well be expenditure already committed before 26th June. If so, this does not apply to any such committed expendiure. It is primarily the year 1985–86 that we are talking about.
Lord Tordoff: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord at this stage, but he will accept that a number of these expenditures roll on a year over year basis. This was the point that I was trying to make. Considerable uncertainty will have been raised in the minds of a number of voluntary organisations which have a rolling programme.
Lord Bellwin: I am glad that the noble Lord says that. It gives me the opportunity to confirm that organisations—this picks up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—with perfectly proper spending, have nothing to fear. The noble Lord asks who decides whether it is perfectly proper spending. You have to look at this in the context of abolition. Your Lordships may have noticed that, in moving the amendment, I deliberately did not refer to a single, particular organisation. I could have given the list that everybody now has. It was put out by various bodies. I have literally pages and pages of details of what many would consider weird spending. But I deliberately did not give the list because, frankly, this amendment has nothing to do with the majority of perfectly proper instances of spending on voluntary organisations.
I fear that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—certainly not with the wrong intention; he does not do that, anyway—actually may have caused a lot of concern to a lot of organisations. In this response I am glad to be able to reassure them. In my opening speech I was at pains to say that there are, all over the country, many worthy bodies which receive support under Section 137. Perhaps I may be allowed to finish. All right; I shall give way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think my intervention may be helpful to the noble Lord. If he is so anxious to reassure these bodies—and I accept what he says—will he tell the Committee when his officials are going to start to consider the applications which already are

265
coming in for next year? Will he say how quickly they can be considered?
Lord Bellwin: I have no doubt that there are many bodies which will be only too anxious—many of them, as my noble friend Lord Plummer, said, at the instigation of the GLC and others—to do anything they can to make mischief and to go forward in that way. May I give your Lordships a quotation? I have tried not to raise the temperature at all in this debate, but let me give your Lordships a quotation from what was said in another place. Mr. Tony Banks, the Member for Newham North-West, asked whether the Secretary of State had not put his finger on it when he said he suspected that an extended GLC would wage war on the Government. He said that that indeed was what it would do, and had been doing.
Let us try to get this whole question into proper perspective, and let us not be naïve about it. Noble Lords opposite know exactly what we are talking about in this whole affair. To try to pretend that in some way there is a body which is concerned only to give money to worthwhile causes and that it is not interested in the stripping of land and so on, and transferring in this way, really and truly is to live in some world that just is not real.
I shall try to comment quickly on some of the points that have been made. I must stress that the lower tier authorities are not affected at all. There are some 431 local authorities in this country. We are talking here about seven of them, and we are talking about seven in the context only of abolition. I must stress that point again: in the context of abolition. We are talking about it for a period up to the point of abolition. It is happening only because of the great concern there is about what these authorities may do. It is true that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, there is less likelihood of this in the metropolitan counties. I agree with her; I keep making that point all the way through. But it is not entirely so. The fact is that these happen to be seven of the authorities which are part of this proposed legislation; and so they come into it.
Enterprise agencies—I have opened many of them, and visited many of them—are there to give advice and to guide mostly small businesses, and so on. I think they do a splendid job. The enterprise boards are there rather to invest money in bodies which they think they can help either to start businesses or to—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Save jobs.
Lord Bellwin: Save jobs. It is part of the employment thing. There is no complaint at all about the objectives of enterprise boards. I should rather not get into that. Again, if there is anything that is good, is achieving things, and is worthwhile, that is fine; they have nothing at all to fear. That is my answer to the noble Countess, Lady Mar. If they are doing a good job, they have nothing at all to be concerned about in this. We are not interested in that.
The noble Countess was absolutely right when she said that there are some authorities which, equally, put to very questionable use some of the monies that come through Section 137. But the fact is that they are not being abolished, and we are not seeking to curtail the
266
expenditure of Section 137 money to anybody else at all outside the context of abolition, although I assure noble Lords that the pressure is great and continuous and never does a day pass without people giving us examples of what they consider to be the misuse of Section 137. But we have always kept away from that and have had to assuage their concerns. However, that is for another day and is another matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that she dislikes this intensely. When before have we ever been faced with a situation in which authorities have been admittedly in this position and in which we have had to be concerned about the stripping of assets and the passing over of them in different ways? That is, if you like, a new ball game.
I am grateful to my noble friends who have supported the Government's position on this matter. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, the Long Title must accurately reflect the contents of the Bill, and this amendment merely accommodates the provisions of the new clause. There is no deep-dyed implication at all. I assure the noble Lord that the amendment is within the scope of the Bill, and I do not say that lightly. I understand the concern. Indeed, for the last few years I have fought very hard in many areas to retain the Section 137 power and not to have it curtailed because I have been a supporter of Section 137; but I have not been a supporter of the abuse of it.
Here we are in the special situation of abolition, and this whole amendment is being put forward solely in the context of abolition. It is a short-term measure; it applies only to these authorities. It does not in any way adversely affect the good spending that they do—and they do carry out some good spending. No one need have any fears of that kind. Having said that, I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Birk: The noble Lord the Minister has raised a number of points and has answered a great many of our queries as well as he could and as courteously, as usual. But I do not think that any of us can feel reassured by what he said. On the contrary, in his opening remarks, when he moved the clause, he referred to the "so-called enterprise board". As nearly everybody who has spoken in the debate has mentioned the same phrase, I do not think we misheard him. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, then spoke; and the noble Lord paid tribute to some of the boards and said how good they were. But if I had been termed "so-called", I would not like to be an enterprise board or any other body asking for help or money. I would consider that I had started under an extremely grave disadvantage.
The noble Lord then went on to say:
"the pressure is great and continuous"—
presumably because of the so-called extravagances, or alleged extravagances, of other local authorities. That is an ominous sign. Are we now to see this sort of thing used against district councils, county councils and other boroughs? Once a Government create a tool, they use it, and that is a very dangerous situation. The Minister's own words were:
"that is for another day".
The noble Lord said that this would not last long. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said that it was for

267
just one year. But that is not in the Bill. We do not know what will happen. That is where we came in at the beginning of this rather wasted afternoon and evening. What will happen? It can be one, two or even three years before any abolition legislation gets through both Houses and is implemented. By then, this travesty of Section 137 will be built into the legislation and so local government will become more and more of a captive in a smaller and smaller prison cell which is closing in on it all the time.
This is a dangerous clause to have in this Bill. The point about the Long Title has been mentioned. It is extremely late now to do anything about it, or to press it. All we can hope is that between now and the next stage the Minister will read what has been said by so many noble Lords from all parts of the Committee about the dangers and fears regarding this new clause, and will rethink it and come back, not just in terms of a narrow interest, but also in the interests of local government generally.
In the Government's view there is a certain amount of wrong spending, or overspending. But why should there be this war between local government and central Government which, unfortunately, has been exacerbated for a long time now, and which today is, I fear, exacerbated mainly by the central Government? Why should it he so wrong for local government to behave in a rebellious and also individual manner? What we are discussing in this clause is not really only to do with the abolition question or the paving Bill, which is what we are supposed to be discussing. It is to do with the further destruction of local government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Accounts and financial consultation]:
[Amendments Nos. 70 to 77 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 8, line 7, at end insert ("and about any other proposal that would involve expenditure in a subsequent financial year").
The noble Lord said: This is an extension to reasonable requirements, and I think it will not be controversial. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I do not propose at this stage to go into it. It is a recent amendment, and we are not happy about it. It is much too wide and general and, again, has dangers. But it is far too late to start arguing the toss about it now.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 8, line 13, leave out ("mentioned in that subsection") and insert ("beginning on 1st April 1985").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 85 not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 86:
[Printed earlier: col. 1121.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Number of councillors to be appointed by constituent councils]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 89:
[Printed earlier: col. 1121.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 90:
[Printed earlier: col. 1121.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 10, line 1, leave out Parts II to VII and insert—

("PART II GREATER MANCHESTER

Metropolitan District

Number of Metropolitan County Councillors

Bolton

10

Bury

6

Manchester

20

Oldham

9

Rochdale

7

Salford

12

Stockport

11

Tameside

9

Trafford

9

Wigan

13

PART III MERSEYSIDE

Metropolitan District

Number of Metropolitan County Councillors

Knowsley

11

Liverpool

36

St. Helens

11

Sefton

19

Wirral

22

PART IV SOUTH YORKSHIRE

Metropolitan District

Number of Metropolitan County Councillors

Barnsley

19

Doncaster

20

Rotherham

18

Sheffield

43

269

PART V TYNE AND WEAR

Metropolitan District

Number of Metropolitan County Councillors

Gateshead

19

Newcastle-upon-Tyne

25

North Tyneside

18

South Tyneside

15

Sunderland

27

PART VI WEST MIDLANDS

Metropolitan District

Number of Metropolitan County Councillors

Birmingham

42

Coventry

12

Dudley

11

Sandwell

12

Solihull

7

Walsall

10

Wolverhampton

10

PART VII WEST YORKSHIRE

Metropolitan District

Number of Metropolitan County Councillors

Bradford

19

Calderdale

9

Kirklees

15

Leeds

32

Wakefield

13.")

The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 92:
[Printed earlier: col. 1121.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 10, line 9, column 2, leave out ("4") and insert ("5").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 10, line 33, column 2, leave out ("9") and insert ("10").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 11, line 31, column 2, leave out ("16") and insert ("15").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Consequential amendments]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 12, line 21, leave out ("(3),") and insert ("(2) and (3),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 13, line 1, at end insert ("and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 13, line 7, leave out from ("borough") to end of line 12.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 14, line 6, after ("Council") insert ("or the Common Council").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 14, line 13, leave out ("172") and insert ("173").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 102:
[Printed earlier: col. 1121.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 103:
Line 11, after ("authorities;") insert ("to control the general expenditure powers of those authorities;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Selby Bridge Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Swavesey Bye-Ways Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past eleven o'clock.

  NUTRITION EDUCATION: DISCUSSION PAPER
  NUTRITION EDUCATION: DISCUSSION PAPER
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION: SEVENTH REPLENISHMENT
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION: SEVENTH REPLENISHMENT