Sitting of 5 July 1984

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  COUNTY OF LANCASHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Thursday 12 July.
  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered upon Thursday 12 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Agricultural Schemes (CAP Funds)
    Mr. Yeoasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek the use of European Economic Community common agricultural policy funds for integrated schemes with environmental as well as agricultural benefits in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will adopt the policy that European Economic Community funds can also be used by his Department for integrated and balanced development on farms and not just for purely agricultural ends.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): Capital grants are already payable in the United Kingdom on farm investment which would have some environmental rather than purely agricultural benefit. To the extent that this is possible under present European Community legislation, the cost of such measures is partly reimbursed by the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund.
    It is the Government's intention to seek a strengthening of the environmental safeguards to be included in new agricultural structures regulations presently under discussion in the European Community.
    Mr. Yeo: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does it mean that the British Government are now willing to follow the Dutch example and take full advantage of article 3.5 of the EC less-favoured areas directive and apply for further assistance for integrated schemes, which will benefit the environment and promote conservation, as well as promote agricultural prosperity generally?
    Mrs. Fenner: As I hope I made clear to my hon. Friend, in so far as it is possible we already take advantage of reimbursement from that fund, and we intend to help to strengthen the safeguards in the new structures regulations.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend accept that her reply is encouraging? Does she agree that it is nonsense to use funds available from the Common Market for agriculture just to add to embarassing surpluses? Does it not make sense to use those funds to achieve a proper balance between agriculture and the conservation of wildlife so that we can maintain a good balance of wildlife and agriculture in our countryside?
    Mrs. Fenner: Yes, and I understand my hon. Friend's great concern. It is especially welcome that he, a fanner, expresses in the House the concern of farmers for the environment. We have pressed for specific reference to the third action programme on the environment; more importantly, we have pressed for a new provision requiring member states to safeguard the environment when they implement farm structure policies. I trust that that will achieve what my hon. Friend is seeking.
    Mr. Canavan: Is it not typical of the double standards of the Government that, as a result of the common agricultural policy, the average British farmer receives a subsidy of about £2,000 a year, yet the Government refuse to give enough subsidy to the coal industry to stop the closure of pits with workable coal reserves?
    Mrs. Fenner rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Lady answers, may I appeal to the House to keep to the subjects on the Order Paper.
    Mrs. Fenner: I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker, but my only comment to the hon. Gentleman is that he should direct questions of that sort to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. However, it is my knowledge that the industry receives very good subsidies indeed.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Have riot events over the last couple of years demonstrated that there is an institutionalised conflict between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment? Does the Minister accept that we cannot continue using public funds to subsidise the destruction of the environment merely to create food surpluses for which we must then use public funds to dispose of them? Are any discussions taking place between the Ministry and the Department of the Environment to resolve this conflict?
    Mrs. Fenner: Many years of discussions have taken place between my Department and the Department of the Environment, specifically on the preparation of what is now the Wildlife and Countryside Act—an extremely successful measure. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is a conflict between my Ministry and the Department of the Environment.

    Milk Quotas
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the president of the National Farmers Union about easing the burden on dairy farmers arising out of the introduction of milk quotas.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): I have met the president of the NFU on several occasions during recent weeks. At our most recent formal meeting on 20 June we discussed a number of matters relating to milk quotas and the outgoers scheme.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Did my right hon. Friend's discussions with my distinguished constituent cover the case of hardship where the farmer is complaining that the inputs he made prior to the introduction of the quota scheme mean that he will suffer severe financial loss, as he will now not expect to be recompensed, with the possibility of endangering his whole livelihood and the viability of his operation?
    Mr. Jopling: It is my belief that the huge majority of farmers will be able to adapt their businesses. The milk industry has already shown remarkable flexibility and adaptibility. While there will be serious problems for milk producers, I believe that their ingenuity will get them through most of the difficulties.
    Mr. John Morris: Is it correct that the Minister has decided not to go to the Royal Welsh Show? Would it not be better if he were to go so that he could meet representatives of farmers in Wales, who are deeply concerned about the tragic situation facing the dairy industry?
    Mr. Jopling: I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, above anyone else, would know that I am not responsible for agriculture in Wales. That is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that recently I paid an enjoyable visit to a western part of Wales, where I was extremely well entertained by Welsh farmers and enjoyed bottled beer and pork pies. While I should very much welcome visiting Wales again, I am afraid that it will not be possible to fit in a visit to the Royal Welsh Show. However, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be there.
    Sir Hector Munro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he had a friendly and warm reception at the Royal Show? Is he further aware that the section of the industry facing the greatest difficulty is probably that of the producer retailer, and has he given further thought to the transferability of quota, which is essential to the survival of that section?
    Mr. Jopling: I had an extremely pleasant day on Monday at the Royal Show at Stoneleigh. I am very much bothered by the problems of the producer retailer. I have explained to my hon. Friend—and I did so to the House in the debate on Tuesday—the difficulties that we face because of Community rules which make it extremely difficult to make switches between direct sale quotas and wholesale quotas. This matter needs a good deal of attention by the Commission, and I intend to continue to pursue it.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister also take time to meet representatives of the farm workers in the outgoers scheme, because we understand that a 40-year-old stockman will get only £900 redundancy pay if he loses his job, which compares ill with the amount provided for cow owners?
    Mr. Jopling: I had an extremely hospitable meeting with the farm workers at their stand at the Royal Show. It was a pleasant occasion. But let me disabuse the hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Canavan: Was it just milk that the right hon. Gentleman was drinking?
    Mr. Jopling: We had something rather stronger than milk to drink. Comparisons between the statutory redundancy scheme and the outgoers scheme are false. The outgoers scheme is not a redundancy scheme. It is intended to help the industry to adjust to a new situation, by encouraging those who wish to go out of milk production to do so, thus making extra quota available for redistribution. Outgoers do not have to leave farming; only to give up dairying.
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest situation regarding the implementation of milk quotas.
    Mr. Jopling: Draft regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act were laid before Parliament on 27 June. These regulations set out the detailed arrangements for implementing the quota system.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: We were grateful for the opportunity to debate the matter ealier this week. My first question relates to better quota transfer and flexibility. Will my right hon. Friend get to Europe as quickly as he can—I appreciate that his hands are tied—and press for greater opportunities for transfer, perhaps by such means as leasing? There is uncertainty about the future. Now that we are stuck with milk quotas, for better or for worse, may we have a longer term plan for milk?
    Mr. Jopling: I am intrigued by the possibility of leasing in connection with quota transfers. Nothing within the Community rules allows us to do that, but we are giving urgent attention to it. There is uncertainty in the industry, for obvious reasons. I hope that shortly we can sort out many of the problems, particularly in relation to quotas, after we have dealt with the special cases. We cannot move further until we have passed the regulations to which I referred in my main answer. I am anxious to consider what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House before we bring back the regulations for a final decision.
    Mr. Torney: Will the Minister explain the French quotas? If the French do not implement their quotas—which are far less stringent than ours—as I think they will not, will the Minister undertake not to implement United Kingdom quotas, and so avoid making some of our farmers bankrupt and many farm workers redundant?
    Mr. Jopling: Yesterday the hon. Gentleman attended the Select Committee on Agriculture, which I also had the pleasure of attending. He will remember that I read to the Committee the words which I used in Luxembourg at the last Council, which were also used by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in his winding-up speech on Tuesday night. I told the Select Committee that I had decided to request the Commission to put on the agenda of the next Council in 10 days' time a report by the Commission on the progress which individual states are making to implement the milk quotas, so that we can see whether everyone is attempting to obey the rules.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Minister aware of the fear among those hoping to make a case under the special case procedure that they will not know their final quota until this milk year is completed? Does he agree that they are in an impossible position and cannot adjust the output of their herds in relation to quota? May we have an assurance that that will not happen? Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that, will he explain what will happen to the farmers and what fines will be imposed upon them if they have to face that incredible situation?
    Mr. Jopling: I hope very much that there will be no question of farmers not knowing what their quotas are before the end of this milk year. It is difficult for us to say when farmers will know precisely what their quota is, because we have no idea how many farmers will apply for consideration under the special case arrangements for a share of the 2½ per cent. of milk production which we have reserved.
    Mr. Harris: Is my right hon. Friend confident that he can assemble quickly enough the administrative and appeal machinery to deal with what many of us fear may well be a bureaucratic nightmare?
    Mr. Jopling: I have always told the House that the implementation of quotas and super levies would be difficult in bureaucratic terms. There has never been any secret about that. However, I am confident that, immediately after Parliament has agreed to the regulations, we shall be able to ensure that applications are considered very rapidly indeed.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to clarify the remarks of the Minister of State on Tuesday about hardship cases resulting from bad weather conditions? The wording in column 234 of Hansard suggests that no one can apply until a region is designated as having a 10 to 15 per cent. cut in production because of bad weather or "a natural setback". If that is so, it is a serious restriction on the consideration of hardship cases.
    Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having drawn my attention to this matter as I entered the Chamber. Hardship cases based on weather will be dealt with on an individual basis, not a regional basis.

    Horticulture (Research and Development)
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will reconsider his decision to cut back on resources devoted to research and development in the horticultural sector.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): No. The Ministry's expenditure on externally commissioned horticultural research and development in 1983–84 showed a substantial increase over that in 1982–83; the expenditure planned for this year will merely restore the programme in real terms to the 1982–83 level.
    Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is an urgent need for greater research into horticulture, particularly the top fruit and vegetable sectors, which could yield substantial dividends? The Minister has already half answered my question, but can he say what criteria will be used for considering how much research and development will be allocated to horticulture in future?
    Mr. MacGregor: The increase last year was temporary. It was not intended to be continued. It was always planned that expenditure would be reduced in real terms to the earlier level. Priorities in horticultural research and development change, and a substantial and worthwhile programme of research and development in horticulture remains. Of our externally commissioned research, 20 per cent. is in horticulture. With regard to future priorities, Ministry scientists are discussing with the AFRC institutes possible changes in horticultural research and development to be commissioned next year.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be no delay in drawing research funds away from high-input farming towards low-input farming, and that we should ensure that contributions from the farmers and horticulturists themselves increase?
    Mr. MacGregor: Farmers and horticulturists—for instance, there is the research done by ADAS and the experimental farms—have always played an important part in contributing to research and in deciding priorities, as I have seen for myself. My hon. Friend refers to a move towards low-input farming. That will be among the matters to be considered. We must consider changing priorities in research expenditure—some of which is very long term—as conditions change. This year, for instance, we have switched more of the expenditure for research and development to the food industry. Such matters are monitored very closely.

    Milk Quotas
    Mr. Hunterasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a specific provision within the arrangements under the dairy quota provisions, in respect of quotas for dairy farms deliberately run down in the reference period so it could be sold free of livestock, to facilitate the resumption of milk production under new ownership; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jopling: The rules provide for a quota to he issued provided that milk was actually being sold on 2 April 1984. It would not be appropriate to issue a quota to anybody who had given up production by that date.
    Mr. Hunter: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer to my question, which was tabled before our recent debate. Will he accept the desirability of a speedy reduction in, or removal of, the co-responsibility levy, which is a great burden on the dairy industry? Will my right hon. Friend take on board the NFU's plea for such a reduction?
    Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend will recall that the extra 1 per cent. which was put on for this year will be removed at the end of the next milk year—on 1 April 1985. He will be glad to hear that we have consistently argued for the abolition of the co-responsibility levy, which we believe is counter-productive.
    Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister confirm, in relation to the phasing out of cows, that if someone has a dairy herd of 60 he will get £195,000 in compensation? Is it riot disgraceful that such compensation should be paid to a farmer when less than £1,000 is to be given to a 40-year-old stockman who has looked after that herd for the previous 10 years?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman must not try to use figures in a way that does not demonstrate the facts. I have

    451
    already explained that a comparison between the statutory redundancy scheme and the outgoers scheme is utterly false. The hon. Gentleman must realise that paying an outgoer with that number of cows will enable a great many small milk producers to be brought back to their 1983 production patterns, which is what we want to do.

    Farm Wardens
    Mr. Holtasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the number of hours of training required to enable a farm warden to carry out his duties in a national emergency.
    Mrs. Fenner: No specialised training would be needed beyond oral and written instructions, which could best be given at the time and should be completed in about one day.
    Mr. Holt: I am glad to learn that it does not take long. Will my hon. Friend ensure that wardens are appointed and trained? Does she accept that in that training we must ensure that farm wardens are able to protect stock in the event of chemical warfare?
    Mrs. Fenner: We consider it unnecessary to appoint wardens in peacetime, as training can be done quickly in a crisis. I hope my hon. Friend accepts that there are people who are experienced in what they will be asked to do and that one day will be enough to give them the necessary extra instruction.

    Milk Quotas
    Mr. Andrew Stewartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the date of the Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting at which a milk quota scheme on the lines of the one subsequently introduced was first discussed.
    Mr. Jopling: The Commission published its proposals on milk quotas and a supplementary levy on 28 July 1983 and this was first discussed at the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 30 August 1983.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his answer shows that his Ministry was ill-prepared for the implementation of the quotas in April?
    Mr. Jopling: No, I do not accept that at all. The Commission was ill-prepared, in that it had not prepared its ground rules properly. We were not told of the Commission's final ground rules until a date in May, which was five, six or seven weeks after the agreement. Nor were we told until a date in June about the final arrangements for the direct sales arrangements, because the Commission did its sums wrong. Perhaps I might tell the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) that the £195,000 in compensation which he quoted is precisely five times what it should be.
    Mr. Bruce: When the milk quotas were first discussed, were the implications for beef prices resulting from increased slaughtering considered? As beef prices are showing softness, will the Minister assist farmers if that persists?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman might know that it is traditional at this time of year for beef prices to move downwards as beef comes off the grass. I see some hon. Members on the hon. Gentleman's left nodding
    452
    agreement. The impact on the beef market has always been recognised as a consequence of running down milk production as cows are put on the market for slaughter.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: As my right hon. Friend has just told the House that the outgoers scheme is not a compensation scheme but one to buy quota for reallocation, may I ask him on what date he told either the Commission or the Cabinet that he insisted on a compensation scheme — and I mean a compensation scheme — for those driven out of economic milk production which parallels that given to steel workers driven out of their occupation by the EEC quota on steel? When did he do that? If he has not done it, when will he do it?
    Mr. Jopling: Perhaps my hon. Friend did not appreciate what I said. I showed that a comparison between the statutory redundancy scheme and the outgoers scheme was false because outgoers do not have to leave farming; they are obliged only to give up dairying.
    Mr. Corbett: Did the right hon. Gentleman raise in the Council of Ministers the need for adequate redundancy for stockmen and others who lose their jobs as a result of milk quotas? Does he accept that while a redundant cow can attract £3,250 over five years, a redundant stockman, having been thrown on the scrapheap, will get less than £1,000?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman will know that the redundancy arrangements have been in operation for many years, including when the Labour party was last in office. He will also know that agricultural workers who are made redundant will be able to benefit from the existing statutory redundancy scheme.

    New Zealand Butter
    Sir David Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the access agreement for New Zealand butter over the next five years agreed at the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 18 and 19 June will have on British dairy producers' milk quotas.
    Mr. MacGregor: The agreement in principle on imports of New Zealand butter is quite separate from the new arrangements for milk quotas. The quotas for milk were based on delivery and sales levels in member states and there is no specific provision for them to be adjusted to reflect changes in import levels.
    Sir David Price: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I take it that we can reassure our farmers that the new New Zealand arrangements are not being taken by the EEC against the British quota for milk, something which is widely believed among farmers?
    Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that, in the negotiations on the milk quotas, that point did not arise, and I do not see why it should have done. As I say, the milk quotas were assessed on a totally different basis.
    Mr. Gould: Is one of the more unfortunate consequences of the mess into which the Minister and his predecessors have plunged the dairy industry likely to be that the long-standing support of the British Government, based on self-interest and fair play, for continued access for New Zealand butter may come under attack? May we have an assurance that the Minister will resist such pressures?
    Mr. MacGregor: The best answer that I can give to that supplementary question is that previous Ministers have had to negotiate the New Zealand butter situation on a year-by-year basis. This year we have provisional approval for what is a five-year agreement, although only the first three years have specific quantities. The New Zealand Government have greatly welcomed that position, and it is an indication that the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes has not arisen and will not arise in the immediate future.
    Mr. Forth: While I thank my hon. Friend for that statement, may I ask him to acknowledge that a continuing supply of competitive and high quality products from New Zealand will always be a salutary basis of comparison against which the efficiency of European agriculture can be measured?
    Mr. MacGregor: I believe that the House in general feels that it is right that we should continue to give this support to New Zealand, not least because since 1973 the New Zealand butter quota has been almost halved, and therefore New Zealand has faced, in terms of the United Kingdom, much bigger cuts than have our producers.

    Milk Quotas
    Sir John Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that only six exceptional events need be taken into account in varying a basic quota for milk production.
    Mr. Jopling: Under the Community rules there are only six exceptional events which entitle a producer to have his quota calculated from a different base year. Producers who have invested in facilities for expanding production may also be given additional quota if they meet certain conditions.
    Sir John Farr: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but may I ask whether he has had any evidence to suggest that these six conditions alone are too inflexible and insufficient in number? If I provide him with evidence that further exceptional conditions should be taken into account, will he take up the issue with the EC?
    Mr. Jopling: As I have explained, the six exceptional events are enshrined in the rules. I shall be anxious to hear from my hon. Friend if he has evidence of other special hard cases which he thinks are worthy of note. I have been made aware of a number by hon. Members and I am considering all of those. It seems that some Labour Members appear to believe that the outgoers' payment is £650 per cow per year, whereas it is £650 per cow to be paid over five years.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Has the Minister formed any estimate of the number of dairy farmers who will go out of business or have their livelihoods severely depleted? How many herdsmen will lose their livelihoods completely? How many of those employed in dairy processing will lose their livelihoods?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not able to make any estimates. I hope that relatively few farmers, farm workers and dairy workers will be made redundant and forced to leave their current activity. It is impossible to make assessments of the sort that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: In making representations on hardship to the Commission in Brussels, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind instances where herds have been split because of the buying up of a partner, or death, leading to a substantial reduction in output for the relevant year?
    Mr. Jopling: I shall take account of those factors and bear them closely in mind.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the six exceptional cases that he has listed are by and large those that might be ascribed to acts of God? The acts of man—for example, farmers who have invested under the FHDS scheme—are given second priority. Is it not ironic that the right hon. Gentleman should give greater priority to hardship cases arising from the act of God than to those arising from the act of man—himself?
    Mr. Jopling: I do not accept that all these events are acts of God. When I see that the sixth case is theft or loss of cattle, I hope that that is not so. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the other events are natural disasters, the destruction of fodder or buildings, epizootic diseases in animals, compulsory appropriation of land and serious illness of the producer. They are all serious matters and the rules of the Community dictate that they must be dealt with first before dealing with expanders.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the question refers to exceptional events that need to be taken into account? Will he therefore give a much more satisfactory answer to the supplementary question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who asked what would happen if dairy farmers could no longer continue in dairying? My right hon. Friend responded by saying that they could go into other forms of farming. What if there is no other sort of fanning into which they can go? Will he change the outgoers scheme to ensure that it is tax-free, instead of giving nonsensical replies of the sort that lie gave to my hon. Friend?
    Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend, who takes such a close interest in these matters, should recall that the basic purpose of the outgoers scheme is to get 2¼ per cent. of the total milk quota available for reallocation. The scheme is directed to the very people to whom my hon. Friend has referred, because the first 1¼ per cent. of the 2¼ per cent. will go to small fanners with fewer than 40 cows, who are 40 per cent. of all milk producers, to bring them back to their 1983 production patterns.
    Mr. Maclean: When can we expect an announcement on the special help that will be available to young farmers who have recently set up in business and are trying to build a viable home? I can see no sign of that in my reading of the 78 pages of draft regulations. Yet Mr. Poul Dalsager refers to that in article 3, page 18, which states:
    "The Member States may grant additional reference quantities to young farmers setting up after 31 December 1980."
    Mr. Jopling: Young farmers who have set up in business and claim that they are on an expansionist course, and are committed to it, will have their cases considered by the tribunals once they are established.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: The EC rules on hardship claims use the words "serious natural disaster". The Minister used the phrase "serious natural setback". What is the difference?
    Mr. Jopling: I do not think that there is any difference. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the first of the six events is described as a natural disaster.

    Sugar Beet
    Mr. Leighasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on sugar beet quotas.
    Mr. MacGregor: The current quotas for sugar were agreed in 1981 and run until the end of the 1985–86 season.
    Mr. Leigh: With British agriculture desperately needing new outlets, and one or more of the 13 British sugar factories in danger of closing, is it not nonsense for Britain, alone of all the EEC countries, to have a quota in sugar that does not cover consumption? In our case, it covers only 50 per cent. At the very least, will my hon. Friend press the Council of Ministers for restoration of the 200,000 tonne cut in quotas imposed in 1981?
    Mr. MacGregor: The 1981 agreement was designed to secure a fair balance between United Kingdom beet growers and the ACP countries, to whom we also owe an obligation. The Commission has made it clear that it does not envisage changing the quotas that have been agreed to run until 1985–86. One problem is that if we were to try to unscramble the quotas now it would not necessarily be only British interests that would be taken into account. There is a danger that the question of other member states' interests would also be reopened.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Minister assure the House that at the next knot of negotiations he will at least ensure that the farmers of this country retain the current sugar beet quotas?
    Mr. MacGregor: We are talking about negotiations for the 1985–86 quotas. It is too early to decide our policy in detail. As for other commodities, we shall obviously wish to restrain Community surpluses, and that must be taken into account. We shall want a fair deal for United Kingdom producers. We must continue to ensure that there is a fair balance on the United Kingdom market between beet and cane sugar.
    Mr. Onslow: Can we take it from my hon. Friend's reply that he recognises that it is in the interests of the British consumer, and of the Commonwealth, that he should not impose any further penalties on sugar produced in the Caribbean countries?
    Mr. MacGregor: I think I have indicated that, when the time comes, we shall endeavour to ensure a fair balance, such as we attempted to achieve for the United Kingdom beet growers and Commonwealth suppliers in 1981.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that he is not prepared to sell the cane sugar producers' quota to satisfy a temporary pressure on the beet sector?
    Mr. MacGregor: We are talking about a period that is still some years ahead, and we must bear that in mind. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that what I have said shows that we shall endeavour to achieve a fair balance.

    Potato Marketing Board
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the members of the Potato Marketing Board; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am in regular touch with the members of the Potato Marketing Board through its chairman, whom I last met on 9 May. On that occasion our discussions covered a wide range of potato issues.
    Mr. Janner: Did the Minister's discussions include the price of potatoes, which is especially important as the price of fish and chips to take away has risen by 15 per cent. because of the Chancellor's intervention, which has raised the price of a basic food for the less well-off people in my constituency and throughout the country?
    Mr. MacGregor: I should make it clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, because of climatic and other conditions affecting the crop last year, there has been a shortage of supplies in recent months and weeks, which has led to the increased price of potatoes in shops. As the new potatoes come on to the market that shortage will end. The arrangements that we have announced for the Potato Marketing Board are designed to ensure reasonable continuity of supplies, and, therefore, reasonable prices for consumers.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Potato Marketing Board's support mechanism price is way below the price that would be expected in the market place?
    Mr. MacGregor: Broadly speaking, that is correct.

    New Zealand Butter
    Mr. Gouldasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the present level of imports of New Zealand butter compares with the level of such receipts at their highest point since 1954.
    Mr. MacGregor: Figures given in Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom show that the highest level of imports of New Zealand butter since 1954 was 192,170 tonnes in 1969. A quota of 83,000 tonnes has been agreed for 1984.
    Mr. Gould: Do not those figures show that a substantial price has been paid by the New Zealand producer and the British consumer? When will the ugly-sounding principle of regressivity end?
    Mr. MacGregor: It is certainly the case that there has been a considerable cut in New Zealand supplies to the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the way in which New Zealand has done this and dealt with the implications on the world market in an orderly manner. The new arrangement means that during the next three years the decline in supplies will be much less sharp.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Wallaceasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had

    457
    meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Wallace: As we have heard within the past half hour that the Secretary of State for the Environment is to make a statement on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, following the Government's substantial defeat last week in another place, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to admit that the undemocratic provisions of that Bill are unprincipled? Will she, for once, show some humility and admit that her Government have been wrong?
    The Prime Minister: The Government have decided to table an amendment to the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill on Report in another place, proposing that the present members of the GLC and of the metropolitan county councils should continue in office into 1986, but without elections next year. At the same time, further provisions will be introduced to prevent unreasonable actions by the outgoing authorities.
    Mrs. Peacock: During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider the fact that the recent picketing activities in Yorkshire not only harm Yorkshire but draw attention to the Yorkshire work force, many of whom are hardworking? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those actions make it difficult for those of us who wish to attract new industry to replace the textile industry?
    The Prime Minister: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend said. The strikes and picketing are not conducive to attracting new industry and new jobs to this country. As always, strikes destroy jobs.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister not think it is a pity that we had to gouge agreement from the Government at 2.30 pm to make a statement this afternoon? Was the original decision, which was made by the Cabinet this morning and announced to the press, by the Prime Minister's press secretary at 11.45 am, that the Secretary of State should not make a statement made because the right hon. Gentleman was afraid to come here, or because the right hon. Lady was afraid to let him?
    The Prime Minister: That is absolute nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman should know that there are strict rules of order as between this House and the other place. That is a matter for Mr. Speaker, not for me.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister knows that she is misleading the House and the country. She is still dodging the question, just as she is dodging democracy by still running away from the ballot box. Who is afraid? Who is frit now?
    The Prime Minister: We on the Government Benches are hardly afraid. I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands. I have already replied to his question, and that is just bad luck on him.
    Mr. Steel: Of which is the Prime Minister more proud? Is it the report of the Wessex area Conservatives on her strident and uncaring style of government, or is it her constitutional achievement in turning the House of Lords into the conscience of the nation?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the Government took cognisance of what the House of Lords said. I shall be
    458
    interested to know whether all right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—I know his view — are now fervently for the continuance of their Lordships' House.
    Mr. Heddle: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the GLC has voted £6 million to clothe the wolf Livingstone in sheep's clothing? Will she take this opportunity—and do so continually—to explain to the country that the abolition of an insensitive and expensive tier of bureaucracy will increase local democracy and accountability?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It will mean that local government will be conducted at one tier nearer to the people. I note that many parties in the House have preferred unitary authorities to authorities where there is a second tier.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Robinson: The Prime Minister must be aware that her statement on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill will fall far short of meeting the expectations of the House. It is clear from developments during the past 24 hours that the Secretary of State for the Environment has lost his nerve over this issue and has had to be dragooned into making a statement to the House, which he promised less than a week ago. Why will the Prime Minister not put the wretched man out of his misery and sack him?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman knows, but, as far as I am aware, my right hon. Friend will be making a statement to the House.
    Mr. Thurnham: Striking miners have said in a radio broadcast that they wish to return to work but that they dare not for fear of the closed shop arrangements. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend assure miners that they will not lose their jobs if they go back to work and that the National Coal Board is not one of those maverick employers—like, for example, Bolton council—which encourages their employees to stay out on strike?
    The Prime Minister: The National Coal Board gave an undertaking some time ago that it would safeguard the jobs of any miners who lost their union membership. Therefore, there is no need for miners to fear going back to work on that account.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the decision of the British Medical Association in Manchester today by a two thirds majority — and I assume that she regards its members as rational and patriotic people — that the expenditure on armaments should be reduced drastically and that the money saved should be diverted to health purposes? Will she now take some initiative along those lines?
    The Prime Minister: This Government have always been prepared to conduct disarmament talks, provided that the end result was that disarmament was on a balanced and verifiable basis. To do other than that would be to put the security of the country, which would include the doctors, at risk.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend comment upon the agreed second section of the Fontainebleau communiqué, which states that the VAT contribution may be increased to 1·6 per cent. on 1 January 1988? Is that preparing the ground for a second increase in own resources?
    The Prime Minister: As the communiqué made clear, such an increase could take place only with the unanimous consent of each Head of Government and also with the ratification of each and every national Parliament. Those are the safeguards.
    Mr. Tony Banksasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: Is the Prime Minister aware that her Government's policy towards local government now resembles "Son of the Titanic"? Before she sacks the Secretary of State for the Environment, that poor bumbling wreckage at the end of the Front Bench, will she bear in mind that he was only carrying out her instruction to abolish the Greater London council, which was based on her own personal vindictiveness towards Ken Livingstone?
    The Prime Minister: The GLC and the metropolitan county councils will be abolished in accordance with the provisions of our manifesto, which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the electorate at the general election, and again during the Euro-elections.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the United Kingdom is one of the greatest contributors of aid to Zimbabwe? Therefore, will she, together with our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, make urgent representations to Mr. Mugabe and his Government about the unjustified detention of Bishop Muzorewa, who was a past Prime Minister of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, and a great friend of the United Kingdom? He has been detained without trial for eight months now. Will my right hon. Friend do something about it, and will she make representations or withhold aid?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would be advisable to withhold aid. As my hon. Friend knows, Bishop Muzorewa has no British citizenship—he is a Zimbabwe citizen, and therefore it is a matter for Zimbabwe. I shall of course draw the attention of that Government to what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Loydenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Loyden: Is the Prime Minister aware that her claim that the National Health Service is safe in her hands rings hollow on Merseyside, and similar places, where the number of hospital beds has been cut and waiting lists of people suffering from cancer have lengthened? Will she consider the petition which is being presented at No. 10 this afternoon, signed by 25,000 people in Liverpool, demanding an improvement in the Health Service in that part of the world?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I shall look at that petition, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, since the
    460
    Government came into office in 1979 spending on the NHS has increased in real terms by 7·5 per cent. More patients are being treated—there are more than 600,000 more inpatients and day cases, and 2·5 million more outpatient cases each year. Waiting lists have fallen by 50,000, after rising by 250,000 under Labour. There are 57,000 more nurses and midwives and 9,000 more dentists and doctors. I could go on relating other great increases in the NHS made by this Government, whose record is far superior to that of any other Government.
    Sir Philip Holland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that attempts to persuade her to intervene directly in the miners' dispute were merely a device to trap the Government into providing additional subsidies for uneconomic effort? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to reject any such proposals in the future, as she has done so admirably in the past?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I welcome the talks that are now taking place between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. Throughout the dispute the chairman of the NCB has expressed his willingness to discuss revision of the "Plan for Coal" with the unions. I hope that the NUM will approach the talks in the same spirit.
    Mr. Chris Smithasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: As the Prime Minister has been unable to tell the House why her Secretary of State for the Environment is so frightened to tell the House what the Government's intentions are towards the GLC, will she instead take this opportunity to tell the House and the people of London why she and her Government are frightened of the ballot box, and why, as the overwhelming majority of Londoners wish, she should not face the electorate in the GLC elections at the ballot box next May, which is the democratic and decent thing to do?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must be under an illusion. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement after Question Time. The district council elections will take place in the usual way. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party won handsomely the latest ballot for the European elections.
    Mr. Silvester: Will my right hon. Friend spare time today to consider the urgent matter of the loss to the country of "The Crucifixion" by Duccio? Is she aware that the Manchester city art gallery has raised £1·2 million from its own efforts, and that if another £600,000 is not forthcoming from the National Heritage Memorial Fund or the Exchequer the painting will leave the country in 10 days' time?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for The Arts would like to purchase even more works of art that we are able to. The decision was taken by the trustees of the British Museum and the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The export licence will be dealt with in the usual way. This country is rich in works of art, many of which are stored away and cannot be shown. Many people wish that they were on display in buildings that are properly maintained.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 JULY—Consideration of Private Members' motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, remaining stages of the Cable and Broadcasting Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY IO JULY — There will be a debate on a Government motion on European Community affairs. The White Paper on developments in the Community July to December 1983 will be relevant. Other relevant document numbers will appear in the Official Report.
Motion on European Community document 9272/1/83 on the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy report.
Motion on the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order.
WEDNESDAY II JULY—Progress on Report stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
THURSDAY I2 JULY—Completion of Remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Second Reading of the Capital Transfer Tax Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
FRIDAY I3 JULY—There will be a debate on the prevention of drug misuse, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY I6 JULY—A debate on the Gower report on the review of investor protection in the financial services sector, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
[Debate on 10 July (EEC White Paper). Relevant European Community documents and reports of European Legislation Committee:—
Documents

(a) 4972/84

Budgetary discipline

4972/1/84

(b) 5427/84

Future financing of the Community

(c) 6681/84

Measures to meet budget requirements for 1984

(d) 4812/84

Supplementary measures in favour of the United Kingdom

(e) 6240/84

Specific measures for energy strategy, 1983

(f) 7922/84

Preliminary draft budget for 1985

Relevant Reports

(a) HC 78-xix (1983–84) paragraph 3 and HC 78-xx (1983–84) paragraph 4

(b) HC 78-xxii (1983–84) paragraph 1

(c) HC 78-xxvii (1983–84) paragraph 7

(d) HC 78-xx (1983–84) paragraph 3

(e) HC 78-xxvii (1983–84) paragraph 5

(f) HC 78-xxx (1983–84) paragraph 1 (not yet printed)

Debate on 10 July (Anti-dumping measures) Relevant European Community documents and report of the European Legislation Committee:—

9272/1/83

Annual report on anti-dumping and anti-subsidy legislation.

See HC 78—iii (1983–84) paragraph 7.]
Mr. Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for providing time for a debate on the awful problem of drug misuse — a matter of interest and anxiety to all hon. Members and the country. Will there be an opportunity for a Minister to make a statement about effective measures for counteracting drug misuse, as that is the desire of all hon. Members?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the European debate on Tuesday will be on an amendable motion? Will he tell the House what is happening about the milk quotas order following the opportunity that the House had on Tuesday to express its views on the draft Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984?
When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to have a debate on the British Telecom licence? He must be aware that it is a vast document which gives powers to British Telecom to close up to 5,000 telephone kiosks in rural and other areas, and fails to provide adequate security for the directory inquiry services currently provided by British Telecom. Will he ensure that we have an early debate on that so that we can express the strong anxiety felt in the country against changes which will disadvantage people, especially those in rural areas?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly consider the possibility of a debate on the British Telecom licence, which raises the important factors to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Perhaps that is something that we could pursue through the usual channels.
On the subject of milk quotas, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will wish to take account of the constructive debate earlier this week. He will be tabling a further order taking account of what then happened.
I can confirm that the debate on the European Community, scheduled for Tuesday 10 July, will proceed upon a Government motion which will be amendable.
I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the importance of the topic of drug misuse. A Government spokesman will be taking part in that debate.
Mr. James Couchman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that area managers of the Manpower Services Commission are beginning to produce plans to rationalise the services provided by the MSC? Will he try to find time before the recess to debate these proposals, many of which are for consultation only until mid-August?
Mr. Biffen: I can confirm from my constituency interest the importance of the point that my hon. Friend raises. Of course, there are parliamentary opportunities open to private Members, as well as Government time, in the balance of days between now and when we recess. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to the points that have been raised.
Mr. James Lamond: As the Stockholm conference ends its second session today, on which day next week will we hear a statement from the Foreign Secretary telling us of any advances that have been made in the disarmament talks there?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to the point that has been raised.
Viscount Cranborne: Will my right hon. Friend provide time urgently for a debate on the future of the constitution, so that the House may hear whether the Labour party has changed its views on the abolition of the House of Lords?
Mr. Biffen: That is one of the topics that might conceivably stretch to the overspill.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Now that we have reached the 18th Opposition day and the practice of treating such days as Labour days has continued unabated, will the Leader of the House table a motion referring this matter to the Select Committee on Procedure so that we can have a debate on the Floor of the House about it, or is it all part of the Government's life support system to keep the Labour party in business?
Mr. Biffen: I doubt whether this Government, even with all their skill, could keep the Labour party in business. On the more substantial matter, I must point out that the Procedure Committee could consider this matter without recourse to the device to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: In order to put it on the record, will my right hon. Friend agree and take note of the fact that next week, when the House of Lords will consider an amendment tabled by the Government to the paving Bill, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, it will be almost the same amendment as that tabled in this House by myself, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and others, which the Government refused to accept? Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that there is more rejoicing over one Minister who repenteth than in 99 votes in the wrong Lobby on the wrong issue?
Mr. Biffen: I shall hide behind the ample skirts of the convention which inhibits hon. Members of this House discussing matters which are being considered in another place.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: In view of the reply from a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry during the week to a written question on privatisation and the British Steel Corporation, does the Leader of the House think that an early debate on the future of BSC would assist the House and also help to clarify the intentions of the Department of Trade and Industry on the future of the Phoenix 2 joint venture project?
Mr. Biffen: I shall bear in mind the desirability of having a reasonably early debate on the steel industry.
Mr. Barry Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are Conservative Members who would also welcome a debate on the BT licence, if for no other reason than that the truth may be marshalled to counteract the misinformation being peddled by Labour Members with vested interests?
Mr. Biffen: Absolutely.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Did the Leader of the House notice the statement by a representative of the Pentagon last week that sea-launched cruise missiles are now operational on American naval vessels? Did he notice the Secretary of State for Defence's reply to a written question saying that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government neither to confirm nor deny the
464
presence of nuclear weapons in a particular location? This means that this country could have at least 1,000 sea-launched cruise missiles in its ports. Is it not time that the Secretary of State for Defence came to the House and gave us a full explanation of the Government's policy on these weapons?
Mr. Biffen: I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was commenting on a convention which has been equally applicable to both Tory and Labour Governments. I shall refer to him the hon. Gentleman's point.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As there is to be a statement after this, and as no fewer than 37 right hon. and hon. Gentlemen wish to take part in the subsequent debate, I shall allow questions to continue for a further 10 minutes.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be no concluded debate on the Fontainebleau agreement —[HON. MEMBERS: "Fontaineblow".] — Fontaineblow agreement until the Finance Ministers have met and until the House has had an opportunity to consider whether the financial disciplines are sufficient?
Mr. Biffen: I find my hon. Friend's corrupted French infinitely more attractive than the uncorrupt variety. I assure him that the answer that he seeks he will better secure in the debate on Tuesday than from me.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the Prime Minister's, as usual, mistaken comment about the availability for display of paintings in this country, and in view of the fact that the nation has just lost £21 million worth of drawings from the Chatsworth collection, which we could have had if the Government had coughed up another £500,000, may we have a debate in the House on the need to introduce new measures to keep within British national collections a whole range of things which are now in danger of being exported, either by introducing new tax arrangements or by pre-empting certain works of art or objects of art, as is done in France and Italy? There is a need to debate this matter.
Mr. Biffen: I accept at once the hon. Gentleman's feeling for this topic and his desire to have a debate. I recommend to him all the opportunities that are available for private Members between now and the end of the month.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 643, entitled "Bomb Makers' Books"?
[That this House urges the Secretary of State for the Home Department to take steps to stop the importing, distribution, sale or possession of books or manuals that clearly and simply detail the production of home-made napalm, plastic explosive nail-bombs and booby traps from materials legally and easily available in the shops.]
The motion stands in the names of myself and other right hon. and hon. Members. It has the support of half the House, on an all-party basis. Bearing in mind that support, will my right hon. Friend ask our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on whether he intends to stop the distribution and sale of these pernicious manuals, which teach the deranged and the demented how to make bombs and armaments out of easily available materials?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises a most important point and I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is consulting the police. In the light of the advice that he receives, he will consider whether any additional steps are necessary. I shall refer my hon. Friend's point to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Allen McKay: Mining industry dispute—when?
Mr. Biffen: Not scheduled for next week, but one never can tell.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I wish to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 856:
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to continue to honour the additional allowance, commonly known as 'danger money', awarded to all members of the armed forces serving in Northern Ireland.]
The motion is in my name and that of 19 other hon. Members and concerns the problem in Northern Ireland of armed forces pay and the fact that the additional allowance paid to all service men in Northern Ireland may be in danger. I call it danger money. Will it be possible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to confirm or deny on the Floor of the House whether this allowance will continue to be paid, because the armed forces deserve it?
Mr. Biffen: I understand that the matter is before the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay, but I shall refer the point that my hon. Friend has raised to the relevant Minister.
Mr. Tom Clarke: When can we expect a debate on Central America? If there is a debate, will the Government take that opportunity to tell the House whether they intend to send observers to the forthcoming elections in Nicaragua?
Mr. Biffen: This is the time of year when hon. Members, especially those from Scotland, become increasingly concerned about the date of the recess. In those circumstances, there tends to be rather severe pressure on some topics, and Central America might be one of them.
Mr. John Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that the House will not debate dog licences next week? Furthermore, can he think of some legislation that would find favour with the electorate? I have many suggestions, including the reintroduction of the death penalty, which would sweep the country.
Mr. Biffen: I wish to move modestly and circumspectly in this area, and I assure my hon. Friend that it would not be with my good wishes if the House debated dog licences next week.
Mr. Allen Adams: As you, Mr. Speaker, reminded the House a fortnight ago that questions at business time should be related to pertinent and relevant issues, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he considers that the most relevant and major issue facing the country is still the miners' dispute? On that presumption, will he initiate a debate on that issue in Government time, because I am sure that Opposition Members would welcome the opportunity to give
466
unqualified support—I repeat, unqualified support—to the struggle being waged by the National Union of Mineworkers?
Mr. Biffen: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is referring to that minority of the NUM who are on strike—
Mr. Adams: The majority.
Mr. Biffen: The very fact that the position is fractured is central to our understanding of it. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is a major topic, and it may well be the subject of consideration by the House during the next two or three weeks, but it does not feature in next week's business.
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the Nature Conservancy Council has just published a report called "Nature Conservation in Great Britain". As this is a matter of growing interest, may we soon have a debate on the countryside?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend could pursue this topic through the several opportunities that he has as a Back-Bench Member. However, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the point that he makes.
Mr. Tom Cox: Is the Leader of the House aware of the publicity this week about people wanted by the police for interview, who are now living in Spain without fear of removal? Is he further aware that at a recent meeting in Strasbourg the Spanish Prime Minister said that the lack of development of an extradition treaty was caused by a lack of good will in the British Government? Will he try to do something about this?
Mr. Biffen: I shall relate the hon. Gentleman's point to the Ministers responsible for such matters.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the report of the assistant chief constable of Derbyshire that there have been more than 200 instances of intimidation of and violence against working miners and their families in that county during the past month, and that even children are being approached on their way to school? The position in some of our villages is as bad as in Northern Ireland. May we have a debate soon on the restoration of law in the county so that working miners and their families can live in peace?
Mr. Biffen: That touches the wider issue mentioned by other hon. Members of seeking to have an early debate on the mining dispute. Of course, I shall bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Will the Leader of the House compassionately consider early-day motion 745, which is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, on the injustice of the death grant of £30 at a time when a funeral costs £500?
[That this House demands that the death grant fixed in 1948 at the then value of £30, should be increased immediately; recalls that in his statement on 2nd April, Official Report, column 653, the Secretary of State indicated that the review of the whole of security benefits, including the death grant, would not be available until later this year; and believes that this issue should be treated separately and urgently in the light of the fact that in the two years 1980 to 1982 there were 544,349 deaths,

467
many of these pensioners who had a lifetime of weekly contributions but whose families would be meeting funeral costs in excess of £500 to which the contribution of £30 is derisory.]
If we cannot have a statement or debate on this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman at least ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to take this matter out of the present review, because before the review is completed hundreds of senior citizens will have died?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly raise the hon. Gentleman's point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that not only Opposition Members but Conservative Members would welcome a debate on the steel industry, as it would afford an opportunity to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to repeat in the House what he said to the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation conference, which was that the Conservative party was being funded by ICI?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend adds another to the many reasons that exist, and are felt by the House, for a debate on the steel industry. I should like to see what time can be found for such a debate.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will we have a debate on regional policy before the recess, particularly in the light of the fact that the Government's consultation exercise on the White Paper is now almost complete and hon. Members should be given the opportunity on the Floor publicly to express their views?
Mr. Biffen: Regional policy covers such a range of economic considerations that the hon. Gentleman might even be able to raise the subject on the remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend, whose constituency has much to do with the dairy industry, assure us that when the Minister of Agriculture lays the amended dairy produce quota regulations before the House a full day's debate will be permitted so that all those hon. Members with a considerable interest in the agriculture industry and the dairy sector will have an opportunity to participate? Bearing in mind the requests for debates on the steel and coal industries, will my right hon. Friend also find time in the near future, before we rise for the recess, for a debate on textile and clothing industries, which employ more people than the coal and steel industries put together?
Mr. Biffen: I confine myself to the dairy produce quota regulations. I cannot guarantee that more than the normal time will be allocated for that debate.

Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill
3.51 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)rose—
Hon. Members: Resign.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Jenkin: With permission, I should like to make a statement on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, which is also being made by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President in another place.
The Government have decided to table an amendment to the Bill on Report in another place to the effect that the present members of the Greater London council and the metroplitan county councils will continue in office until 1986 but without elections next year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame".] At the same time, further provisions will be introduced to prevent unreasonable actions by the outgoing authorities.
Dr. John Cunningham rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Tony Banks: Go easy on him, Jack.
Dr. Cunningham: Is not this apology of a statement indicative of the panic and incompetence now prevalent in the right hon. Gentleman's office? Is he aware that at 1.45 pm his office told my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that the right hon. Gentleman would not be making a statement and that at 2.50 pm we were told that he would be?
Does not his statement mean that elections will have to be cancelled in advance of the House of Commons and the other place taking a final view about abolition? Was not that the central objection to the Bill as expressed in the amendment carried so convincingly in the House of Lords?
Is not an extension of terms of office almost certain to be needed for more than one year, given the complexity of the work done by the metropolitan county councils and the GLC, and will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that there is no precedent—in spite of his assertions—for extending terms of office before the main issue of the future of councils in reorganisation has been decided? That is a fact.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the words of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who told the House:
"It would have been bad to extend the period of election beyond the term of election of councillors".—[Official Report, 12 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 524.]
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite wrong. I said that the Government would consider a number of options in response to the amendment passed in another place. We have done that and I have now made a statement to the House giving the outline of our conclusions. I find the criticisms of the proposal which I have put before the House and which will be moved in another pace a little strange. After all, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), on Second Reading of the paving Bill, said:
"I can sympathise with the Secretary of State's claim that it would have been wasteful to hold elections. I fully realise that,

469
but the natural thing to do in those circumstances is to allow local authorities to continue in existence for another year." — [Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 469.]
Since that is precisely what we are doing, I cannot understand the complaint.
Mr. Francis Pym: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are much relieved that the quangos that were to be brought into existence to take over from the GLC and the metropolitan county councils will not now come into existence? May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions? Does he appreciate that the manner in which the reform is carried through is extremely important? How will he make the Government's decisions known to the House? Will he ensure that some document—White Paper, report—is debated by the House before the Second Reading of the main Bill? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the debate that has raged sharply over the controversy in the last six to nine month, has given rise to a feeling in some metropolitan counties and particularly in London that some body is needed to provide a strategic overview of the affairs of our capital city?
Mr. Jenkin: I am hoping that before the House rises I may be able to publish a brief parliamentary document setting out in summary the Government's decisions on the destination of the functions at present carried out by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. Any question of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.
I am aware of the view that there needs to be some upper-tier authority to take an overview. That is not Her Majesty's Government's view. We believe that the services currently carried out by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils can be devolved upon the true organs of local government—the local borough and district councils.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State now admit that the proposals, which were his idea and which he persuaded the Cabinet to adopt, were unconstitutional and wrong? Will he assure the House, since they were his idea, that it will not be he who will take us through the next proposals? Most importantly, for whatever period the right hon. Gentleman proposes that the councils will run, will members of his party propose to fight any by-elections that might arise, or do they propose to boycott them as further evidence that they do not really believe in democracy after all?
Mr. Jenkin: There is no question of who takes the Bill through in another place. In this place, the other Bill is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
The legislation will, of course, allow by-elections to continue. Arrangements will no doubt be made in the main Bill. The question of fighting by-elections is a matter for local Conservative associations.
Sir Ian Gilmour: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his timely and necessary concession? Will he bear in mind — it is important that he does so because the same thing may happen in the next Session—that it would be far better to pay attention to the overwhelming argument in this House than to wait to be pressurised by an adverse vote in another place?
Mr. Jenkin: Although I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's kind words, I am entitled to point out that the
470
paving Bill secured a Third Reading in this House by a majority of 128. The Government take full heed of points that are made, and the response that I have announced to the proceedings in another place is a demonstration of that.
Mr. Harry Cowans: When the Secretary of State made his statement, he said that he was pleased to do so. He could have fooled me, and I think that he could have fooled the whole House. I have never seen a man who looked less pleased.
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain, not only to tie House but—more importantly—to those outside, why his Government are afraid of the ballot box? They advocate ballots very loudly in other areas, but when it is within their power to allow the people to speak they deny them the right to do so. Why?
Mr. Jenkin: It is fully in accordance with precedent that, during a reorganisation of the structure of local government, elections are suspended. That is what we are doing in this case. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we won the election in 1983 and that we won the Euro-election last month.
Mr. David Howell: The move that my right hon. Friend has announced today is thoroughly sensible, and many of us are strongly in favour of devolving more functions to the London boroughs and getting rid of the GLC. However, my right hon. Friend would find that his policies commanded much more support if he recognised the need for a London-wide government to be included in the replacement arrangements to deal with London-wide matters which would otherwise be lost in Whitehall and in various quangos.
Mr. Jenkin: The Government are very familiar with my right hon. Friend's argument. We have considered that point very carefully. Like the leaders of the London boroughs, whom we have consulted, we believe that the services are best devolved to the London boroughs themselves. Such issues will be debated at length when the main abolition Bill is presented to the House.
Mr. Tony Banks: We all now realise that the Secretary of State has a glorious future behind him. Is he aware that his statement will solve nothing at all? Dismantling the Greater London council would take considerably longer than a year even if there was goodwill in county hall towards the Secretary of State—and there is very little goodwill at the moment. What advice will the Secretary of State give his successor? In about a year, someone will have to decide whether to extend the present GLC for a further year. Shall I be a GLC member for life, until the right hon. Gentleman gets his act together?
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has played a full part in our proceedings on the Bill. It is within his power to influence his colleagues to make sure that, if the Bill is approved by the House, the transition is achieved smoothly and successfully. On the other hand, he could behave in a difficult and obstructive manner. The choice lies with him. The Government intend to complete the abolition and the handover by April 1986.
Mr. John Wheeler: My right hon. Friend's statement will be widely supported and welcomed by the majority of London Members. He has reaffirmed the abolition of an unwanted tier of local government and the restoration of the services to local

471
democracy. Further, he is determined to ensure that the wasteful and unnecessary expenditure of ratepayers' money will be curtailed.
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. For the details of the arrangements, my hon. Friend will have to wait for the tabling of amendments in another place.
Mr. John Cartwright: In view of the record of bumbling and bodging surrounding the legislation—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman knows what he is talking about. He is an expert in bumbling and bodging.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cartwright: Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that he will succeed in his stated aim of winding up the GLC by April 1986? There is a real risk that the effect of what he has said this afternoon will be to inflict the Livingstone regime on Londoners for two years after the end of the term for which it was elected.
Mr. Jenkin: The period would be one year. However, I. reject the hon. Gentleman's description. Legislation was passed in this House, an amendment was passed in another place, and the Government have responded to that amendment. I cannot conceive why that should be regarded as bumbling and bodging.
Mr. Charles Morrison: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for explaining to the House the Government's proposed course of action, which seems to make good sense. Is he aware, however, that support for the abolition Bill next Session will still depend upon the Government's ability to demonstrate clearly that what follows abolition will be more efficient and cost-effective and will provide a better deal for the ratepayers?
Mr. Jenkin: That is a burden of proof which I shall be happy to discharge.
Mr. Chris Smith: The Secretary of State's party did not win the European elections in London. In London, those elections were won by the Labour party. That shows clearly that the people of London are angry not just about the abolition of the GLC, but about the removal of their right to vote for the GLC in May 1985. Why is the Secretary of State still intent on taking away that democratic right?
Mr. Jenkin: I have made it clear that it would not only be in accordance with precedent, but would make very good sense, to avoid having an election when the Bill is before the House or in another place. That is why the amendments to be tabled in another place will so provide.
If the results of the Euro-election had been repeated in a parliamentary election, the result would have been a Conservative majority.
Mr. Peter Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all true Tories will welcome this return to constitutionalism?
Mr. Jenkin: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I speak as a Merseyside county councillor whose stay in
472
office has been lengthened. I would prefer to trust the electors of Merseyside rather than to have my term of office extended in that way, especially as I know what their view would be. How can the Secretary of State guarantee that we shall not have a similar squalid performance over the abolition Bill, and that in 12 months' time the right hon. Gentleman's successor will not tell me that my term of office has been extended for another three or four years? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means when he refers to measures to combat the excessive use of powers by councils such as mine? Is he referring to our measures to create 7,000 jobs in an area which has been driven into the ground by his Government's economic measures?
Mr. Jenkin: I think that the hon. Gentleman is making altogether too much of this. [Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Jenkin: The legislation has passed this House. It has been amended in another place. The Government have announced their proposals, in response to the changes made in the Lords.
The measures to which the hon. Gentleman has referred will cover the use of section 137 of the Local Government Act and measures to prevent asset-stripping and long-term contracts.
Sir Anthony Grant: The one criticism that could be made of my right hon. Friend and his Ministers is that, because they are so gentlemanly, they have failed to punch home the bigotries and lunacies of the present GLC and the futility of the GLC under either party. Let us not forget the outrageous expenditure by the GLC of £6 million to mislead the public, at the expense of the ratepayers. What will be done to put an end to this scandal in the new proposals?
Mr. Jenkin: The Government are very concerned about the use of ratepayers' money for political propaganda. I am studying urgently what steps might be taken to deal with that. However, I can give my hon. Friend no commitment that it will prove possible to legislate on the matter.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already told the House that there is heavy pressure on our subsequent debate, which is an Opposition day. I shall allow questions to continue until 4.20 pm, which gives us a full half-hour on this matter.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State recall that a few moments ago he did not reply to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) about a White Paper? Will he now tell the House that he will produce a White Paper before the legislation, whether it be before the House rises for the summer recess or not? Does he realise that any lack of such an undertaking will be interpreted as a lack of confidence on the part of the Government in their mistaken policies?
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard. I answered my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East and said that I was hoping to publish—
Mr. Spearing: Hoping to.
Mr. Jenkin: —publish a parliamentary paper before the House rises. It would certainly be well before any question of a Second Reading coming before the House.
Mr. John Powley: Will my right hon. Friend note that it ill becomes the Opposition to gloat about the decision of the other place when it is their declared aim to abolish the other place? They should not take advantage of it just because it suits them when they wish to abolish it.
Mr. Jenkin: As we have seen in an article in the Daily Express today, those same people who cheer for the democratic decision of the House of Lords seem determined to defeat the intentions of this House on this and other legislation. That is sheer hypocrisy.
Mr. John Fraser: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that his own term of office has been extended?
Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend accept that, by squandering an enormous amount of money, Mr. Livingstone has perhaps temporarily persuaded some people that his case has a little credibility? Will my right hon. Friend henceforth ensure that the Government's policy is spelt out so that the electorate can agree with what the Social Democratic party, the Labour party and the Conservatives said at the last election? The alliance suggested that the GLC and the metropolitan county councils be abolished and the Labour party was committed to simplifying the division of responsibilities between the two tier authorities?
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When the full details of the proposals are made known, the Government intend to ensure that they are understood and accepted by the electorate.
Mr. John Morris: Will the Secretary of State give us a word of explanation as to why the Government have changed their mind? Is it because of the adverse vote in another place or, as is manifest from the congratulations given by Conservative Back Benchers, is it because he could not overturn that vote in this House? Is he still proud of his original judgment?
Mr. Jenkin: If I may say so, the Opposition must make up their mind. Either the Government are rigid and authoritarian or we are flexible and listen to the arguments. We have listened and responded to the will of another place. That is why I have made my statement today.
Mr. Derek Conway: Will my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who were unable to support the Government on the paving Bill take no great pleasure in his predicament today, although our stance will not necessarily be the same on the mainframe legislation? Might I remind him that, when the House debated the issue in the debate on the Queen's Speech, in my maiden speech I urged the Government to tackle section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, which has partially enabled the propaganda campaign to go on in London and in the metropolitan counties? Until Parliament tackles expenditure on political propaganda, the issue will not go away—not even with the present Bill—but will remain for decades.
Mr. Jenkin: I do not think that it is section 137 but section 142 of that Act on which authorities rely for financing Labour party propaganda at the ratepayers'
474
expense. I have already said that the Government are studying urgently whether it is possible to amend the law to stop that abuse. Labour party propaganda should be paid for out of Labour party funds.
Mr. Greville Janner: In his alleged statement, the right hon. Gentleman said that the amendment would ban unreasonable actions. Will the right hon. Gentleman define unreasonable actions? Could it be that an action would be unreasonable if the Prime Minister disagreed with it and reasonable if she agreed with it?
Mr. Jenkin: I have already given an indication of what those words imply in my reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing).
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while many of us blench at the thought of some members of the Labour party continuing in office even for another week, we are very grateful to him for his concession? Having been the recipient for many years of newspapers that are paid for by the minority of the population who pay rates, we eagerly await and will carefully examine what he intends to do.
Mr. Jenkin: I am well aware of the disquiet that the vast propaganda campaign which is conducted at ratepayers' expense has aroused. I assure my hon. Friend that we are examining the issue with great urgency.
Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Secretary of State admit that the Government's excuse about abolition being in their election manifesto is extremely weak, as there are many proposals in a manifesto and people vote on the whole document rather than on individual issues? Does he agree that this issue is one of the most important that we have confronted for some time, as it affects local democracy? The people decided that they wanted metropolitan county councils and the GLC and the only way in which to prove the will of the people was to have an election. Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid to put the matter to that test because the Government are hated and the Prime Minister is discredited?
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has given the House a clear idea of the importance that he attaches to any manifesto on which he fights an election.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I thank my right hon. Friend for doing what is right. Will he reflect on the difficulty that will face the House next year when it tries to get the Bill that abolishes the GLC and the metropolitan counties through in good time to make proper, sensible and realistic provisions for takeover as early as 1986? Will he, during the next few weeks, reflect on the implications of what I have said?
Mr. Jenkin: That matter has been at the forefront of my mind and the minds of my advisers since we started preparing this legislation immediately after the general election. It is of the utmost importance that we secure as smooth and as satisfactory a handover of the functions to lower-tier authorities as we can. The level of our success will depend on the co-operation that we receive from upper-tier authorities after the main abolition Bill is through.
Mr. Eric Deakins: Is the Secretary of State claiming that there would be no political

475
disadvantage to the Conservative party if the people of London and the metropolitan counties were allowed to vote next year?
Mr. Jenkin: I have already explained why it would not be in accordance with precedent and why it would not make sense to have elections while the main Bill was proceeding through Parliament. I have nothing to add to that.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his response today to the vote in another place is something that we regard as entirely proper? We expect a Conservative Government to take account of votes in another place. The fact that he has resisted the temptation to suggest that the other place should be steamrollered reflects great credit on him.
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement has not got rid of the constitutional argument that he will abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties before the abolition Bill has passed through this House and another place? Will he make a further statement on exactly what he means by "certain measures" that he will take between now and the abolition of the councils, if that happens? Perhaps some Conservative Back Benchers would like to comment on the propaganda campaign in national newspapers being conducted by the National Coal Board on the coal dispute before they—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Jenkin: So far as that supplementary question was relevant to the matter under discussion, the answer to the first part is that the hon. Gentleman has it wrong. The answer to the second part is that—
Mr. Barron: There will be no elections.
Mr. Jenkin: —while the hon. Gentleman referred to abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, they will remain until April 1986, and that is why I said that the hon. Gentleman got it wrong.
Mr. Tim Eggar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a general welcome for his announcement today, particularly as my constituents, who are representative of many people in outer London, are fed up with decisions on local issues being taken at county hall rather than locally by their councils? Is he further aware that they will particularly welcome his promise about section 142?
Mr. Jenkin: Those were certainly the arguments which persuaded a large number of Labour Members before the election to recognise that the GLC should be abolished.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: May I remind the Secretary of State that a few minutes ago he told the House that his Government were flexible and listened to public opinion? May I further remind him that there is no body of opinion in London or the metropolitan counties which supports his plan to abolish the authorities or the elections? In view of his claim to listen to people, should he not now respond to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and say whether he thinks that he has a future as Secretary of State and whether he intends to resign?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Dr. Cunningham: How can the Secretary of State support what he is now proposing when he specifically minuted his Cabinet colleagues against this course of action a few months ago, a course of action which the Prime Minister rejected in the House of Commons at Question Time? Why does the right hon. Gentleman—I am choosing my words carefully—repeat the deception that what he is doing has precedents? There is no precedent. When LCC councillors had their terms extended in 1963, before the creation of the GLC, elections to the new GLC followed; and when the metropolitan counties were established in 1972, elections to the county boroughs due for abolition were allowed to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman is deceiving the House of Commons in saying that he is following precedent.
Why will he not deal with the point that I put to him at the beginning? The central objection to the Bill, as expressed by the amendment carried in another place, is in no way met by what he is now proposing to do.
Mr. Jenkin: It would be improper for me to comment on what may happen in another place when the amendments are tabled.
Dr. Cunningham: Answer the question.
Mr. Jenkin: On the question of precedent, it is the hon. Gentleman who is seeking to mislead the House.
Dr. Cunningham: What is the precedent?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Jenkin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to my reply — [Interruption.] On the occasion that he mentioned, there were new authorities for which elections had to be held. In the present case there are existing authorities for which elections will be held in 1986, in the ordinary way, and to describe this as a corruption of democracy, or whatever other phrases are used, is absolute nonsense.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall undoubtedly return to this matter.

Opposition Day
[18TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  The National Health Service
  Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed to the important Opposition debate on the National Health Service, I should announce to the House that I have selected the amendment that stands in the name of the Prime Minister.
  I repeat what I said earlier, that 37 right hon. and hon. Members have indicated their wish to take part in the debate. I make a special appeal today for brief contributions.
  4.24 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the damaging failure of the Government to provide sufficient resources for the National Health Service or stable conditions in which those working in the National Health Service can concentrate on patient care; deplores the suffering for individuals and families which have resulted from the Government's policies; calls for an end to the promotion of private medicine and contracting out of services to the detriment of the National Health Service; and recognises the desire of the British people for Labour's approach to the National Health Service which is to reverse the Tory emphasis on cuts and closures and the drift to centralised control and to provide adequate funding for the proper development of community and preventive care throughout the country and a new framework for genuine democratic accountability.
  The Opposition have tabled this motion today not only to mark the 36th anniversary of the founding of the National Health Service but, above all, to reiterate our commitment — and, I firmly believe, that of the overwhelming majority of the British people—to the principle of the highest quality medical care being available free at the point of need to everyone, irrespective of income, creed or class.
  The NHS is perhaps the finest monument to Socialism in this country and, as such, has won, and continues to command, the enduring loyalty and support of the whole nation. It is a service and a principle with which almost everyone identifies, and the set of petitions which I have before me, headed "Save our National Health Service", containing about 35,000 signatures from just one town, Stockport, is eloquent testimony to that. I have been handed these petitions only today.
  I say "almost everyone" because it is surely of the most profound significance that an institution that is almost universally treasured by the nation should have been pointedly and personally spurned by the Prime Minister. When the right hon. Lady had an eye complaint, she went private, for a second time, though I believe that the NHS down the road had to be brought in to do the operation — [Interruption.] If the NHS was safe in her hands, which is what she had the gall to say during the election, why did she not feel safe in its hands when there was something wrong with her? The Prime Minister could not have demonstrated more dramatically that it is not her but our National Health Service, a service that belongs to the British people but with which she does not identify.
  If the NHS is safe in Tory hands—words that we shall never let the Prime Minister forget—how come that more than 160 hospitals and 11,000 beds have been
  478
  closed since the Tories came to power? How come that more than 2,000 doctors and 10,000 nurses and midwives are now on the dole? How come that an unprecedented number of senior members of the medical profession—the vast majority of them by no means Socialists—have gone public in the outcry against the cuts? And how come that the chairman of the BMA, the auspiciously-named Mr. Tony Grabham, issued a public warning only two days ago saying:
  "The gap between what we can do for patients and what we actually do is steadily widening"?
  That has been reinforced by the TUC policy statement, "The Growing Gap", issued today, which highlights the £0·5 billion gap between needs and resources in the NHS.
  The Tories have never believed in the NHS. Indeed, from the start of their Administration they have gone out of their way to express outright hostility to it. The Prime Minister's antagonism to the NHS is proverbial, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a "Weekend World" broadcast at the outset of his chancellorship, explicitly staked out cuts in the NHS, along with education and social security, as his target for cutting public expenditure and holding down sterling M3. So much for the NHS being safe in his hands. It is about as safe as entrusting an alcoholic with a bottle of whisky.
  The Secretary of State is different. He is the front man, the acceptable face of authoritarianism, even dubbed "Honest Norm" by the Tory press. He is the fall guy in this Administration, a man detailed with the task of trying to convince the Tory ladies with flounced hats that the Government really care about the NHS. It is about time that the case that he has so assiduously peddled in the last year was exposed for the farrago of myths, half truths and innuendo that it is.
  It is claimed that there has been a huge increase in NHS spending over the past five years. The right hon. Gentleman claims that it has been greater than any previous one. The Prime Minister confirmed in a parliamentary answer on 3 April that the real increase in NHS funding over the five years from 1979 to 1984 was 15·1 per cent. The Secretary of State always omits to say that the Prime Minister went on to admit in the same answer that the real increase in NHS funding for the previous five years under the previous Labour Government was 18·6 per cent. That means that over comparable periods Labour increased real expenditure by 23 per cent. more than this Government have done. Let us have no more of the spoof about the generous Tory funding of the NHS.
  We are grateful for anything from this Government. We are told by the Secretary of State that the Government are spending an extra £800 million this year on the NHS. That sounds impressive until we realise that it will do no more than keep up with inflation. There will be almost nothing extra in real terms. That can be confirmed by means of a back-of-an-envelope calculation. The NHS budget is about £16 billion and inflation is running at about 5 per cent., and 5 per cent. of £16 billion is £800 million. Like everything else that the Government boast about concerning the NHS, their claim of extra spending collapses like snowflakes on a boiler as soon as it is nudged.
  By adjusting definitions and statistics the Secretary of State contrives to come up with a claim of 1 per cent. growth this year. I am sure that he realises that that is bogus because it excludes rising demographic demands for

  479
  health services of about 0·75 per cent. to 1 per cent. a year from the growing number of elderly people. It ignores the 0·5 per cent. a year faster-than-inflation rise in the cost of medical technology. Above all, it conceals the central fact that NHS workers are being asked to take a 2 per cent. pay cut this year. We all know that they will not do so. They have already rejected an offer of 3·8 per cent. and I think that they were right to do so. It is patently true that NHS standards will fall this year. There will not be 1 per cent. growth, to use the empty phrase that the right hon. Gentleman continues to parrot around the country. Instead, there will be cuts this year of about 2 per cent. or more.
  If the Secretary of State says that there will be no growth this year because NHS workers are claiming more than their allotted 3 per cent., he will be blackmailing and exploiting some of the lowest paid and most vulnerable workers in society, and that is despicable.
  The Secretary of State claims that there are now more nurses and doctors—he has said this on many occasions and perhaps he will repeat it this afternoon—in the NHS than in 1978. The reason for that has nothing whatever to do with the Government. The apparent increase in the number of nurses is largely the result of a definitional change. The definition of their working week was reduced by Professor Clegg in 1980 from 40 hours to 37½. The number of full-time equivalent nurses increased automatically following that mathematical change. There is nothing more to the increase than that. The increase in the number of doctors is merely the consequence of the trend which was set by the previous Labour Government.
  What the right hon. Gentleman does not say is more significant than what he says. He does not say that he is doing his level best to reduce the number of nurses. That is what the manpower cuts are all about. That is why hundreds of nurses this year will finish their training and will not find jobs. He is trying to reduce the number of doctors too. That is why the DHSS is consulting on introducing work permits for overseas doctors and on reducing the medical student intake. Perhaps the Minister for Health will confirm that that is so.
  It is even more breathtaking that the Secretary of State does not mention that unemployment among doctors is rising far faster than employment generally. In September 1980 there were 493 registered unemployed doctors. In September 1982 there were 1,418, an increase of 188 per cent. in two years. After that the Government were so embarrassed that they resorted to their usual tactic and ceased to collect the statistics. We do not have the recent figures but we know that the BMA warned a Year ago in The Times on 24 March that a further 1,500 doctors would be on the dole within a year unless the Government changed their policy, and they have not. Instead of all the processed cheese that the Government are churning out in their propaganda machine about an increase in the number of doctors, they should present us with the real truth and tell us exactly what has happened over the past three or four years. They should explain that unemployment among doctors has increased about sixfold under the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the Select Committee on Social Services, of which I am a member, and of which the hon.
  480
  Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) is also a member, urged upon the Government that there should be a reduction in those who are permitted to take up medical education? Further, the Select Committee produced a unanimous report that included a recommendation that the Government should reduce the number of overseas doctors coming to Britain. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have had a word with his right hon. and hon. Friends before he addressed the House.
  Mr. Meacher: I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Select Committee on Social Services. Perhaps he will tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to go around the country boasting about the number of doctors increasing under this Administration.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The number of doctors has increased.
  Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. He cannot boast that the number of doctors has increased and then do his level best to reduce their numbers.
  The Secretary of State has had the effrontery to tell us that activity rates have increased in the National Health Service. He seems to suggest that he is doing this with his own hands. I do not think that he has a clue about what is happening in our hospitals. I shall quote the words of someone who is rather nearer the coal face and whose judgment is perhaps a great deal more accurate than that of the right hon. Gentleman. A few days ago Mr. Tony Grabham said:
  "Far too many patients wait far too long for out-patient consultations in hospital. Far too many wait far too long for necessary operations, and far too often the general practitioner is having to cover as best he can for the deficiencies in the hospital services."
  He added:
  "the council had become increasingly concerned about 'very considerable deficiencies in the health services.'"
  That is his phrase and not mine. He explained:
  "These were a direct consequence of chronic underfunding."
  So much for the Government's defence.
  We indict the Government for damaging the NHS on five main counts. First, financial and manpower cuts have damaged patient care. There is a mound of evidence, which is accumulating, to substantiate that charge. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will cite abundant evidence from their own constituency experience to support that charge. I shall confine myself to quoting from the recent report of the BMA junior doctors. The Hospital Junior Staff Committee has stated:
  "A document containing details of cuts reported by 41 districts reveals the extent to which patient care is being damaged…Examples quoted in the document include an increase in out-patient waiting times in one district in Wessex from 6–17 weeks, a closure of beds or hospitals in many districts where waiting lists will increase as a result, closure of out-patient and casualty departments in several districts"
  and a concerted attack on doctors' terms and conditions of service, including reduction of local cover and study leave.
  It mentions one specific effect of the Government's cuts. The committee states:
  "At Clatterbridge hospital on the Wirral, lack of money to replace obsolete equipment and a cut of 2½ whole time equivalent radiographers has meant a quite unacceptable waiting list for cancer treatment. Some patients are no longer being accepted for treatment because their life expectancy is less than the length of the waiting list."

  481
  That is the state to which the Government cuts have brought the NHS.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): That report, like much of the hon. Gentleman's other material, was produced some time ago. We have had time to check the facts on the ground at Clatterbridge. There was a staffing problem involving two or three radiographers, but that was resolved. There is no evidence to support the irresponsible assertion in that report that cancer patients are being forced to wait longer than necessary for their treatment. The hon. Gentleman should not clutch at such material. A local difficulty has been exaggerated into an alarmist statement to boost his case.
  Mr. Meacher: With great respect to the Minister, I prefer to give credence to those who know what they are talking about and who have experience on the ground of conditions in our hospitals. The junior doctors who work in the hospitals know a great deal more about what is going on than does the Minister. Putting aside Clatterbridge, I hope that the Minister will accept that all the other comments in the report are accurate.
  The Opposition indict the Government with chronic underfunding of the NHS. Britain currently spends about 5.5 per cent. of its national product on health. France spends 8 per cent., Germany 8 per cent., and the United States 9.5 per cent. In real terms, that means that if we spend the same proportion of our national product on health as does the United States, we would have an additional £12·25 billion for the NHS budget this year.
  It is no good the Government saying that increased funding cannot be afforded. While the Government still opt to spend £10 billion on a Trident nuclear weapon system that we do not need, while they continue with the grotesque maldistribution of the nation's resources in handing out enormous tax relief of thousands of millions of pounds to the rich—year after year, Budget after Budget—and while the drug companies are permitted to continue to rip off the NHS, with excessive profits this year probably in excess of £250 million, Government talk of "Can't afford any more for the NHS" is simply stinking hypocrisy.
  It is not only hypocritical; it is lethal. The British Kidney Patient Association estimates that 3,000 kidney patients will die this year because dialysis units are not available. The Short report in 1980 on maternity provision — and I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) for chairing that Select Committee—said that 5,000 cases of perinatal death and handicap could be prevented by spending just an additional £25 million to extend existing medical knowledge.
  The Royal Free hospital in London, where bone marrow transplants for young children are carried out, said two years ago that as little as an additional £114,000 a year would save another 15 lives. Wythenshawe hospital in Manchester says that with only an additional £147,000 it could perform another 50 life saving operations each year. Rather than save lives, the Government's priorities are for massive tax handouts to the rich who do not need them.
  Mr. James Couchman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, far from giving tax handouts to the rich, the Government are taking slightly less away from them?
  Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman really believes that, he will accept anything.
  Our third indictment of the Government is what I can only call the politics of pretence in the handling of the NHS. There has surely never been another Government who have elevated wishful thinking to the status of an instrument of policy. Time and again Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box and publicly declared their commitment to particular objectives, and then have turned around and refused to provide the money without which those objectives are pure fantasy.
  How many times have we heard Ministers give a commitment to community care? Yet they have subjected local authorities to reduced rate support grant, grant penalties and, now, ratecapping. That is a cynical example of deceit. The Government profess to believe in preventive medicine, but they have provided virtually no additional funding to make that workable. A heroin outbreak of almost epidemic proportions is sweeping the country. What has been the Government's response? They have wrung their hands and provided a mere £6 million over three years, which scarcely scratches the surface.
  Mr. John Maxton: The Government have done slightly more than wring their hands — they have substantially cut the Customs and Excise staff, which has meant that large amounts of heroin have been allowed into the country.
  Mr. Meacher: That is right. I apologise to my hon. Friend for my usual fault of understatement.
  The Minister pontificates about the special health needs of black people, but by providing no funds for the screening of sickle cell anaemia he renders all such claims empty. The Minister reaffirms his concern to maintain the reputation of the NHS as a world-class centre of excellence in research, yet spending cuts have been imposed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the Medical Research Council, which is now closing Europe's leading brain research centre in Cambridge, the pneumoconiosis centre in south Wales that has an international reputation for research into lung diseases affecting miners, and the mineral metabolism research unit in Leeds. They are financial economies of a stupefying short-sightedness.
  Fourthly, we indict the Government for their obsession—and I use the word advisedly—with commercialism rather than care and their dogmatic imposition of privatisation, even where health authorities have shown that they want nothing to do with it. We utterly reject that because it has nothing to do with greater efficiency; it has everything to do with opening lucrative markets and bigger profits for private capital at the expense of the NHS and the taxpayers.
  The overwhelming evidence where privatisation has been tried is of a serious deterioration of standards, especially in laundering, with increased dangers of cross infection. All the evidence shows that cost reductions do not reflect improved performance; they simply reflect savage cuts in the wages of some of the lowest paid workers in our society. The women workers at Barking hospital have a wage of a mere £55 a week, but they are being subjected to a 41 per cent. cut. At the same time, the lists of shareholders and parliamentary consultants to the private companies read like a roll call of Tory Members and the Tory Front Bench.
  Ms. Jo Richardson: The women involved in the Barking hospital dispute have been on strike for 17 weeks and all support to them. The scab labour that the private contractors have been bussing into the hospital has not done the work to the standards produced by the women. The hospital is now at risk. So much for the myth that the NHS is safe in the Government's hands.
  Mr. Meacher: It is absolutely shameful that workers who were performing a perfectly efficient and valuable service should be subject to a 41 per cent. cut in their wages—especially when the consequence is not a better service but, as my hon. Friend said, a deteriorating service that will probably spread infection in the hospital. At least—I do not say this in a political way, because it is relevant — 31 Tory Members of Parliament have a financial stake in companies profiteering from health care. At the same time, Tory Ministers—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Name them.
  Mr. Meacher: I shall name them; I have a letter listing them. Tory Ministers are forcing through privatisation, even where the NHS in-house tender is lower than the lowest private tender, as happened in the case of the Cornish laundry service—the Minister of Health knows this only too well—in respect of Johnson group cleaners and its new subsidiary.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend make a point of reading into the record—the public do not see what is in the Register of Members' Interests—the names of those hon. Members who have a pecuniary interest in privatisation, so that their constituents can establish the duplicity in their position?
  Mr. Meacher: I shall not mention 31 names—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: There are 41 of them.
  Mr. Meacher: —but it is right to mention a few, because of their particular interests. In 1981–82 the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) was a parliamentary consultant to the Brengreen group, one of the big privatising companies. On 1 October 1983 he joined the board of the Shipley-based multi-million pound international Care Services group. He is non-executive director of Hospital Hygiene Services, which recently won the first three contracts in Britain for private hospital cleaning. The hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope) was parliamentary consultant for an undisclosed fee to the Grandmet group. He was Tory leader of the Wandsworth council until June 1983, and during that time Wandsworth council gave the lucrative street cleaning contract to Grandmet. I refer also to the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), because of his particular interest. In 1983 he was a consultant to the Pritchard Services group, author of "The Myths of Privatisation" and a member of the Adam Smith Institute. He has regularly used his position in the House to push hard for privatisation of the NHS.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That is only three.
  Mr. Meacher: I intend in due course to give publicity to all the other names.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler)rose—
  Mr. Meacher: I shall make my point before the right hon. Gentleman intervenes. I hope that he will reply. The
  484
  right hon. Gentleman can see the degree of feeling of Opposition Members about this issue. This is a sleazy, murky, dirty business and it has nothing to do with health care.
  Mr. Fowler: I was going to ask the hon. Gentleman, who is working himself up
  Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey), who is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State, snarled from a sedentary position, "What about sponsored members of trade unions?" I make it perfectly clear that, unlike one who is employed as a consultant and getting money in his hand, sponsored Members—certainly members sponsored by the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union like myself—do not benefit by one penny.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I am sure that every hon. Member has made any interest perfectly clear in the Register of Members' Interests. I call Mr. Norman Fowler.
  Mr. Fowler: I was going to ask the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about his sponsorship by the Health Service union COHSE. I understand that he is sponsored by that union. To what extent—I accept what the hon. Gentleman says — does the policy of that Health Service union dictate his attitudes in the House?
  Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] — I shall answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) has made the obvious and correct point that no members of COHSE or, I am sure, of any other trade union that sponsors Members, receives a penny of the money for himself. My views have not in the least way been influenced by my trade union sponsorship. I give the Secretary of State that assurance if he needs it.
  We indict the Government for their anti-democratic centralisation of power within the NHS. All the chairmen of regional and district health authorities who did not comply with the Government's policies on cuts and closures have now been removed. Almost all of their 192 district health authorities are now pre-packed with a majority that is pro-Conservative, pro-privatisation, pro-cuts, and anti-union.
  Where there is resistance, it is overruled by authorities being swamped by new appointments, as happened with Brent. Where there is even one lone voice of dissent—for example, one against 11 as at Roehampton and Twickenham this week—even that lone voice is being snuffed out. It is a case of "Fowler clones rule, OK?" I warn the Secretary of State that he is sowing the seeds of a whirlwind, the bitter fruits of which the Tories will ultimately reap.
  As if that were not enough, the Government have undermined and cut the finances of the community health services, which are the only really democratic elements in the NHS, and are now rounding off the steady drift of authoritarianism in the NHS by the appointment of the all-powerful Griffiths general managers.
  For those reasons, we believe that the NHS is being hobbled by the Tory Government's hostility. When we come to power, we shall reverse those policies. Reversing Tory cuts is not enough. We need a new vision for the Health Service in the 1980s. The Government's reliance

  485
  purely on cost containment as the answer has failed because it is self-defeating. The Government have pursued their so-called efficiency savings—if ever there was a euphemism for cuts, that must surely be it—but have been forced to spend far more on health breakdown because of accelerating long-term unemployment. It is self-defeating also, partly because the NHS starts from a position of chronic under-funding. However hard one tries, one cannot get a quart out of a pint pot.
  None of the fundamental problems of the NHS—deteriorating capital stock in all hospitals, lack of grass roots accountability in the administrative structure, chronic manpower crises, poor regional balance and continuing class inequality in the delivery of health care—can be solved unless there is funding of the NHS on a par with other countries.
  The Government's policy is self-defeating for another important reason—it locks the NHS into a structure of care with over-emphasis on high-tech diagnosis and intensive and specialised medical care, rather than prevention and wider health education where cost escalation is remorseless. The Government's accounting mentality is leading the NHS more and more into a dead end where resource use by the NHS increases ever faster, but with rapidly diminishing returns in reduced illness and mortality rates.
  To break out of that self-defeating spiral the Labour party says that an alternative vision—turning away from what we have, which is not a national health service but a national illness service, towards a genuine national health service—is needed. The Labour party will fund an expanded service. At the last election we committed ourselves to a 3 per cent. real increase in NHS expenditure each year. That is an extra £500 million a year above inflation. That is our bottom line. The Labour party will make a reality of community care. We shall draw up plans for comprehensive health and social services to carry through during the next decade, with GPs, community nurses, social workers and environmental health officers working together in neighbourhood health teams.
  Yes, Labour will shift the emphasis away from over-concentration on medical engineering and more in favour of the preventive approach and wider health education. We recognise that this Government have not done that. More and more contemporary disease is rooted in problems associated with nutrition and diet, with environmental pollution, with crowding and urbanisation and with rapid social and economic change.
  Yes, Labour will reverse privatisation, with its falling standards for the NHS and its get-rich-quick profiteering for sleazy contractors. We shall look to a service that is full-time for all its practitioners rather than a lucrative adjunct to the private market.
  Yes, the Labour party will put money and weight behind a campaign to reduce the still tragic inequalities in health care, especially the yawning class differentials in child mortality, which are a disgrace. We recognise, too, the special health needs of women that are largely unmet, and we shall increase the number of women doctors at all levels.
  Yes, Labour will reverse the top-heavy centralisation of power in the National Health Service, and we will reverse the crude political patronage and blatant partisan loading of health authorities. We will strengthen the CHCs and we will inject a real element of democratic
  486
  accountability into the administrative structure so that local services are genuinely responsive to local demand and consumer complaints.
  That is a new and profoundly better vision for Britain's health services than the miserable obsession with cuts that we have now. I believe that it will be backed by the overwhelming majority of the British people.
  Does the Prime Minister intend, by contrast, to take us back to the kind of system that still exists in the United States, which she so much admires, where hundreds of thousands of people cannot get the medical services that they need because they cannot afford them; where ambulance men finding anyone lying in the street check his wallet before checking his body; where only a few weeks ago a man was left comatose in the back of an ambulance whilst an emergency telephone call was made to his London bank to see whether his account would stand the cost of the treatment that his condition needed; where one third of all personal bankruptcies result from people being unable to pay their medical bills; where the old, the psychiatrically ill, the mentally handicapped and the elderly always get the worst of the deal because they will always be bad risks in the books of the private health insurance companies? If the Prime Minister intends to take us back to that, she shall not pass.
  5.2 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health and Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler)rose—
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During his speech my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) rightly referred to a list of Tory Members with financial interests, directly or indirectly, in companies which in turn were after contracts resulting from the privatisation of the National Health Service. You said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you hoped that it would be clear from the Register of Members' Interests in the Library what the interests were of various right hon. and hon. Members.
  I have had a cursory look through the Register of Members' Interests in the Library. Some of these financial interests are not clear. I understand that some of the right hon. and hon. Members concerned may seek to catch your eye during the debate. If I give you the list of Tory Members concerned and any of them seeks to take part in the debate, I ask you to make it clear that he should declare his interest before commencing his speech so that the House and people outside know who the right hon. and hon. Members are who are trying to bleed the National Health Service and make a fast buck out of it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member knows the decision of the House on the matter. Any hon. Member who has a pecuniary interest in matters that may come before the House should have his interest in the Register. If there are right hon. and hon. Members who feel that they have been affronted by any remarks, I have no doubt that they are capable of defending themselves in the debate.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Taking into account what my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said about the interests of certain right hon. and hon. Members not being included in the Register of Members' Interests, I shall, with your permission, read out the names which appear in a newspaper article today.

  487
  The Tory Members named are Michael Ancram, Peter Bottomley, Timothy Brinton, Michael Brown, John Browne, Michael Forsyth, Eric Forth, Marcus Fox, John Gorst, Sir Anthony Grant, Robert Hicks, Peter Hordern, Charles Irving, Robert Jones, Geoffrey Lawler, Anthony Marlow, Dr. Brian Mawhinney, Tim Renton, Sir Hugh Rossi, Fred Silvester, Anthony Steen, Neville Trotter, Sir William van Straubenzee and John Whitfield. They are wets, jets and dries from top to bottom, but they are all trying to line their pockets out of the National Health Service and the misery of thousands of ordinary people.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker rose—
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat when I am on my feet.
  If any hon. Member whose name has been referred to in that catalogue is called during the debate and he or she has an interest in the matters under discussion, I have no doubt that he or she will make that interest clear.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise the House what action should be taken by the House where the hon. Member himself is not a substantial shareholder in a private contract cleaning company or contract catering company which could benefit from Government policies but where a substantial shareholding is held by the husband or wife of the hon. Member or by close members of his or her family? Do you not think that it is a gross interference in our democracy if substantial family benefits can accrue from a decision taken by Members of the House in support of the Government's policy on privatisation?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has discussed these matters several times in the past. It is up to each hon. Member to make his or her position clear during the debate. I doubt whether it is necessary for me to add to the ruling that I have already given.
  I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are more than 40 right hon. and hon. Members seeking to take part in the debate. The more time we spend in this fashion, the less time there is for hon. Members to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the list of hon. Members which the hon. Member for Bolsover read to the House, he mentioned the name of one Michael Ancram. If I am correct, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) is a Minister and is not permitted to have any vested interest. I put it to you clearly that either the hon. Member for Bolsover withdraws what he said or an inquiry has to be held into whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has a vested interest.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am quite sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is as capable of taking care of himself as any other hon. Member.
  I think that we ought now to get on with the debate.
  Mr. Fowler rose—
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) read a list
  488
  containing the names of two hon. Members with my own surname. Since my hon. Friend has a pronounced Derbyshire accent, I am anxious that people outside should know that I, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, have no such financial interest.
  Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have heard the intervention by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) drawing attention to the allegation by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that Mr. Michael Ancram had interests in these matters.
  My understanding is based on information supplied to a number of hon. Members. According to that, Mr. Michael Ancram owns 1,491 shares in Grand Met Catering Services, which is a subsidiary of Grand Metropolitan. If that is true, what action can you take to ensure that the procedures whereby Ministers are not allowed to have shareholdings in companies is observed by this hon. Member?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: First, I draw attention to the long-standing convention of the House that an hon. Member is referred to not but name by indirectly and usually by reference to his constituency.
  Turning to the more substantial point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), hon. Members should be very careful about using the privilege bestowed upon them by the House in making remarks which reflect on the characters of other hon. Members, whether they are Ministers or otherwise. Until the contrary has been determined, we must assume that all hon. Members are honourable in their conduct and that Ministers observe the rules relating to the conditions of their taking office.
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. David Winnick rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We really ought to get on with the debate. We are wasting a great deal of time on points of order.
  Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said that if the Minister holds shares, either there should be an inquiry or a statement should be made. My hon. Friend—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that under the cloak of points of order hon. Members will not seek to hold a debate on hypothetical assumptions about Ministers' or any other hon. Member's conduct. We should get on with the Opposition day debate.
  Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister concerned is now in the Chamber. One would have thought that he would now be willing to make a statement whether the list that was read out was true. It would be simple for him to come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement.
  Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You just remarked that Members of Parliament should be careful not to abuse their privilege to name people in the House. I remind you that I have not acted under the cloak of privilege. What I read from a newspaper I am prepared to repeat outside, as the newspaper did in today's edition, and no doubt many other newspapers will. It is not a question of privilege as far as

  489
  I am concerned. Those names are public. If anyone in the House is upset by the publication of those names, he should deal with the newspaper that printed them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I refer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I remind the House that the rules governing ministerial conduct are matters not for the House but for the Government.
  Mr. Fowler: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates the Government on its record of increasing the resources and efficiency of the National Health Service; applauds the higher level of service provided by the National Health Service and its staff which this has made possible; and supports the Government in its determination to maintain and develop a modern health service, giving maximum value to the public as patients and taxpayers."
  This debate marks several anniversaries. Perhaps not as notable at the 36th anniversary of the National Health Service but interesting in its own way is the fact that it is almost 14 years to the day since the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made his maiden speech in the House. It is fascinating to see how little things have changed in that time. On 10 July 1970 the hon. Gentleman said that no one should rely on his "personal artistry" in putting forward his constituents' case. Having listened to his speech, the House will agree that the hon. Gentleman got his self-assessment absolutely right. He put a bad case extremely badly. What is that case? It is, first, that the Government's policies are damaging the Health Service and, second, that the promises for the future — we listened with fascination to the hon. Gentleman's manifesto—made by the Labour party were established by its record when it was in government.
  Let us go back to 1978, which was a rather more meaningful anniversary. It was the 30th anniversary of the Health Service and the last year in power of the Labour Government. What was being said then about Labour's policies for the Health Service? What praise was being heaped upon Labour's health Ministers? The Sunday Times commemorated the success of Labour policies with a three-part series entitled "Crisis in the NHS". The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to the chairman of the British Medical Association, Dr. James Cameron. In 1978, he was calling for a £1 billion injection of money into the Health Service. Speaking of Labour's policies, he told the BMA's annual representative meeting:
  "The National Health Service in Britain is sick. It is inadequate and impersonal and it is losing the confidence of the medical profession and the public. The idealism so apparent when the NHS was started 30 years ago has been dissipated by lack of adequate resources."
  A special conference was organised by the Trades Union Congress on 29 June 1978 to mark that 30th anniversary. The chairman of the TUC social insurance committee, Mr. Parry, said in opening the conference:
  "It cannot be denied, by even the most committed supporter of the NHS, that we do face real problems…there have been cutbacks in capital spending leading to delays in using new facilities; there have been hospital closures purely for reasons of economy; there are lengthening waiting lists; and there have been all the problems arising from the shortage of the finance needed to ease the problems of change. There is the crime of nurse unemployment".
  All that was said about the Labour Government in 1978. The then Secretary of State for Social Services, now in another place, was struggling to defend his record at a Confederation of Health Service Employees conference when he said:
  490
  "Don't believe those who try to suggest that closures are evidence that the Government is starving the health service of funds. The reverse is in fact the case."
  That was the line of a Labour Government who closed 272 hospitals—around 100 more than in the same period since. Therefore, when I see in the motion before the House talk of condemning the Government for "cuts and closures", I say that the motion is amazing not only for its inadequacy but for its total hypocrisy.
  At the same time in 1978, from around the country there came complaints particularly about hospital building, because in 1977–78 capital spending was cut back by 22 per cent. in real terms, just part of a total cut of 35 per cent. over the lifetime of the Labour Government—the biggest capital cuts in the history of the Health Service. The hon. Member for Oldham, West gave the explanation with absolute accuracy in his book "Socialism with a Human Face", in which he said:
  "Public expenditure was in 1976–78 for the first time since the war cut back, not only below planned levels of increase, but absolutely in real terms."
  In other words, mismanagement of the economy had driven the Labour Government to the International Monetary Fund and the result was changes in policy that vitally affected the lives of the sick, the poor and the old. So I say to the hon. Gentleman first and foremost that we in the Government do not intend to take lectures from a member of that Labour Government, who led the NHS first into crisis and then into chaos. However, further than that, there is every reason to believe that they would do exactly the same again. It is quite clear that, even after five years' opposition, the Labour party has learnt precisely nothing. It has certainly not learnt that a successful social policy has to be based on economic policy.
  That brings me to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's case—the attack on the Government. Let us first get the facts straight and take some of the measures to which the hon. Gentleman referred. On finance, the facts are that the Government have increased spending on the NHS from £7·75 billion in 1978–79 to over £16 billion in the current year. That is an increase of 18 per cent. more than inflation. We provided £800 million extra for the NHS in our public expenditure plans for this year, and, far from cutting back, we have now provided a further £200 million to meet the vast majority of the costs of the review body awards to doctors and nurses. We have provided the money to sustain real growth in services sufficient to meet the needs of the growing number of elderly people in the population. But what is more—surely this is crucial—the health authorities are now doing more than ever before to help patients in their own areas by improving efficiency and productivity. This year they have already put forward plans from which they estimate they will be able to save almost £100 million to develop services in England alone. That money is over and above the extra resources provided by the taxpayer. It is money that will not only meet the small contribution that authorities are making to pay costs but enable them to continue to make real improvements in services.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Es the Secretary of State aware that what he calls a small contribution from health authorities amounts, in the case of my health authority, to £100,000 which it does not have. In order to find it, we shall have to close community facilities. Does he think that that is fair?
  Mr. Fowler: My point about the position throughout all the regions is that the regions and health authorities put forward proposals which, by their own measure, save £100 million. In other words, with the resources that we are providing and the resources from the health authorities, almost £200 million is available. From that only 20 per cent. or £36 million is required for the pay award.
  The truth about capital spending is that we are restoring the programme after the wasted years of the Labour Government. We have increased capital spending from £365 million in 1978–79 to £719 million in 1983–84. That is a real increase of a quarter and means that we have reversed nearly all the damage which the Labour Government inflicted.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that if he compared the average amount of capital spending in real terms on hospital building under the Labour Government of 1974–79 with that of the present Government during their full period of office, they would show that the Labour Government spent more on average per year than the Conservative Government?
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman raised that question before. He is profoundly wrong. I have the figures for both the real and the cash increases. They show that between 1974 and 1979 capital spending under the Labour Government was reduced to £582 million. The hon. Gentleman cannot establish that that average capital spending is miraculously more than what is now being spent.
  Mr. Dobson: I shall repeat my question so that the Secretary of State does not deliberately mislead the House and escape from answering the question by attempting to misunderstand my question. Will he confirm that if he took the figures in real terms, totalled them for the five year periods of the Labour and Tory Governments respectively, and divided each total by five, the Tory figure would be lower?
  Mr. Fowler: I will not confirm that. I check my facts before I come to the House. However, I will confirm that the previous Labour Government presided over a 35 per cent. cut in capital spending. That is a fact and there is no use in the hon. Gentleman looking shifty about it. That is the truth about the Labour Government's capital spending programme. We have increased that capital spending. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that, even with his ingenuity in playing with figures.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the north-west regional hospital authority has enabled the Lancaster health district to bring phase three of its hospital building forward by 10 years?
  Mr. Fowler: I shall come to precisely such points. For 1984–85 we are providing for an increase in capital spending by health authorities over their allocations to show the importance that we attach to building new hospitals and maintaining old hospitals better. Health authorities showed their commitment to this objective by using some of the revenue they saved last year by more efficient use of manpower to pay for an extra £40 million worth of capital investment.
  We are now seeing the results of that. In the 12 months since the general election 15 major new hospital development schemes have been opened. Ten of those
  492
  were started in the lifetime of the Government. That means that there will be better hospitals in Newham, Orpington, Huntingdon, Maidstone, Macclesfield, Croydon, Ipswich, Dudley, Salford and Rotherham.
  Those developments are symbols of the commitment of the Government to the future of the NHS and the capital programme. But they are only a part of the story. In total 23 schemes worth over £2 million are expected to reach completion this year. They are just part of our programme of 140 schemes, each of which costs more than £2 million and which are being planned, designed or under construction today.
  Another major scheme is being added to the programme today. I have today given final approval to the board of governors of the National Heart and Chest hospitals to proceed with the building of a new centre for the treatment of heart and lung disease near to the Brompton hospital in London. It will provide 200 beds, including 50 for children, an intensive care unit and six operating theatres. It will also enable the Cardiothoracic Institute to proceed with its plans to improve its research facilities on an adjacent site. The project will cost some £15 million and is an example of co-operation between the health service, which will meet the bulk of the costs, the University of London and voluntary and private interests. That new development will create Britain's most important single centre for medical and surgical treatment of heart and lung diseases and should enable the hospitals and the Cardiothoracic Institute to maintain their international standing in treatment, teaching and research in this vital field.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt rose—
  Mr. Fowler: I will not give way. The new cardiothoracic centre, like the other developments now under way, will enable us to continue to provide better services in better conditions to more patients.
  That surely brings us to the heart of the health debate. Ultimately what matters in the health service is not a measure of the resources that are devoted nor the manpower that is employed. No service should or can be judged on those criteria. In the health service what matters above all is the number of patients treated and the illness which is prevented. What matters is the service we can provide for patients. In those terms the Government's record is quite clear. More patients are being treated and more services are being provided than ever before in the history of the NHS. I shall compare 1978 with 1982. In England there were almost 500,000 more hospital inpatient and day cases in 1982 than in 1978; nearly 2 million more attendances at outpatient and accident departments in 1982 than in 1978; and nearly 500,000 more people visited at home by health visitors and district nurses in 1982 than in 1978—
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse rose—
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman does not like the facts, but I shall not give way. The debate was delayed by ludicrous points of orders and I shall give the facts to the House whether hon. Members like them or not.
  Mr. Lofthouse rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Fowler: I shall repeat those facts so that the hon. Gentleman can grasp them. There were nearly 500,000 more people being visited at home by health visitors and district nurses in 1982 than 1978; there were 30 per cent. more total hip replacements, and nearly twice as many coronary artery by-pass grafts in 1982 as in 1978; and there were more than 50 per cent. more kidney transplants in 1982 than in 1978.
  Let me be clear and frank, in the way that the hon. Member for Oldham, West was not today, and never is. I in no way want to suggest that the Health Service is without problems. That would be an absurd case. My case is that the Government are not just tackling those problems, but are making unprecedented progress in tackling them. During the five years in which the last Labour Government held office, the number of patients treated annually in hospitals in England increased by 1 million only. In the first four years of this Government, that total rose by over 2·25 million.
  In fact, the only thing which has slowed progress in the last few years has been the industrial action in the Health Service in 1982 which the Labour party did absolutely nothing to condemn. That action did not stop the Health Service continuing to meet its obligations, thanks to the dedication of the staff who continued working. The total number of cases seen in hospital in fact increased slightly during 1982, but many non-urgent operations had to be postponed and waiting lists increased by over 100,000 as they had during the 1979 "winter of discontent".
  However, I am glad to report to the House today that during 1983 all the signs are that the upward trend in patients treated has been re-established. Waiting lists have begun to fall again. During 1983, the provisional figures available so far suggest that the number of inpatients treated increased by up to 5 per cent. and the number of day patients by up to 10 per cent. That is a substantial and formidable improvement.
  Authorities were also seeking to reduce staff during this period, and Opposition Members made a great deal of that. Health authorities were asked to achieve savings last year of 4,800 by the end of March 1984. In fact, they were able to save over 10,000 posts and at the same time improve patient services, measured by the figures that I have given. That gives the lie to those who think that the Health Service can develop only by being given more money to employ more staff. Those figures show how important the value-for-money measures are for patients. They show that value for money is not simply a slogan or a debating point for the statisticians. It is about caring for people and serving patients better.
  Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman has blamed all the problems of the Health Service on industrial disputes. Will he acknowledge that, five months after the industrial dispute in 1979 ended, waiting lists had been reduced by 52,000, but that nine months after the last major industrial dispute—almost twice as long a period—because of the Government's economies and their so-called increases in efficiency, they had managed to reduce the waiting list by 22,000 only?
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is clutching at straws. He has had the figures explained to him as clearly as I can. More patients are now being treated, and the rate of increase of patients being treated is infinitely higher under this Government than under our predecessors.
  494
  There is plainly a great deal more to managing the Health Service than simply spending money on an ever-expanding bureaucracy. It means looking carefully and critically at all the services we provide to see how we can provide them better. It means constant and continuing efforts to cut costs and cut out waste. It means translating a bigger share of available resources into direct patient care.
  That is what we have been seeking to achieve since 1979, and it was on our success in doing that which caused the Health and Social Services Journal—not exactly the inhouse journal of the Conservative party—to comment in its editorial on 21 June that the Government
  "has probably brought about a greater genuine improvement in the capacity of the NHS to deliver services efficiently than most of its predecessors. It has now left the NHS in a better position to carry out its major management function of making the most effective use of resources."
  Mr. Lofthouse rose—
  Mr. Fowler: I am not giving way. Let me make that clear.
  We have taken a number of measures to improve Health Service management. We have, for example, set up the Rayner scrutinies — scrutinies of aspects of Health Service performance carried out, not by the Government but by people who work in the service. They have shown substantial scope for savings—in a transport service, with 25 per cent. of its vehicles surplus to requirement; in an advertising system which uses £8 million a year on advertisements to its own staff; in owning residential accommodation worth over £1 billion, much of which is sub-standard and over 20 per cent. of which is simply standing empty.
  We have the programme of performance indicators. They have already revealed major discrepancies of performance between similar health districts and similar authorities. Why is it, for example, that when we study the cost of catering for patients in large acute hospitals we see that the most expensive 30 hospitals spend at least 75 per cent. more per patient per day than the least expensive 30 hospitals? The job for management is to ask why those differences occur and where improvements can be made.
  Mr. Campbell Savours: Perhaps they give them food.
  Mr. Fowler: I expect a superficial remark like that from the hon. Gentleman, with his profound ignorance of this subject.
  We have the policy of competitive tendering—about which the hon. Member for Oldham, West has been talking. The basic fact that he must remember is that the domestic services—cleaning, catering and laundry—cost the NHS about £1 billion a year. If the in-house organisation can do the job as cheaply and effectively as anyone else, they will keep the contract, but there is no monopoly of talent in cleaning in the public sector. At the Ministry of Defence, where hospital cleaning has already been contracted out, savings of up to 20 per cent. have been achieved. The most recent eight contracts let in the Health Service have saved over £1 million a year for spending on patient care. A single laundry contract—[Interruption.] I know Opposition Members do not like hearing this, but they will hear it — in north Warwickshire will be saving the health authority nearly £250,000 over the next three years. The sense of the policy should be clear. So I say to the hon. Gentleman, it is not

  495
  for us to defend this policy. It is rather for him to explain to the taxpayer and to patients on waiting lists why Health Service money should be used unnecessarily on cleaning, laundry and catering when it can go to patient care.
  Mr. Tom Clarke rose
  Mr. Fowler: All those policies were endorsed by Roy Griffiths and his team in their review of management in the Health Service.
  Mr. John Maxton rose
  Mr. Fowler: I apologise. I have been constrained to keep my remarks to the necessary minimum. Unnecessary points of order delayed the start of my speech.
  Those are just some of the ways in which we will be helping Health Service general managers to achieve better quality and better directed care. We need clearer cut decision taking and more effective follow-up of decisions in the Health Service. We need cost improvement programmes.
  At the same time, I want to carry forward the policy of care in the community. Our interest is not limited to what happens to patients in hospitals. Caring for patients does not begin or end there. What is equally important is to be able to provide good primary care. That is particularly true in our inner cities. Last year I announced that we would be spending £9 million on measures to improve primary care in the inner cities over the next three years. Last year, as part of that initiative, we provided funds to health authorities to help over 200 projects for improving primary care. Only last week, we announced the allocation of a further £2 million. That is just a small part of what we are doing to carry through our policy of providing care in the community. Most people who are sick, handicapped or in need of support would prefer to have that support at home, among families and friends.
  An immense contribution to the total sum of care is made by families, neighbours, and voluntary organisations. For that reason, I am announcing today that I shall be making available some £10 million over the next three years for a new programme called "Helping the Community to Care". Its chief aim will be to improve support for elderly people and for those who are mentally ill and mentally handicapped by helping those who help them — the volunteers, the friends and the family members who are day by day in the front line in care. [Interruption.] It is extraordinary that even when the Government come forward with proposals that by any objective measure are taking care forward, the reaction from Labour Benches is always grudging and critical. The Labour party's complete hypocrisy is what most people find so disgraceful about this debate.
  Often, those who are looking after the sick and handicapped need training or better back-up services to make their contribution more effective. We shall be working with the major national voluntary organisations to identify and support the projects that can help most.
  Ms. Harriet Harman: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Labour party is very much in favour of shifting the emphasis away from big institutions into care in the community? Will he give the House the commitment that the money made available to local authorities under joint funding will be 100 per cent.
  496
  exempt from being taken into account on rate penalties and rate capping? If not, any money that comes from the Health Service to help local authorities to provide care in the community will lead to local authorities being penalised for picking up that money and trying to provide service in the community.
  Mr. Fowler: As the hon. Lady knows, we have improved the position on a par with the urban programme, and we have made the rules more flexible. I was announcing to the House the new scheme which will be going basically to voluntary organisations—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer the question—it is very important.
  Mr. Fowler: I have answered the question. This policy—
  Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has just made a very important announcement on finance. However, his remit does not cover Scotland. Is it possible for the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland responsible for health services, who is sitting on the Front Bench, to make a similar announcement from the point of view of the Scottish Office?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has nothing to do with me.
  Mr. Fowler: Our policy arises from our recognition that our duty is not simply to provide support, but to provide it in an understanding and caring way and to provide it in the way that individuals in need want. We believe in the National Health Service. I do not belittle the problems that still exist in the Health Service, such as the constant pressure of new demands. However, I put it to hon. Members that that constant pressure makes our cost improvement measures all the more important. It also emphasises the importance of a sense of balance and readiness to mobilise all the sources of care in the community. This is where the Opposition's motion is so wrong. Our job is not simply to develop public sector services. We need to welcome and encourage the kind of family, voluntary and private sector contribution to which I have referred. That is support that the public sector never could, and never should, replace.
  A few weeks ago the hon. Member for Oldham, West, Labour's spokesman on the social services, told COHSE that he would
  "take into public ownership private hospitals and private clinics".
  A few minutes later, he was telling reporters that that was not Labour policy. I hope that in the course of this debate he will make his position clear on that point, because in the manifesto that he set out at the end of his speech he made no mention of it. I shall gladly give way if the hon. Gentleman would like to tell me what the policy is.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West said at the COHSE conference:
  "Why don't we in the National Health emergency which we will inherit take into public ownership their private hospitals, their private clinics, when there are long Health Service waiting lists."
  Mr. Meacher: Yes.
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is now applauding his words. Therefore, does this represent Labour party policy or is it COHSE policy? In what capacity was he speaking at the COHSE conference? Again, I shall gladly give way if he wishes to answer.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Secretary of State will not keep inviting hon. Members to intervene when more than 40 hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye.
  Mr. Fowler: I certainly do not—
  Mr. Lofthouse: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it correct for the Secretary of State to keep offering to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) when he has repeatedly refused to give way to Back Benchers?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no power of control over that, but I am bound to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Front Benches are taking a disproportionate amount of time. Interventions are made only at the expense of other hon. Members' time, and so are points of order.
  Mr. Fowler: I take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will be in your recollection that my speech was slightly delayed by bogus points of order.
  The ideas set forth by the hon. Member for Oldham, West show the hollowness at the centre of the Labour party's health policy. When the hon. Member talks about raising Health Service spending by 3 per cent. a year in real terms, he is saying—although not explicitly—that the vast majority of that amount, will be taken up by the abolition of health charges. The hon. Gentleman may think that that is an extremely good policy, but the point that the public should understand is that those measures would use up the so-called extra resources that the Labour party says it will be using for providing extra health services. The Labour party may want that to be its priority, but it cannot have it both ways. It cannot pretend that at the same time it will also be expanding health services. The impact of a Labour Government would be to end real growth in the resources available for the Health Service. At the same time, there will be an extra burden on the taxpayer.
  All that leaves out of account the hundreds of millions of pounds that will have to be made good to fulfil any pledge that a bashful spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench might want to make about nationalising private hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, which the Labour party has already pledged itself to do. The Labour party's pretence to a policy does not bear a moment's analysis.
  The Government are committing more resources to the Health Service than ever before. They are endeavouring to ensure that the Health Service uses those resources better than ever before to achieve better value for money in patient care. Together, those policies mean that the Health Service is treating more patients than at any stage in its 36 years of life, and that is the acid test of the Health Service. The Government are committed to the National Health Service, but we are also committed to helping it to work more efficiently, in the interests above all of the patients whom it serves. The hon. Member for Oldham, West talked about almost everything in his speech. What we are about is improving the service to patients. That is what the Government stand for, and that is why I ask the House to reject the Opposition motion.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. The shorter the speeches, the fewer hon. Members will be disappointed.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Jack Ashley: The rosy picture which the Secretary of State has just presented to the House bears no relation to the reality in hospitals, surgeries and the homes of sick people. We have heard a speech of gimmickry, selective statistics and party political stunts. I thought that the Secretary of State would be capable of making a better speech, but I have never heard such a distorted — [Interruption.] Obviously, I thought wrongly. I did not realise that the Secretary of State could skate over some major issues in that generalised way. Some of the phrases that he used—for example, about value for money — showed his real attitude. When he talks about cutting waste, what he really means is "efficiency savings" whereby the Government deem that they have given money to health authorities.
  The right hon. Gentleman's comments about community care and all that the Government are doing are only half the truth. There is grave anxiety throughout the country that people are being brought out of institutions but that there is no proper provision for community care. The Government are damaging the interests of the mentally ill by not making proper provision for them. The Secretary of State should not boast about what has been done. He is doing only half a job, and he must provide much more money, planning and care.
  The Secretary of State failed to explain the Government's inability to cope with the demands of the National Health Service, including the demographic and technical factors. That failure cannot be disguised by rhetoric, because the effects on patients are obvious to everyone. The reason for the failure is straightforward. Despite his propaganda, the Secretary of State does not believe in the National Health Service. The difference between us is that the Labour Government were passionately committed to the Health Service, whereas the Secretary of State is running an institution with some reluctance. He should accept that.
  One sign of the Government's lack of concern for the Health Service was their handling of community health councils, which represent the interests of patients regardless of professional or political considerations. They are the only bodies which look after the interests of patients regardless of politics or profession. The councils are now being attacked by the Government, who are trying to starve to death—I challenge them to deny it—the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales. Perhaps the Minister for Health will tell us whether this is correct. In 1981 the association received more than £74,000 from his Department, in 1982 it received a mere bridging grant of £25,000, and in 1983–84 it will receive a pathetic £15,000 to help with deficits. The Minister met representatives of the association yesterday, so he can tell me whether those facts are correct. He can also deny or confirm that the association's newsletter "CHC News" has had to be closed, thus effectively strangling its method of communicating with individual councils and with the general public.
  Strangulation and starvation are mean-minded weapons to use against an organisation that is speaking for the, consumer. It is also wholly inappropriate, because the

  499
  Griffiths report, which the Secretary of State quoted a moment ago, said that the consumer should have a stronger role. The Government should hang their head in shame and stop trying to gag legitimate comment by an association for the consumer. They should restore proper funding to the association.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) eloquently criticised the lack of proper funding of the Health Service, but another major concern is the maldistribution of funds in the Health Service 30 years after it was established by a Labour Government. Those distortions and maldistribution may have been understandable for historic reasons immediately after the service was introduced, but now there is no economic or moral justification for the vast discrepancies among the health regions, which result in gross deprivation of medical care in the underfunded regions.
  The four Thames regions receive an average of 6 to 8 per cent. above the resource allocation working party target, whereas the west midlands region is 5·36 per cent. below the RAWP target. North Staffordshire is 12 per cent. below the target. If we compare north Staffordshire with the north Thames region, we see that there is a massive gap of about 20 per cent. If those figures are translated into human terms, they mean that the people of north Staffordshire have more pain, and undoubtedly more deaths, because of the fewer facilities allocated to them. They face exceptionally long waiting lists, and, of all the districts in the region, north Staffordshire has the second longest waiting list. It has especially long waiting lists for treatment in gynaecology, cardiology, orthopaedics, neurology, dermatology, renal disease and general surgery. The lists are excessively long because the regional health authority and the Government cannot fund the district properly. It is important for the Government to do something about it.
  It is impossible for the Secretary of State to argue that money cannot be found for those underprivileged regions and districts, because everyone knows that prudent handling of the drugs bill would comfortably provide resources and eliminate most of the unfairness in the Health Service. The Government are renowned — I should say notorious—for their belief that the price of everything should be determined by market forces—that is, everything except the price of drugs. The saga of the drug industry's manipulation of the DHSS to make itself the third most profitable industry in Britain after oil and advertising is well known. The criteria of the United Kingdom Joint Formulary Committee identifies between 22 and 24 per cent. of the 2,000 branded drugs which it has evaluated as "less suitable for prescribing". That is a diplomatic but meaningful phrase.
  In his book "The Wrong Kind of Medicine", Mr. Charles Medawar claims that in 1967 one-third of the most prescribed drug products were officially described as "undesirable preparations". The Department's attack on waste is conspicuously lacking when it comes to drugs, and it is failing to implement genetic prescribing. In my opinion, the drug industry is getting away with a great deal, and the DHSS has a clear duty to respond to the committee's claim, based on official information, that the NHS is wasting millions of pounds through the prescription of more than 800 drugs known to be ineffective or inappropriately or extravagantly prescribed.
  500
  There are two basic faults. First, the Committee on Safety of Medicines concerns itself only with safety, whereas it ought to be concerned with the efficacy of drugs. Secondly, the Department should relinquish its burden, which it should never have accepted, of ensuring that the pharmaceutical industry is a strong industry. It should ensure that that industry stands on its own two feet. This buttressing of the drugs industry by the DHSS is inexcusable. If the drugs industry wants a subsidy, it should go to the Department of Industry and ask for one outright. It should not be working hand in glove with the DHSS on a hidden subsidy. That is quite wrong.
  Those are some of the important issues with which the Department ought to be dealing. It ought to be helping the community health councils and the under-privileged regions and districts. It ought to be ensuring that proper drug prices are charged. If the Department tackles those three issues, we shall get a more sensible and properly funded Health Service.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the vigorous way in which he advanced the catechism of Conservative belief in the NHS and our commitment to it, which I share. He gave a catalogue of new hospitals that have been started under this Government. That was a more impressive list than the small one wielded earlier by the Opposition.
  My right hon. Friend omitted from that list a hospital that is of great interest to me—the Hemel Hempstead general hospital. Bearing in mind what the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said about the Labour party's passionate commitment to the NHS, it is interesting to note that phase 1 of the Hemel Hempstead general hospital was cancelled by the last Labour Government and has now been brought into the programme by the present Conservative Administration. I am grateful to the Secretary of State, who I know enjoyed his visit to Hemel Hempstead to see for himself the difficult conditions which will now be much improved as a result of his decision.
  I know that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is familiar with my constituency, as that is where he went to public school. He ought to visit the consituency again to see what Conservatives have brought to the people of that area.
  The debate has rightly concentrated on the total resources devoted to the NHS, but it is also about the distribution of resources and the efficiency of that distribution within the NHS. I represent an under-resourced district within an over-resourced region, and while I have much sympathy with what the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said about the problems of his district—he referred to over-provision in regions such as the Thames regions — I draw his attention to the fact that not all districts within those regions are in the same position. Those with growing populations such as my own are placed under particular strain.
  When money is diverted from areas such as north-west Thames to other areas of the country, the strain on the under-resourced districts increases, because when a region is losing money it is more difficult to redistribute funds to the districts which need them. I hope that the Secretary of State will take account of what I believe to be a strong case

  501
  for closing at least one of the teaching hospitals in the centre of London to enable those resources to be more readily redistributed elsewhere.
  I am also concerned about the growing proportion of the NHS budget which is devoted to drugs. That point was also made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. It is striking that 100 million more prescriptions are now written each year than in 1949 and that the NHS drugs bill is rising both as a proportion of GDP and as a proportion of money spent on the NHS. In fact, it went up 10 per cent. between 1975 and 1983.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: The fact that the NHS drugs bill has risen as a proportion of GDP and as a proportion of total spending simply means that the drug companies are making enormous profits. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the price cuts in respect of Librium or Valium which are made by Hoffman La Roche, these profits are way above those normally earned in the manufacturing sector?
  Mr. Jones: I do not entirely disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says, but there is no incentive for GPs or patients to be efficient in the use of these drugs, quite apart from the profit margins. Other countries which levy prescription charges based on a proportion of the cost rather than on a flat-rate basis are more economic in the use of drugs. That was a recommendation of the committee that was set up in the 1950s to look into this question. Belgium is perhaps the best example, and I commend it to the Secretary of State.
  We should also bear in mind the fact that certain types of surgery which we all admire, such as heart transplant surgery, increasingly take up resources that might be better used on various other ailments. That is a worry in my area, and rightly so.
  I very much welcome the Griffiths report, partly because it suggests a proper structure for the NHS, which the more old-fashioned of my constituents might call "Bringing back matron". This will also allow officials more time to look at long-term problems rather than getting totally absorbed in the administration of individual departments. That must be better for the NHS.
  All health authorities struggle to make efficiency savings, but some are more successful than others. Last year, north-west Hertfordshire made efficiency savings of £100,000, over half of which were laundry savings as a result of competitive tendering, and at the end of the day that stayed in house. That will result in a saving of £200,000 in a full year. All that money is being used up in pay awards which are in excess of Government guidelines. That puts us back to square one, and we shall have to find more efficiency savings in the coming year.
  It is extraordinary that in this day and age hospital patients should be supplied with toothbrushes and that some hospitals have their own cobbler. Surely we could dispense with such services and make savings so that more money can be devoted to patient care. I hope that the implementation of the Griffiths proposals will result in a substantial improvement.
  It is interesting that the hon. Member for Oldham, West would not give way earlier when he was labouring the point about the percentage of GDP that we spend on health care compared with that spent by France, Germany and other countries. We spend only about 6 per cent. of GDP on health care, while France, West Germany and Holland
  502
  spend about 8 per cent. In Britain, 91 per cent. of the money spent on health comes from the public sector, whereas in France, Germany and Holland the figure is 75 per cent. The extra money that comes from the private sector is one of the main reasons for the disparity. If Opposition Members were less dogmatic, they would realise that the private health sector has a lot to offer, not least because of the private sector's emphasis on screening, which saves resources for the NHS directly.
  I draw lessons from the geographical variation in the number of people covered by private health insurance. About 22 per cent. are covered in the south-east of England and only 3 per cent. in Scotland. If the percentage in Scotland and the north was the same as in the south-east, considerable resources would be released for patient care.
  We are not talking about the destruction of the National Health Service. Even if we reach the level of France, Germany or Holland where 75 per cent. of the money spent is public and 25 per cent. private, we should still have a substantial and well-endowed Health Service.
  More resources should be devoted to health. That is what the general public want. We must recognise that that cannot be achieved entirely within a tax-based and tax-financed system, because that involves waiting for economic growth. The growth in health care should be ahead of growth in the economy. That means that we must tap resources from other things. That is best done through the harnessing of the dynamics and energy of the private sector as well as through efficiency in the NHS.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am one of the few in the House who is used to the National Health Service and no other system. I cannot speak with the authority of age and cannot contrast the NHS with what happened before, but on the anniversary with which this debate coincides I find it difficult to imagine going back to the former system. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) seemed to leave the door open for that to happen, even if he did not encourage it. His speech led us to suspect that the general thrust of this Government's policy is to create in a variety of ways the conditions through which the NHS will be regarded as less than the norm, and more emphasis will be put on the individual taking out some type of private health care insurance. Far from easing the burden on the NHS, such a policy would have the opposite effect. It attacks the fabric and roots upon which the NHS is based. I hope that the debate will result in general support for the principle and pragmatics of the NHS.
  I should like to comment on what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, and on the general position of the Labour party in relation to the NHS. The hon. Member was open-minded enough to say that the NHS was not the prerogative of any one political party but that it was for all the people of the country. He is right. He said that the NHS was a victory for Socialism when it was established. The hon. Gentleman spoke of how Labour, if returned to office, will right just about every wrong that exists through a financial policy that he believes can be implemented.
  I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's motives or sincerity. I do not doubt his passion for wanting to make the improvements and reforms that he listed. However, he is in error if he thinks that he can persuade the House or the country that there is any common ground between the

  503
  economic policy in which he believes—on which he campaigned for the deputy leadership of the Labour party last summer and on which he was defeated by the now shadow Chancellor—and that of the shadow Chancellor. He is in error if he thinks that that is a basis for the commitments that he spewed out in the last three or four minutes of his speech.
  The Labour party makes all sorts of pledges from the Opposition Benches when it is known that the man who would be Chancellor of the Exchequer, if Labour is returned to the Treasury Bench, disagrees so fundamentally with the health spokesman about economic policy. The hon. Gentleman is raising expectations across a whole range of interests and areas of health care in an unfortunate fashion. There is little chance that he will be able to deliver what he promises. The hon. Gentleman speaks about the politics of wishful thinking. His speech encapsulated that defect in an extraordinary fashion.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: It is clear that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) has been asked by his party to speak in the debate in order not to raise expectations. He is fulfilling that duty admirably. Will he explain what his party would do faced with an economic crisis and cuts in the Health Service? Would he increase spending?
  Mr. Kennedy: I shall be delighted to explain. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will hear a detailed but brief resume of exactly where my party stands in terms of financial commitment to the NHS, and priorities.
  We have common ground with the Opposition spokesman in our criticisms of the Government. The Labour party seems tied to a type of health care which is over-institutionalised and which keeps people dependent on the state. It is no wonder that it wants to do that. For the same reason, the Opposition are opposed to the sale of council houses. They want to lock people into a social structure that will deliver enough votes to produce a Labour Government. The Opposition may be wrong in that respect, but they are right about their criticisms of the Government.
  The Conservative party seeks to lessen dependency by moving more towards a private, insurance-based system. Yet, as was pointed out in the Government's own Green Paper from the Treasury earlier this year, the problem is that there is a relentless in-built mechanism of demand for the welfare services generally, and for the Health Service in particular. There are demographic pressures, such as the increasing proportion of elderly people in the population. The pace of advance in medical technology is increasing, and aspirations increase as a result. As we approach the end of the century, there will be an ever greater log-jam. The Green Paper states:
  "over a wide range of services the only means of controlling the cost is for the government to limit the supply."
  Elsewhere, with specific reference to the health and personal social services, the Green Paper states:
  "Even where unit costs have been reduced widespread demand for such treatment may strain the resources available."
  That is slightly complacent. The Minister would be the first to agree that it is complacent to say that the available resources "may" be strained. Resources are already strained, and will be under even greater strain in the future.
  The great philosophical contradiction facing the Government is that one cannot demand-manage people's
  504
  aspirations for health care when medical technology is advancing at such a rapid rate. One has to try to match those aspirations. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) asked to what extent my party would try to match increasing demand, or what our priorities in the Health Service would be. We would not pledge ourselves to an unrealistic 3 per cent. per annum real increase. We would limit ourselves to 1·5 per cent. per annum. [Interruption.] At least we do not adopt the approach of the hon. Member for Oldham, West which is to think of a number or a problem and double it. [Laugher.] I am glad that the subtlety of the joke was not wasted on the Labour Front Bench. The Treasury's figures demonstrate that an increase of 1 per cent. per annum is needed simply for the NHS to stand still. Given the economic shambles that would face any party taking over government from the Conservative party, it would not be realistic to try to meet the range of pledges that the Labour party is giving. Although 1·5 per cent. must be regarded as a minimum base figure, and every possible effort would have to be made to exceed it, there is more political credibility in arguing for such a target than in promising Havana tomorrow as the Labour party does — [Laughter.] I choose my words with care.
  The Secretary of State also referred to care in the community. We would certainly welcome the allocation of an extra £10 million to care for the elderly in the community. We would welcome further extension of that principle. I was disappointed to hear a Government spokesman say yesterday elsewhere that more benefits could not be extended to carers because the finance cannot be made available. More finance could surely be channelled into the care of the housebound elderly, but not by the excessive centralisation that the Government are pursuing in Whitehall and at the Elephant and Castle. We argue in our amendment that if the Health Service is to be made more responsive to local needs and aspirations, there must be a greater degree of local control. I am not convinced that civil servants, however well intentioned, are the best people to make decisions about the nature or level of health provision in the regions.
  If health authorities are to become more democratically accountable, as we would wish them to be, they must also be given greater revenue-raising powers of their own. Within the decentralist programme for which the Liberal and Social Democratic parties argue, although there would be a need for a RAWP formula and an equalisation pool to help the disadvantaged regions of the country, and therefore a distributive element of central control, the root thrust should be towards greater regional authority and greater regional decision-making. That in itself would provide local authorities with a way out of the dilemma in which they are placed over joint funding arrangements. Having been encouraged by the Government to enter into joint funding arrangements, they now find that, because of other local government funding decisions, they have either to axe the voluntary organisation support to which they are committed or to face rate-capping penalties. That is a hopeless political dilemma.
  Equally, greater emphasis must be placed on preventive medicine and primary care. The existing joint funding arrangements must be extended to the voluntary organisations and more democratic accountability must be injected into the system at local health authority level.
  It is clear from the earlier exchanges between the Front Bench spokesmen that the crisis of morale created in the

  505
  NHS by the policies of the present Government is not helped by the spurious and often unobtainable promises made by the official Opposition. Those promises do not improve morale in the Health Service because they do not provide a more positive framework within which one could argue against what is currently being done and in favour of improvements and of the raising of the horizons of health care.
  The National Health Service is facing a philosophical attack from the Government. However, I hope that, in T.S. Eliot's words
  "The end of all our exploring
  Will be to arrive where we started
  And know the place for the first time."
  I hope that the mistakes made by this Government in their attempt to dismantle the Health Service, and with it many areas of community care and the welfare state, will be reversed in due course. I hope that the reversal will be based not on the Labour party's ideas but on a more sincere and practical argument. That argument is represented by the health and social services policies of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties.
  6.27 pm
  Sir David Price: I found the speech of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) somewhat more agreeable than that of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). The latter did the National Health Service no service by indulging in his intemperate attacks upon the Government. He indulged in personal abuse in a manner not fitting to a Front Bench spokesman — I am rather more tolerant of the Back Benchers—and he developed once again his well-known conspiracy theory of politics, which does not help the NHS at all.
  As an example of the hon. Gentleman's intemperance, it was not clear whether he was in favour of developments in the United States or agin them. At the beginning of his speech, he made much of the fact that the United States spends more on health care than we do. At the end of his speech, he attacked the failures of health care in America. One need not take the hon. Gentleman too seriously. We shall not help the NHS by decrying its many achievements. When we are celebrating the birthday of the NHS, we should rejoice at its achievement, and consider how to improve its performance. That is certainly my own approach. All Governments have done their best, in view of the economic circumstances, to improve the NHS. It is indulging in needless party political abuse to suggest otherwise. I know of no Secretary of State for the Social Services who did not take his duties extremely seriously.
  In spite of the fact that the Wessex regional health authority is one of the less well funded and is well below its RAWP target, it has made substantial progress in the past 25 years since becoming an independent health unit. I could read out a long list of achievements, but I shall take them as read. Suffice it to say that Wessex treats more patients in fewer beds at lower cost per case than at any time in its history; yet much more needs to be done. In our previous debate on the NHS I said:
  "The current challenge facing the National Health Service is one of expectations exceeding resources". — [Official Report, 27 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 467.]
  I think that I have the support of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye in that, as he made exactly the same point. That is why there is nothing inconsistent in my praising the achievements of the Wessex health authority
  506
  while insisting on it being given more resources. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can point to the Government's record of increasing provision in cash and real terms and why, at the same time, his critics can claim that the service is under-funded. Both statements are correct. Potential demands on the NHS are virtually unlimited. Its very success breeds further demand.
  If we consider the effects of demographic change and the improvement in life expectancy, we find that the increasing number of the very elderly makes increasing demands on the Health Service. Acknowledgement of the unlimited nature of demand on the service is fundamental to our understanding of its needs. I should like to remind the House what the Royal Commission on the NHS, which was set up by, and reported to, the previous Labour Government, said:
  "Whatever the expenditure on health care, demand is likely to rise to meet and exceed it. To believe that one can satisfy the demand for health care is illusory, and that is something that all of us, patients and providers alike, must accept in our thinking about the NHS".
  In support of my proposition that expectations are likely to run ahead of resources, I remind the House of the original estimate of what a comprehensive National Health Service would cost. The hon. Member for Oldham, West was incorrect to claim for the Labour party all the credit for the creation of the NHS, as it was the wartime coalition Government which issued the original proposals in 1944 in a White Paper on a National Health Service. They calculated that a health service would cost £148 million at the start and that that cost would rise to £170 million when all the services came fully into operation. A subsequent White Paper estimated that that would happen in 1955. In 1944, £148 million was worth £1·79 billion and £170 million was worth more than £2 billion in today's prices. According to the current Blue Book, the Government's current and capital expenditure on the Health Service is well over £13 billion. A little simple arithmetic shows that we are spending six and a half times more in real terms than what was anticipated 40 years ago. Nobody can say that that is not advance, expansion and progress.
  I have consistently argued that there is rising demand and rising expectation. They have gone ahead of the increase in available resources. Such trends suggest a major problem that we must all face if we care about the Health Service. I should like to quote from the transcript of a lecture given by Dr. Bryan Thwaites, the chairman of the Wessex regional health authority, who is a distinguished mathematician:
  "By now, the proportion of the GNP which is being devoted to the NHS is so large that no government over the next two decades is likely to be able to increase it significantly. We are, in these early 1980s, at the turning point where the limit is being approached. The curve of resource simply must flatten out, at least in the foreseeable future…
  I have already put it in rough quantitative terms on the 20-year view—a possible difference of supply and demand of anything between one-sixth and one-third. Such a large discrepancy calls for the most radical thinking; and the longer such thinking is delayed, the more difficult will be the solution."
  I share his view that we must think radically about how we approach the ever-growing gap between increasing resources and even more rapidly increasing demand. That is the great issue before us. I do not believe that we shall secure a future for the Health Service unless we share a recognition that this is the real issue.

  507
  I hope that Opposition Members will agree with me, as I should like to quote from "The Way Forward". The then Labour Government said in that document:
  "Public expectations of the health and social services will frequently outrun supply and sometimes hard decisions will be needed to hold back some services to allow others to be developed".
  In other words, it is all about priorities. I believe that we should do much better service to the NHS if we discussed what those priorities should be, tried to see whether we can achieve agreement and not play the crudest form of party politics, which is what the Labour Front Bench spokesman did today.
  6.37 pm
  Dr. M. S. Miller: The trouble with the analysis of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) is that it is based on what he calls realism—the realism of statistics. Statistics are important to Governments but people should not be considered as statistics, and I defy the hon. Gentleman to tell a mother that her child cannot be saved simply because the country will not spend money.
  I have a high regard for the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) but I am sorry that such a young man sets his sights so low. One would have imagined that he would have a bit more idealistic fire and would want to achieve a little more than 0·5 per cent. The Health Service is apparently regarded as yet another area in which we must consider our priorities. I must declare a great interest as a doctor in wanting to do everything possible to enable people to live. I do not accept that we should be so pessimistic as to set a limit. We must keep working until we satisfy the demand. We as privileged members of society — for I believe that we are privileged—will demand the services that we need and make sure that we get them.
  Dr. Brian Mawhinney rose—
  Dr. Miller: I shall not give way, because many hon. Members still wish to speak in the debate.
  The Secretary of State's speech was disappointing, but that is not surprising, because it was made in support of a pathetic amendment which congratulates the Government on their record and speaks in vague terms of their
  "determination to maintain and develop a modern health service, giving maximum value to the public"
  as though they were marketing cheese or a new brand of detergent. The amendment sounds like a market place slogan, whereas there is no room for medicine in the market place.
  We had a better NHS until the Tories started chopping and changing. When, on 5 July 1948, the service came into being, an era came to an end — an era when parents, in addition to fearing illness in their children, suffered the agony of trying to find the money to pay the doctor. Although only relatively small amounts of money were involved, ordinary people could not afford them, and I remember that well because I practised in a working-class district of Glasgow before the NHS came into existence.
  The NHS ushered in a new era. It was a comprehensive health service open to all, paid for by the state from the contributions of all earners, with no charges whatever.
  508
  Although hon. Members have referred to contributions in a general way, they should accept that, at the end of the day, they come from everybody, whether they are paid so-called privately or to the state. The contributions still come from the people, and if the people can afford to pay a proportion of the Health Service privately, they should be able to afford that proportion to increase the amount of money available to the NHS.
  I regret that we deviated from the original concept of everything being free. It is a pity that we imposed charges for prescriptions and so on. I should like to see all charges removed. As I say, if people can pay for health care privately, they can pay for it through the NHS, too.
  The NHS is under attack. After all, it was never a popular proposition within the ranks of the parliamentary Tory party. It is all very well for Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Eastleigh, to say that it was the brainchild of Sir William Beveridge and the coalition Government. While that may have been true, the enabling Bill was voted against at every stage, including the Third Reading, by the parliamentary Tory party. Today, the NHS is one of its targets. Its slogan is, "Set the people free", but I fear that it is setting them free to become ill and not to be able to pay.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh that the cost of the NHS today is high, but we shall not solve that problem by positively encouraging private medicine. The NHS needs more money, and we agree that we must keep pace with inflation, allow for higher costs of modern technology, take account of the increasing number of elderly people in society and so on.
  The TUC has produced an interesting paper in which reference is made to five important areas of medicine which, when I graduated and for years afterwards while I was practising, I knew nothing about. Kidney machines — haemodialysis — were unknown, as were hip joint replacements. In my day nobody imagined having a heart operation. Today, there is incredibly better care of newborn babies. In my day many of them died. The treatment of haemophilia is now possible.
  Those are just five areas of modern medicine. Are we supposed to say that one of those might not be a priority, and thereby condemn thousands of people to die? We cannot do that. Nor can we solve the problem by putting part of the payment for health costs on to the shoulders of the people. Those who suggest that that should be done are not aware of the enormous costs involved to the individual.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred to the situation in the United States where, I accept, much more is spent on health than is spent in this country. But medicine in America is more of a business than it is of a profession, and many doctors there concur with that view. Certainly the American public believe it.
  I shall not delay the House, because many hon. Members still wish to speak. I am totally committed to the NHS and I urge people not to look at it simply in cold financial terms. We must have an emotional attachment, as it were, to the way in which diseases can be cured, regardless of cost. We must also weigh the cost of the NHS against other priorities, such as £10 billion spent on Trident. Not a great percentage of that need be spent on the NHS to put things right, and I would have thought that the Health Service should have a higher priority than Trident.

  509
  The public at large cannot appreciate the rosy picture that is painted of the NHS by the imagination of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, for they find that they cannot get elderly parents into hospital, that there are long waiting lists for serious conditions, that hospital wards are closed, that research is cut and that there is discontent everywhere. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would answer a simple question which is puzzling millions of people: if things are so good, why are things so bad?
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves: In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), I feel that I should declare an interest. I am a supporter and user of the National Health Service. The debate so far has concentrated on general and national issues affecting the NHS. I wish to draw the attention of the House to a local issue, one which may affect other constituencies.
  Hon. Members have spoken with feeling about the resources of the NHS, and it is clear that the amount of money allocated to the service is important. I welcome the fact that the Government have increased spending in real terms on the service, as the Secretary of State explained.
  There has been disquiet for some time in my constituency about the amount of capital resources allocated to the North-Western regional health authority compared with those allocated to other regions. I am glad to say that the Government have increased that proportion and that our capital allocation this year is the second highest in England, although we still have some way to go before our facilities are comparable with those in other regions.
  However, there is little point in the Government allocating more money unless it is spent wisely. It is essential, before money is divided among the district health authorities in each region, that their various and varying needs are accurately established. I welcome the fact that the Government are considering ways of strengthening the general management function to secure the more effective management of resources.
  I say that because at present, in my constituency, which is part of the Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley district health authority, the health authority does not appear to agree with the regional health authority about our needs and the community health council does not agree with either of them. I am greatly concerned at there being so much confusion about what our needs really are, because we may end up wasting vast amounts of that valuable extra sum that has been allocated to us. That would be a scandal because, with the advancement of technology, there are many extra demands on scarce resources.
  In 1979 the strategic plan published by the North-Western regional health authority proposed that children's services in the district should be centralised at Queen's park hospital, Blackburn, by the provision of 46 children's medical beds under phase one of the plan, work on which, thanks to the Government, has started. It proposed that 46 children's surgical beds should be provided under phase three in the 1990s, giving the district 92 children's beds, eight more beds than at present. The region appeared to be saying that the district did not have enough beds and that their proposals would rectify the shortage, albeit over the next 10 to 15 years.
  510
  On 17 January, the 15-bed children's hospital at Accrington was closed without consultation, despite regular assurances from the district health authority that that could not happen. The ward is padlocked and the formal consultation document for permanent closure has been issued. The closure is not the consequence of cuts. The number of children's beds in the district has been reduced from 84 to 69 by the action of the district health authority. However, the regional plan is for 92 beds in the 1990s, when the population will be smaller. How can we possibly manage with 69 beds now?
  At a meeting of the district health authority on 1 February, the district administrator said that we could manage with 69 beds because the implications for orthopaedic and general surgery treatment of removing nine beds in these categories at Accrington Victoria will be virtually non-existent. Yet far from taking away nine beds, the regional authority is planning to give us 23 more, to double the present total.
  The disagreement about the number of beds is not as straightforward as that. At the same meeting on 1 February the unit management group reported that, as a result of the closure of the children's ward at Accrington, it had put forward a scheme to be incorporated in the district's 1984–85 programme to extend children's ward 8 at the Blackburn royal infirmary. The group said that the scheme should be given high priority because if it were not implemented the ward could become a bottleneck and restrict the amount of paediatric surgery that could be undertaken.
  There are three views of our needs. One view is that the ward at Accrington should be closed even though only last year it was upgraded by the installation of a new kitchen, new baths and new toilets and completely redecorated. We are told that we shall still have enough beds, even with that closure. The second view is that, if the ward is closed, despite the money that has been spent on it, it will be necessary to spend more money to extend the ward at Blackburn. The third view is that we are so short of children's beds that double the existing number should be provided.
  What are our needs? Do we need 84 beds as at present, 92 as the region intends to provide, 69 as the district administrator says we can manage with, or 69 plus a few more as demanded by the unit management group? There appears to be confusion among the authorities. Unless one view can be agreed upon, there is a great danger of money being completely wasted. If that happens, it is likely that the Government will be accused of not providing enough money.
  My constituents believe that money will be wasted if the children's ward at Accrington is not reopened. The situation has been made worse because the new wards have been centralised at Queen's park hospital, Blackburn. Centralisation seems to be a god that is worshipped by experts. It is said that it is essential for the improvement of health services, just as high-rise flats and putting policemen in panda cars were thought by experts to be essential. Ordinary folk said that those ideas were nonsense, and how right ordinary folk have been proved to be. It seems that we must have centralisation, never mind where units are centralised and irrespective of whether it is in the most inaccessible place in the Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley district health

  511
  authority. It seems that that makes no difference. Despite all that, it is claimed that centralisation will improve our services.
  Centralisation makes some sense if money is spent wisely, but we cannot have centralisation at any price and in any circumstances. If that happens, sick children in need of the most minor operations will have to be treated in a hospital that will be three bus journeys away for many parents. That will happen if the region's plans come to fruition. If those plans are implemented we shall have beds which, according to the district, we do not need. They will be provided by the region in the wrong place. All we want is the existing children's ward reopened.
  It seems that there are only two ways in which my constituents can be saved from the region's proposals, which they reject. First, the Minister could inquire closely into local needs, perhaps visiting the area and taking account of the strong feelings locally before making a decision, as he will eventually have to do. Secondly, the Government could do what the previous Labour Government did and make drastic cuts in Health Service capital expenditure. I would not recommend the second option to my right hon. Friend.
  6.57 pm
  Mrs. Renée Short: I was rather disappointed with the Secretary of State's speech. He gave us many figures to show how the Health Service is flourishing under his control and said that there were more doctors employed in the NHS now than under the previous Labour Government. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers, but in 1981 the Select Committee on Social Services published a report on medical education which recommended a consultant-based service. The Government endorsed that report, but we do not have a consultant-based service. The ratio of consultants to junior doctors in England and Wales in 1980 was 1:1·76. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said about an increase in the number of doctors employed in the NHS, the ratio in 1983 was 1:1·75. That can hardly be described as a dramatic rate of progress. We have a long way to go yet.
  There is no doubt that without the NHS many poor families—the number of poor families is growing under this Government—would not receive health care in the sort of society which the Prime Minister wants to impose on the British people, in which those who have money can buy health care, while those who cannot afford it do not get it. There can be no choice of health care for those without resources, because they will not be able to exercise a choice.
  Many people are denied health care even though it is clear that they will soon die without it. The shortage of dialysis machines and comparatively few kidney transplants are two examples. There is also the threatened closure of the bone marrow transplant clinic for children at the Westminster hospital. The Black report showed clearly that the upper and middle classes are large consumers of health care. It showed also that they are disproportionate consumers, for while the poor have the least spent on them, the wealthy enjoy the greatest provision.
  Health care is often denied, not because the individual cannot pay for it, but because the Government will not pay
  512
  to make it available. The Government have used various ploys to try to reduce the cost of the Health Service. There has been privatisation of the housekeeping services, accompanied by the sacking of men and women directly employed by hospitals. In the wretched economic climate that has been produced by the Government, those people have become a considerable charge on the state. They cannot get work and they remain unemployed. More money goes out of the public purse, while hospitals wrestle with inferior services. There are unsatisfactory meals and the private laundry refuses to wash dirty linen, some of which is washed in public when the hospital decides to sack the private contractor and bring back its former staff, which it had sacked.
  The Government try to save pennies when the savings are set against overall expenditure on the NHS. They have taken some odd decisions and some rather damaging ones. Because the Government have reduced the budget of the Medical Research Council, the pneumoconiosis unit at Penarth is to be closed—for a saving of £1 million. If, as the Secretary of State says, so much more money is being pumped into the NHS, why can he not find £1 million for that unit? Without going into the detail of the report on the quality or otherwise of the research carried out at the unit, it must be clear that it is in the interests of the health of the mining communities that research into pneumoconiosis and other industrially-related chest diseases continues. The benefits to the nation must be worth more than £1 million.
  The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology recently reported that
  "occupational health research in the United Kingdom is insufficiently co-ordinated."
  That is true. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the unit is to be properly funded and staffed so that it can continue with its work.
  There is growing concern among women that screening and treatment facilities for cervical cancer are becoming more deficient. The Womens National Cancer Control Campaign, with which I am associated, has been urging women to have smear tests, with great success, but it is now clear that screening facilities are inadequate and that many women have to wait for the results of their tests, yet during that time cancer can invade.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is my hon. Friend aware of the famous Christie hospital in Manchester, where the consultant is having to turn away applications for cervical screening? That is not simply crass in the direct sense; it is counter-productive, because cervical screening not only nips potential tumours in the bud, but is more cost-effective than later treatment.
  Mrs. Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Speed is crucial if a test proves positive. Women are dying of cervical cancer when they need not do so. The test is the most cost-effective way of detecting cancer of the cervix in the early stages, when treatment is simple and does not involve a stay in hospital. It also saves lives. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point. The recall centre at Southport has been shut down and 155 jobs have been lost—yet women continue to die of cervical cancer.
  The Select Committee report on medical manpower and the career structure showed the Government how to provide better health care for patients and how to fill posts in shortage specialties. Because of cuts in resources, doctors, whose training costs the country £100,000 each,

  513
  are unemployed. Therefore, 10 newly qualified doctors cost the country about £1 million to train, but because of the shortage of pre-registration posts many have not become fully registered. That happened in 1983, and is happening again now. The junior doctors believe that there are now 2,000 doctors unemployed, which is a fine achievement for the Government.
  On 24 February I asked why the Minister had stopped keeping accurate figures for the number of unemployed doctors. He said that his Department had never collected figures on unemployed doctors. I suggest that it is high time that the Department did that. It would then know how many doctors were available for vacant posts.
  The Government are supposedly committed to a policy of consultant expansion. In 1982–83 that expansion took place at the rate of only 1·8 per cent., whereas a rate of 4 or 5 per cent. was needed. Therefore, many towns are without consultants in important posts, and the inequality between north and south becomes more acute.
  Many regions are under-funded and have made only snail's pace progress towards their targets. The Wessex region was 4 percentage points below target in 1981, and is now 5 percentage points below target, so its position has deteriorated. The west midlands was 5 percentage points below target in 1981, and is still 4 percentage points below target. To crown it all, because of the recent doctors' pay award, the west midlands region must find £3·6 million to make good the shortfall. That £3·6 million must be distributed to the districts, which are already facing great difficulties. The cost should be borne by the Government, not placed on the already under-funded regions and districts that are already in considerable difficulty.
  When I asked in February how many consultant posts were vacant and in which regions, the Secretary of State gave me the figures but passed the unnecessary comment that the figures seemed to lack any significance. Surely the figures for vacant consultant posts are highly relevant to patient care, especially if the vacancies occur in shortage specialties. Those are the areas where patient care needs to be improved and where waiting lists are longest. In the west midlands, 110 whole-time equivalent consultant posts are filled by locums, and 84 posts are unoccupied. It is one of the worst records in the country.
  The conditions in dentistry are also serious, because higher charges are deterring patients from seeking treatment. The White Paper shows that family practitioner services charges revenue will rise by 12 per cent.—from £344 million to £386 million. Some 13 per cent. of that comes from optical charges, which will be lost when dispensing optical services are discontinued except for charge-exempt patients.
  Dental and prescription charge increases are being imposed, and the public are complaining. They also complain that dentists are abusing the pay machinery. Those are serious allegations, which I understand were made during two recent television programmes. Why has the Minister not acted on the proposal of the British Dental Association that the reference dental officer service should be extended? The Government seem content to let the dentists take the blame for the Department's management failures. The Minister should be aware that there is considerable concern among dentists.
  It is not as though there is not a great deal of money around — there is. One part of NHS expenditure has been rising steadily and irreversibly under the Government, who claim to be short of funds. In 1979–80
  514
  that area experienced real growth of 4·8 per cent., in a year when the remainder of the NHS was cut. In the following years it experienced growth rates of 5·2 per cent., 3·4 per cent., 4·9 per cent. and, in the last year, an astounding 10·2 per cent.—while the remainder of the NHS had difficulty in keeping pace with inflation.
  I do not refer to the general practitioner services or to some developing high tech branch of medicine such as renal failure operations or coronary bypass treatment, which are expensive. The figures that I gave are for the so-called centrally financed services. Last year those services cost £539 million. If the Secretary of State does his sums, he will find that 20 per cent. of that amount is the cost of the Department of Health and Social Security at the Elephant and Castle. Much of that cost is attributable to various boards and quangos. Those bodies perform valuable work, but it is anomalous for them to enjoy the growth rate that we would like to see at the sharp end of the NHS—where patient care is delivered—at a time of restraint and when the Health Service has to bear additional burdens.
  Mr. Fowler: I am sure that the hon. Lady does not want to mislead the House. I am sure that she recognises that since 1979 the headquarters staff of the DHSS dealing with health has been reduced by 20 per cent.
  Mrs. Short: If the numbers have been reduced by that amount, the increase in cost is even more staggering. The Secretary of State should take that point on board. Perhaps the Select Committee will help him. The right hon. Gentleman should note what is happening under his nose before wringing his hands at the shortage of resources. That is fantastic.
  No section of the NHS escapes the chill hand of Treasury Ministers. Demand for services is increasing. That demand is triggered by growing long-term intractable unemployment. With 4 million people unemployed and families dependent on them, it is clear that the demand for resources is increasing. In those circumstances, psychosomatic problems increase. Unless people are resilient, they fall ill. Worsening conditions mean that greater demands are made on the Health Service.
  The feelings of hopelessness and depression which the Government have engendered throughout the population lie at the root of many of our health and social service problems. The Prime Minister and her docile followers, many of whom are making money out of the NHS, as we have heard today, have a great deal for which to answer. I hope that the Secretary of State will revise his attitude to resource allocation in the Health Service and ensure that the economies that can be made in the administration of his Department — perhaps the Griffiths management system will produce some results—are used for patient care.
  7.13 pm
  Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston): In view of certain comments made in points of order at the beginning of the debate, it is incumbent upon me to declare that I have no pecuniary interest in cleaning services in hospitals, the private medical sector or any other aspect. It is disgraceful that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) read out a list of hon. Members. As far as I am aware, he did not warn those hon. Members, as is the normal practice in the House that he would mention their

  515
  names. Another list of hon. Members was read out, and, as far as I know, not one was in the Chamber or had sought to speak in the debate. [Interruption.] The Opposition cannot have it both ways. They accuse my hon. Friends of having a private interest in the subject that we are discussing and say that that is the reason why they will be involved in the debate. Now the Opposition are complaining that those hon. Members are not involved in the debate. I wish that the Opposition would make up their minds.
  We are well used to exaggeration from the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who works himself into a lather with less reason and more ferocity than anyone else I have ever seen. I must concede that the wording of the Opposition's motion is masterly. In one brief paragraph — 10 lines—the motion combines deceit, inaccuracy, unreality, hypocrisy, spite and confusion. It refers to the
  "failure of the Government to provide sufficient resources"
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Government have more than doubled expenditure on the NHS. Expenditure has increased from just over £10 billion per annum to just over £15 billion per annum. What do the Opposition call "sufficient resources" if that increase is not enough? Are "sufficient resources" £40 billion, £50 billion or £60 billion per annum? After all, that is only taxpayers' money. Why stop there? Why not just make it £100 billion per annum? That is a nice round sum.
  We must recognise that when the unreality of opposition becomes the reality of government—heaven forfend that that should ever happen to this Opposition—economic truths catch up. All Opposition Members are well aware that, despite what is said by Opposition Front Benchers and Back Benchers, past Labour Governments have had to cut costs, impose charges and limit spending in direct contravention of what they said when they were in opposition. That does not surprise me; but I am surprised that the Opposition flatly refuse to join us in our call for better value and an end to waste in the NHS, even though there is incontrovertible evidence of inefficiency, overmanning in administration, overprescribing of drugs, pilfering and misuse of resources. The Opposition do not want to know about that—worse, they do not even want it to stop. The Opposition encourage continuance of all those elements and resist all attempts to improve matters and obtain better value for money.
  The Opposition's pretence that they understand the desires of the British people impels me to tell them that the British people do not want resources to be wasted in the NHS. They want, as do the Government, every penny spent in the NHS to give them value for money.
  The motion calls for an end to private medicine. That point was emphasised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. If private medical care provision ended tomorrow, the NHS could not cope. About 34,000 patients are being cared for in independent hospitals and nursing homes. On 31 December 1982—these are the latest figures that I could obtain — there were 2,929 pay beds in NHS hospitals. In all, about 37,000 people are cared for by the independent private sector. Direct savings to the NHS by the private sector—I hope that the Opposition recognise that this figure is important—cannot be less than £600 million per annum. [Interruption.] The Opposition say that many of the patients are not British subjects. I care that, when those people go in for treatment, their money
  516
  is used for the alleviation of difficulties within the Health Service. [Interruption.] If hon. Members possessed their souls in patience, they might learn something.
  Mrs. Renee Short rose—
  Mrs. Knight: I shall not give way, because I am trying to finish my speech. The hon. Lady made her speech. I am making mine, and no one will stop me.
  Thousands of small private nursing homes for the elderly and the infirm are scattered all over the land, caring for well over 20,000 people.
  It is not feasible for the Opposition to pretend that if private medical care ended the National Health Service could offer beds and care to these people. It could not do so. So let us take pleasure from the fact that this burden is lifted from the shoulders of the Health Service.
  In addition to those private beds, recently there has been a big growth in hospices where terminally ill people go who are not necessarily old, and wonderful places they are. To the best of my knowledge, all these hospices are private or independent of the Health Service. Where would the patients in these places go if the Opposition had their way? Hon. Members should note also that in the past 23 years the number of people of retirement age, according to the latest census, has increased by more than 1 million. The problem of elderly people is great, and so much of Health Service resources is saved because so many of these people are cared for in private nursing homes.
  There is an element of hypocrisy in the motion since the trade unions themselves maintain a private hospital. I refer to the Manor House hospital, in North End road, Golders Green. It irritates me when Opposition Members turn a blind eye to the extent to which their own trade unionists support private medical care. A recent National Opinion Poll of trade unionists showed that 67 per cent. of them thought that people should be allowed to pay for private medicine; 65 per cent. thought that private medicine shortened Health Service waiting lists; 69 per cent. felt that companies should be allowed to offer workers private medicine as a job benefit, and so do I; 80 per cent. of them felt that private medical insurance should not be abolished; 67 per cent. thought that private hospitals should not be taken over by the state; and 80 per cent. thought that the Health Service and the private sector should work more closely together, and so do I. In my view, the private medical sector should be recognised as a partner and not as an enemy of the Health Service.
  I could give many examples where this is happening. I restrict myself to one. At the moment BUPA is placing a litho-tripter at the disposal of the National Health Service at St. Thomas' hospital, and shortly my right hon. Friend will be able to see advances of the plans for the placing of that litho-tripter. It is a marvellous machine which, working externally, shatters kidney stones and makes operations to remove them unnecessary. Not only does the patient not require an operation, but he will be in hospital for three to four days instead of three weeks. There is therefore an initial saving there to the National Health Service as well as tremendous benefit to the patient.
  BUPA has made this machine available to St. Thomas' hospital. It cost £1 million. The deal is that for 75 per cent. of the time the machine will be treating Health Service hospital patients, and that for 25 per cent. of the time it will be treating private patients.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the hon. Lady give way, since St. Thomas' hospital is in my constituency?
  Mrs. Knight: No, I will not give way. It is hoped that the machine will be in situ early in 1985. [Interruption.] Surely Opposition Members recognise that this is a tremendous example of the partnership between private medicine and the Health Service.
  Mr. Holland rose—
  Mrs. Knight: The cost of the machine was paid entirely by BUPA. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) must try to get his facts right. It will be an excellent plan for NHS patients at this hospital, many of whom will come from the constituencies of other hon. Members and not just from that of the hon. Member for Vauxhall.
  My support for the independent sector rests on two main planks. The first is the tremendous benefit that it confers on the Health Service. The second is that it is the inalienable right of people to spend their own money as they wish. Every citizen who has paid his rightful dues in rates and taxes and who then opts to spend his money on his own health care is freeing a bed for someone who needs treatment and who cannot afford or does not wish to seek that treatment privately.
  The Labour party had better understand that private medical care exists all over the world, except in totalitarian countries. The Opposition should understand what they are asking for when they demand the end of private medical care. They should also recognise what they are asking for when they seek an end to the contracting out of services, many of which not only save money for the Health Service but improve standards.
  We all want a good and flourishing Health Service. Cannot we agree that my right hon. Friend's announcement today of important advances is to be cheered? I saw not a suspicion of pleasure on the faces of Opposition Members. They seemed to deplore the advances that my right hon. Friend announced, but these are matters for pleasure. Cannot we all cheer when advances are made in the Health Service?
  Cannot we use the opportunity of this debate to congratulate those whose wonderful work is daily improving the chances of life for cancer patients? I have in mind the people who have discovered that bone marrow cancer can be dealt with with magnets. I also have in mind the people at the Cromwell, a private hospital, who are perfecting a system to deal with liver cancer. Cannot we all cheer that this very day a case came to the notice of our national newspapers of a tiny boy of only 18 months who had had a pacemaker implanted?
  All that we hear from the Opposition seems to decry and deny the advances that are being made. Cannot we say that these are important developments and that we all support them? Cannot we at least acknowledge that the money spent on the Health Service, although we all wish to spend more, is being spent to advantage?
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Terry Lewis: I come from a local government background where members have to declare specific interests of a pecuniary nature before contributing to a debate or voting at the end of it. In my view, it is appalling that in the Mother of Parliaments hon. Members who have such interests do not have to declare the exact sums of money they receive and from where it comes.
  518
  Government supporters can go blue in the lace and Opposition Members can go red in the face arguing the pros and cons of this motion. If I had not received a vast number of letters from constituents, and a great many answers from Ministers over the past week or two about individual cases in my constituency, I could be lulled into believing that all was not bad with the National Health Service.
  I recently tabled a question to the Minister asking to be told why health authorities had exceeded the number of staff cuts that he had ordered a year ago. His reply was that in his opinion it was because they had improved their efficiency in the use of manpower to a greater extent than the minimum targets that Ministers required of them. That is all very well, but one should consider the fact that in the north-west region alone 1,521 jobs were cut after the Minister had asked for only 561 to be cut.
  I accept that the service has to become more efficient, but people working in the north-west regional health authority say, not that the service is more efficient, but that there are more problems. I should like to refer to a recent article in the Daily Telegraph. Even Conservative Members would not suggest for a moment that it was an organ of the Labour party. The article stated that managers at district health authority level tended to over-react by freezing appointments on the Minister's instructions, and that the policy was to cut non-medical staff. Now the number of nurses is 79 below the minimum for the area. That is incredible and unacceptable. If that is what the Minister thinks efficiency is, Opposition Members cannot support it for two minutes.
  Several cases have been brought to my attention where individuals have suffered because of the cuts. I asked the Minister about a constituent who had a heart attack within 1½ miles of an ambulance station that had just lost an ambulance and an ambulance crew during the self-same staff cuts. My constituent had to wait over half an hour for an ambulance to travel from more than 6 miles away. That is the efficiency about which the Minister is talking. In that ambulance, on the way to hospital, my constituent died twice and had to be resuscitated by the attendant.
  That is incontrovertible. When such things happen, ordinary people cannot understand the efficiencies about which the Government are talking. They are not efficiencies, but deficiencies, in the service. Services are being cut to get the bottom line in the balance sheet. That bottom line is not consistent with health care. En this debate we should be talking about health care. It is appalling that Conservative Members worry about the total amount of money that we wish to spend on the Health Service, when in another debate they can blithely go through the Lobby and vote for £10,000 million to be spent on weapons of death and destruction.
  Another specific case graphically illustrates what we in the Opposition are trying to argue. I hope that this story does not raise too much of a laugh. My constituent, who was a day care patient, awoke from the general anaesthetic to find himself sharing a bed with another patient in the recovery ward. It was another man. I confess that when my constituent came to see me I could not suppress a titter, but then I wondered how serious the miscare of patients must be before Ministers will understand. My constituent rushed to the local newspaper, which printed his story in an amusing article, which, thankfully, had sufficient bite to get people to understand that he was badly treated and had a case to make. He was treated in what we have always

  519
  regarded and do regard as an excellent hospital in my area. After that item appeared in the newspaper, I received a letter from a senior consultant surgeon in that hospital. I have since spoken to him. I shall withhold his name because that was his wish, but I should like to quote from his letter, which appalled me. I promise that the Minister will be hearing much more about this in the weeks and months ahead. The letter stated:
  "I am writing in connection with a recent article…which I gather has been brought to your attention…The article in question reports that a patient had to share a bed…with another man as both were recovering from day care surgery…I entirely agree with the patient's grievances, and the report in the…Journal is accurate. The only inaccuracy, unfortunately, comes from our own hospital Administrator who did not consult any member of the Medical Staff before making his statement".
  That statement was that my constituent had not had a general anaesthetic, but was a local anaesthetic case, and had gone into the day care recovery ward under his own steam.
  The letter continued:
  "As I think the article made clear the medical and nursing staff in this hospital are working extremely hard in conditions which are not of our choosing."
  The complaint
  "is, I think, only the tip of the iceberg and many other patients have, I think, even more grounds for complaint".
  I should like Ministers on the Front Bench to listen to the next part with great care:
  "but in the nature of things most of our patients are to a certain extent unrealistically understanding and are very kind to us. In fact they might do us more good by complaining about the service that we are able to offer at the moment."
  I emphasise that the hospital is not one of the side-street run-down hospitals, but a teaching hospital of excellence.
  The letter continued:
  "Although this hospital now has an excellent reputation for the treatment of most illnesses and now gets patients referred from well outside the…area, those of us who work in the hospital are very concerned about our steadily diminishing services. On the surgical side we have been for some time desperately short of nurses and things are now so bad that major surgery now regularly has to be cancelled as there are not enough resources for post-operative care."
  Recently I heard of someone who went into hospital to have a serious heart operation, but had to be sent home after pre-medical care because there was no post-operative care. That is what is happening to our Health Service.
  The letter stated further:
  "In addition we have noted a small number of post-operative deaths, usually inpatients having emergency surgery, which seem potentially avoidable if we simply had additional nursing staff to supervise the patients."
  The letter goes on and on. I stress that I am talking about the things that are happening on the ground in the Health Service. Ministers are talking about the desiccated calculating machine of the Tory party.
  I end on a personal note. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), an eminent doctor in his previous incarnation, talked about the independence of the people in the poor area of Glasgow where he lived, who were worried because of the health care provided by the Health Service.
  Today is the anniversary of the start of the Health Service and in some respects it is an anniversary for me. Personal experience is more useful in the debate than clever arguments that may have been researched in the Library. Nine years ago today my family consisted of two
  520
  youngsters who would run about for 23 hours a day if they were allowed to do so. They never had a childhood illness, we rarely used the services of the local general practitioner and even after inoculations they would run about the place. Suddenly, over a period of days, the youngest of the two, who was nine and a half years old, was diagnosed as having a brain tumour. Within nine months he was dead.
  My point is that during that nine months the child received the best possible health care for the illness from which he suffered. I worked in industry, earned a few quid more than the national average—I worked shifts to do that—and I had a mortgage which I could barely afford. If we had lived in a country without a national health service, I would have gone bankrupt. We would have had the worry of selling our home and keeping the family together. The Health Service emancipates ordinary people who do not have much money from the worries associated with illness. Illness strikes at the very rich and the very poor. The only difference is that the rich can pay for health care and maintain their homes and families. Those of us who are not rich cannot do that without the help of the National Health Service. I thank God for Nye Bevan and that emancipation.
  7.43 pm
  Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I agree with the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) that the Health Service has brought emancipation to many people. I did not intend to tell the House of a personal experience, but I shall follow his example.
  When my sister was 26 she had a brain haemorrhage and received the best possible care from the Health Service. If we had had to provide the money for it, she would have died then. When she had a second brain haemorrhage and died at 28, she again received the same exemplary service, for which we are proud, in the National Health Service. Therefore, I identify with the hon. Gentleman's comments.
  I shall comment on two previous speeches. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made a great deal about the cuts in hospital provision that he alleged had taken place under the Government. That comment will be greeted with a horselaugh in Peterborough. It is a new town into which people were being moved because of Government policy, yet it was not provided with health care. Health care in the form of a second district hospital was to have been authorised by the Labour Government. It was stopped the day that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) returned from the airport, brought back by the International Monetary Fund. It was not continued until my right hon. and hon. Friends took office. That hospital will be built about six years too late. The increased suffering and illness of my constituents during the next three or four years until the hospital is opened is the result not of this Government's policies but of those of the Labour Government. That suffering should lie on the conscience of that Government's Ministers. For that reason the hon. Member for Oldham, West will receive a horselaugh from people in Peterborough.
  The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) pointed out that because of the limitation on resources many people would die before they were treated. That is, unfortunately, true. But he said it in such a way as to suggest that it was a new phenomenon. It would have been more in keeping with our attempt at fairness if he had had the grace to say that that had always been so.

  521
  The statistics that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave at the beginning of the debate clearly demonstrate the Government's commitment to the Health Service. Today is its 36th birthday and I thought for a moment that I was sitting in a Northern Ireland debate because hon. Members were keen to debate history. We are talking not about the Health Service's history but about its future. The NHS was a visionary concept and it continues to be one. I am wholly committed to it. However, I am worried that after 36 years we have seen little organic change within the Service to keep abreast of the developing world in which it must offer its service.
  The motion condemns the Government's failure to provide stable conditions for those working in the service so that they can concentrate on patient care. I agree that stable conditions are important, but it could be argued that the Health Service over the past 36 years has been too stable. It reminds me of forests in the south-west of the United States. The trees seem beautiful until one gets close to them, when one sees that they are petrified.
  I commend the Health Ministers for the fact that for the first time they are prepared to think strategically about the Health Service, and are not prepared and content to sit back and make decisions on a week-by-week or month-by-month basis. They understand that they have a responsibility to deliver into the 21st century a health service which is geared to the 21st century and which can provide a comprehensive and visionary service such as we have been enjoying. It is indisputable that in the years before we took office there had been no real examination of the Health Service. There was no information about the number of people who worked in the service, nor information which allowed people effectively to manage the service. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will remember that we lifted a veil from a small corner of that during an Adjournment debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) pointed out that resources were finite and demand infinite. That has always been and will continue to be the case. Opposition spokesmen should not create the illusion that if they were in power resources would be unlimited. That would not be so.
  There has always been dissatisfaction within the Health Service with Governments. In July last year my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister gave a speech to the Association of Community Health Councils. He said:
  "Decent people have always lobbied for more resources for the NHS and criticised every Government for shortcomings in the service over the last thirty-five years. Decent people will continue to point to unmet needs in the service, even while we employ more doctors and nurses and steadily open modern new hospitals all over the country. People are quite entitled to lobby but lobbying alone never solved any problems."
  Dissatisfaction with Government's performance in respect of the Health Service is good because it keeps Government on their toes. There has been dissatisfaction with management.
  I do not want to take time this evening talking about specific health care cases. I see the Government's role as providing a framework in which the professionals within the Health Service can provide services as effectively, cost efficiently, humanely and caringly as possible.
  Mr. Corbyn rose—
  Dr. Mawhinney: If it is the Government's job to address themselves to providing the strategic framework, I believe that the Government have an excellent record.
  Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to talk about the Health Service in this way without informing the House that he is a director of Service Master Hospital Services Limited? Perhaps he should explain what that company does?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. It is entirely a matter for the hon. Member.
  Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is a matter for the hon. Gentleman, does he not have an obligation to declare an interest when the debate is on the Health Service and he has a strong financial, commercial interest?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a matter for the hon. Member. I would say only that these points of order make it more difficult to call those hon. Members who are desperately anxious to address the House.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I shall make my own speech in my own time in my own way. I shall observe all the courtesies and customs of the House in that speech, as you will discover, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The first thing the Government did was to remove the area health authority tier. The point of that was to make decision making more sensitive to local needs. In that regard, I find the Opposition's motion incomprehensible because it talks about "the drift to centralised control" and yet the Government's actions have been in the opposite direction.
  The Government introduced the Griffiths report because it was clear that one of the grave disadvantages of the Health Service was its inability to manage and to bring together coherently the many disparate professions and groups that operate within the Health Service. I commend the concept of audit and departmental budgets, which are central to the good management of any organisation and certainly to any business. It should also be the case in the Health Service.
  The Government have also addressed themselves to the strategically important issue of information so as to allow National Health Service managers to manage. They have already anticipated that need by setting up the Komer committee. The three reports that that committee has produced, coupled with the Government's commitment to see them implemented, and the rapid introduction of computerised records means that in the 21st century, long after this debate is forgotten, the Government's actions will have laid the foundation of a modern Health Service which will be able to cope with future needs.
  Rayner was introduced and discovered something that people never knew—we had more ambulances than we had people to drive them. We had supplies worth £1·7 billion which could be substantially reduced if managed properly. We had performance indicators which revealed for the first time that identical services in different parts of the country cost considerably different amounts of money.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Reflecting different needs.
  Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is right. That might reflect different needs. It might reflect different levels of management ability or different priorities, but

  523
  what is indisputable is that if we do not have the information we cannot make the correct decisions which are in the best interests of the Health Service.
  Time and time again, Opposition Members must be reminded that the debate is not about how much money can be thrown at the Health Service, but about how that money is used within it for the benefit of patients. I was interested to note how seldom the word "patients" has been mentioned by Opposition Members.
  I move on to the Government's decision on competitive tendering. At this point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I remind the House that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has already declared my interest. I have a pecuniary interest, but my overriding interest is that the services that are provided should be provided to a quality, and I stress quality to my right hon. Friends, and with regard to those who work in hospitals, provide the most cost-effective use of resources so that the money saved can go towards patient care. It was interesting to note that there was a kind of stunned silence when my right hon. Friend mentioned that the first eight of those contracts have produced a saving of £1 million to the benefit of patients.
  The last issue upon which I wish to commend my right hon. and hon. Friends is the steps that they have taken with respect to family practitioner committees. We could not face the 21st century with a Health Service where the demand for primary care was as great as it is today, without a radical re-examination of the role of family practitioner committees and their functions with respect not just to the service that they give but to the interrelationship of that service with the hospital services.
  The record is good because it is strategically related to the future. It builds on the past and protects the visionary element of the Health Service which all on both sides of the House applaud, but for the first time the Government have started to act strategically. They are making decisions which will not come to fruition next month or even next year but five and 10 years down the road. That is a substantial and overriding contribution that my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends are making to the next 15 years of the Health Service. That is a commitment that demonstrates better than all the statistics and all the words that the National Health Service is particularly safe in my right hon. and hon. Friends' hands.
  7.56 pm
  Miss Betty Boothroyd: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) will forgive me if I do not follow his comments, because I wish to pick up the final comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis). He spoke about the heart and guts of the National Health Service. From the strength of feeling with which he spoke, I am sure that he will share my sentiments when I say that 36 years ago millions and millions of people, young and old, transposed the legal jargon of the National Health Act into simple terms of reference and related it to themselves. I believe that many of those people thought that at last here was a service which did not differentiate between rich and poor, where riches did not bring gains, and where it was not a disadvantage to be poor. That was the feeling then, and we must embrace and enhance it now.
  For all that, we must accept that it is not a perfect service. I do not expect it to be. I do not believe that it can
  524
  be when there are such enormous human elements involved. In a service that is performed by human beings on behalf of other human beings, there are bound to be warts, and complaints coming from all sides—patients, staff and administrators. For all its imperfections, I believe that it is the responsibility of those of us who respect those terms of reference to defend them, to see that they stand the test of time and endure.
  Ministers who apply double standards in their dealings with the service and pledge to safeguard it and develop it and then use their authority to weaken and dismember it are neither allies of those who work in the service nor friends of those who are sick and need its care. None of us needs to have too long a memory to recall the commitment given by the Secretary of State to the nation during the election campaign. He pledged that spending plans for the Health Service would be subject to further consideration, and "upward review" was the phrase that he used. He said that it was out of the question that any downward review would take place. Those words meant nothing. The first massive manpower cuts in the history of the service were imposed within a few weeks of his taking office. His action was roundly criticised at that time by many people outside the House. It was described in a leading editorial as a rapid and cynical ditching of the spirit and detail of an election pledge and an appalling treatment of the National Health Service, and so it was.
  In areas such as mine, where resources were already overstretched, the position became even worse. Constraints were placed on the local health authority, both in financial and manpower terms, which dramatically changed what had previously been achieved. Previously, those who had trained in a variety of techniques in the authority were offered jobs in the service. That is no longer possible. Staff who are finishing their training at public expense are jobless or are going into the private sector. In my area, radiographers are finishing training, but no jobs are available. Yet, at the same time, a consultant radiologist in the hospital rightly complains that the equipment that he needs for patient care, equipment that cost thousands of pounds, is lying unused because the staff on the basic grade of pay cannot be employed to operate it. That is nonsense.
  The Minister tells me that the long delayed start of the community hospital in Sandwell might begin in four years' time. It has been so long delayed that local doctors who pioneered the project and know of its necessity to the community are on the point of retiring. Mine is an area in which the proportion of elderly people is far higher than the national average, the queue for surgery is lengthening and more than 6,000 in the catchment area are waiting for necessary operations. A community hospital would ease the pressure on bed spaces in other hospitals, needed by patients who must have the use of high technology equipment.
  Although the Minister has given a glimmer of hope, he nevertheless has that famous caveat always put there by his Department, that the hospital project is still "under review." I wonder whether this is the upward review about which the Secretary of State told us in the June election campaign, or whether it is the downward review that came about after the election. I wonder whether the project, which conforms to all the priorities which the Government set for health care, will be further postponed.
  I am deliberately restricting my remarks to the west midlands, to some extent because the Secretary of State

  525
  represents a part of it, as I do. It cannot have escaped his attention, as it has not escaped mine, that the region is becoming one with some of the longest hospital waiting lists for surgery. Nor can the flood of comment and concern have escaped his notice, coming as it does from senior people in the medical profession who are now compelled to speak out, as they never have done before, about the problems of long delays, the cancellation of treatment which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) and the demoralisation that this is causing both to staff and patients.
  The Secretary of State seemed to give the impression that because of the increased efficiency and various other measures that he had taken more people were being helped in the National Health Service. He cannot be ignorant of the fact of what has happened in his region. Consultants are now publicly expressing concern about patients who are on waiting lists and who are now suffering such deterioration in their condition that they have gone downhill too far to be helped. The Secretary of State must know that the consultant surgeon at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham branded the provision for cardiac sufferers as "the worst anywhere". He said:
  "The chance of dying is much higher on the waiting list than after the operation."
  He went so far as to say that
  "as many as 18 operations were cancelled on the day of surgery because of lack of intensive care facilities."
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has left the Chamber, but I understand that she has another commitment. People in her position who boast about patients getting better value for money from this Government should realise that people on waiting lists who are made ready for surgery one day and are turned away because there are no facilities do not believe that they are getting value for money. Recently it was made clear that we had reached a point at which, because of the chronic under-funding, the gap between what could be provided for patients because of advances in medical science and what is being provided is rapidly widening. The chairman of the British Medical Association made that point only this week.
  I am not suggesting to the Secretary of State that the problems of health care in inner cities, about which many of us know, and the unequal distribution of resources has happened overnight. It has not. The problem has been with us for some time. What is a fact is that the problem is rapidly worsening, and we crucially need a major shift of national resources into the service. The imbalance has to be redressed in areas of unequal distribution, so that those who are further disadvantaged by decay and poor environment, and those who are dispossessed by industrial change, as we know they are, will at least receive the necessary social investment to compensate for the inadequacies of the environment in which they have to live.
  For a time, the Government went some way towards recognising these problems. In the 1983 Tory election manifesto, on page 27, they singled out the midlands for special attention. They said that it was short of resources and pledged to make extra provision for it. That commitment is not worth the paper on which it was written. Some £8 million was taken from the midlands' budget. The increased facilities and much needed development have been halted. Staffing levels have been
  526
  reduced by more than 3,000. The chairman of the regional board came to see Labour Members because we could not get the precise figures from the Department. We ask him to give us the figures, and I have a breakdown of them. The unredeemed pledges of the Government rekindle Disraeli's description of his party as "an organised hypocrisy".
  The Secretary of State cannot hope to squeeze the service harder in the interests of efficiency. He knows what the figures are, and he must know that, far from being a burden on public expenditure, it takes a smaller proportion of our national resources than do similar services in comparable countries.
  The Health Service cannot be shackled to the purse strings of the Prime Minister and dismembered and dismantled. It is not the Government's property. It belongs to all of us, and although a Labour Government had a major hand in creating it, and I am enormously proud of that, it does not belong to any Government. It did not belong to that Government, it certainly does not belong to this Government and it will not belong to future Governments. It belongs to the people of Britain, and we have put down the motion to demonstrate that fact clearly.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) mentioned the Prime Minister's eye operation last year. Any Prime Minister, or Minister, Conservative or Labour, deserves the best possible health treatment, because of the job that he or she does. They are entitled to choose where they obtain that treatment, just as Labour Ministers have done in the past. No decent, fair-minded or honest person would disagree with that. The comments of the hon. Gentleman and the comments made last autumn by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who suggested that an account should be rendered for the cost of some NHS surgical instruments that were used during my right hon. Friend's operation, were petty, pathetic and prejudiced. I regret that they were said.
  I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for all that he and his Department did behind the scenes to ensure the commencement last week of the building of the long-awaited Bournemouth general hospital in Castle lane in my constituency. It has been awaited for more than 20 years. It was delayed by the cuts in the hospital building programme imposed by the Labour Government, and further delayed because of recent changes in design and hospital building policy. My constituents will heave a sigh of relief now that the first stage is under way for completion in 1987. By the time the entire 670-bed hospital is ready, no doubt one or more of our older hospitals will be closed. I hope that there will be no criticism from the Opposition when they are closed, because those hospitals will have outlived their usefulness and will have been replaced by modern ones.
  The debate is about resources for the NHS. The word "crisis" has been overworked, since, within a year of its birth, Aneurin Bevan put a lid on NHS expenditure. The debate is also about demand, and we ignore at our peril the facts contained in the Green Paper on public expenditure, to which the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) referred, the trends to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) referred

  527
  —he also quoted the anxieties of the chairman of Wessex regional health authority, which were reported in a local newspaper under the heading,
  "Action Now on NHS or Collapse within 20 Years"—
  and the warnings given at this week's conference of the British Medical Association.
  In response to present demand, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessors have done all the right things. He has more than maintained public expenditure on the NHS since 1979, which is no mean achievement during a world recession. He is achieving greater efficiency per pound spent on health care and is pursuing more. He is right to reorganise management and to introduce manpower monitoring. To be the largest employer in western Europe invites scrutiny of labour, especially when the number of employees in the NHS grew by about 487,000 between 1970 and 1980, which matched exactly the growth of the British population during that decade. We had one extra employee for each extra citizen born.
  My right hon. Friend is right to ask health authorities to submit plans for contracting out non-medical services where real savings can be made, especially as hospitals in other countries make far greater use of private contractors. In France, Belgium and Germany the figure is 50 per cent.; in Denmark it is 60 per cent.; and in New Zealand and Socialist Sweden it is 70 per cent. In Britain we contract out only 2 per cent. of services. That is the measure of what can be achieved in this area.
  However, the signs are that what my right hon. Friend is doing will not be enough to provide resources to satisfy the expected and predicted demand on the NHS. When that problem was put to the Think Tank two years ago, its recommendation to change to a service based on insurance funding was never published and was immediately shelved. But no responsible party should assume that a nationalised Health Service such as ours is or will ever be superior to any alternative system. We should not assume that it will match people's expectations or demands in the future. Indeed, more and more people—more than 4 million to date—are showing their dissatisfaction with their feet, by paying not once but twice for medical cover.
  The Government should now look positively in the direction of a greatly enlarged private health service if their successors are to satisfy the future demand to which we have all been alerted. We should not be afraid to put that case to the British people, who are prepared to accept greater responsibility for their health needs and those of their families. That does not mean that we should go down the American road, where it seems that one is left untreated if one does not have a membership card or if they have run out of Medicaid funds for that year. We should encourage evolution towards a more balanced partnership based on a closer working relationship between both services, to avoid wasteful duplication of resources.
  Several initiatives that should soon be taken by the Government and the private sector will help to determine the potential without committing either party to it. The private sector — the insurers and hospital groups —remains its own worst enemy. It seems completely incapable of getting its act together and presenting the Government with sensible recommendations for private sector development. A national council representing the five main components is long overdue. Of course, the
  528
  sector is far too small with 7,000 private hospital beds and 3,000 pay beds, and is insufficiently competitive in its choice of cover. The public must have a wide range of choice in price, so we should encourage more British, American and indeed European enterprises to become established here, just as we are capable of exporting our health services and hospital capability.
  Many advantages could be gained by breaking down our personal income taxation so that taxpayers are more aware of how much they are paying towards their social security and the NHS. It is not generally understood that 85 per cent. of the cost of the NHS comes from general taxation and 11 per cent. from national insurance contributions. Surely it is not beyond the capability of our computers to separate income tax from a health tax and social security tax— [HON. MEMBERS: "What will that do for sick people?"] It will make all of us as taxpayers and consumers more aware of the lack of value for money for the taxes which we pay.
  While I have reservations against all forms of tax relief and allowances, instead preferring lower general income tax, I believe that there is a strong and sensible case for providing tax relief for health insurance premiums for those aged 65 and over. That is the age of which most people find that their incomes fall; usually quite significantly, while at the same time they are faced with a rise in subscriptions. Understandably, many of them let their subscriptions lapse for economic reasons at the start of the very time of their lives when they are likely to need more medical cover. Consequently, the NHS picks up the bill. Surely it is better to encourage the maintenance of private cover for the rest of their lives at minimum loss to the Revenue by giving tax relief on their private medical insurance subscriptions than for the NHS and the state to take on the full cost of their care.
  The NHS has done, and is doing, an extremely good job, but the demands made upon it now, and the demands that are expected, are and will be beyond the capacity of the NHS, and the gap between demand and resources will widen. We must now approach the private sector positively to make up the balance and to respond to the growing demand of our people to accept greater responsibility for themselves rather than to rely on the state.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Ernie Roberts: I shall be brief as many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate. I can remember the 1920s and 1930s. I also remember that a national health service was opposed by previous Tory and Liberal Governments. It was introduced by a Labour Government who always fought for a health service paid for out of taxation.
  The Government are butchering the health services, and by doing so are killing people. In spite of all their bleating about spending more, they continue to cut back on health services and are closing hospitals. That is what is happening in places such as Hackney where hospital closures have taken place. At present, patients and citizens are occupying St. Leonards hospital which the Government are attempting to close.
  Yesterday I received a message from the doctor responsible for the drug unit at Hackney hospital telling me that no further drug cases could be taken on because of insufficient finance. Similarly, I have received letters from staff and patients from the neurological rehabilitation

  529
  unit asking me to protest against the threatened closure of this essential and important unit. All this is in spite of the bleating of the Minister for Health about what the Government are doing for the Health Service. We should judge them by their actions. The people of Hackney do so, and are dissatisfied because the area does not enjoy many of the health services.
  I have concrete evidence of how the Government's actions are placing the nation's eyesight in danger. Like me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you wear glasses, as does the Secretary of State for Social Services. The glasses that I am now wearing were bought today as a result of a handbill which has been distributed to many thousands of people.
  It states:
  "Guaranteed superb quality reading glasses — £6·50 to £13·50. Why pay more? Victoria Market, 5 Wilton Road".
  I went along and discovered that the stall was next door to a clairvoyant. I did not know whether to go to the clairvoyant first to get a prescription, but I went to the stall and was told, "Try these on for size." I did and read the card displaying various sizes of print. They did not do, so I tried another pair and they did not do. I then tried on another pair and asked, "What is happening?", and was told, "They are getting stronger each time." Eventually I purchased the ones that I am now wearing, and I can read with them.
  The handbill, under the heading of "Your Eyesight", contains some dangerous information, which must be the responsibility of the Government. It states:
  "Reading difficulties which come with age, our consultant reports, are not a defect but a natural ageing process—very like greying hair…The eye's lens hardens with time and is no longer supple enough to focus on near objects. This generally affects both eyes equally and one needs only a pair of identical simple magnifying lenses"—
  which these glasses are, but even though I can read with them I can see better when I take them off—
  "to allow for this and restore ease of reading. The slight difference between the two lenses"—
  that applies to my glasses—
  "of many spectacles supplied by opticians are added only because there is no further inconvenience. The customer is often unable to tell the difference between a pair that includes them and a pair that does not."
  These glasses do not fit properly and fall off when one bends down.
  I went to Dollond and Aitchison, the opticians in Victoria street, and had my prescribed glasses and the new pair checked. The results show a clear difference between the glasses that I bought, with which I can read, and the spectacles that I had prescribed. Therefore, glasses that are sold in this way are far from satisfactory and could be dangerous to those who buy them.
  Furthermore, poor people, such as those I represent, will be driven to these places to buy glasses. As in the 1930s, people will begin purchasing spectacles from second hand shops and off stalls, where they are even cheaper. The old and the poor, who cannot afford to go to the optician to get a proper pair of glasses, will be forced to purchase them elsewhere. It is time that the Government looked at the real problems of the Health Service instead of bleating about how much they are spending on it.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Mike Woodcock (Ellesmere Port and Neston): In response to your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be brief. Like many hon. Members, I am concerned about the state of the NHS. However, I am less concerned about the
  530
  amount of cash that the Government give the NHS than I am about the management of the Health Service, the concern shown by the NHS for local opinion, waste in the Health Service, lack of health education in our schools, lack of stability caused by constant reorganisation and the level of management training in the NHS. If we showed more concern about these things, we would go a long way towards bridging the gap between what the NHS can do and what we would like it to do.
  I am one of those fortunate people who has never had to spend a day of my life in hospital, but I have had cause to be grateful for the availability of casualty and minor injuries units. I know how important they are in an emergency, and appreciate the importance of people knowing when and where they are available.
  There is such a unit in Ellesmere Port in ray constituency. It is small by casualty unit standards, but it treats 10,000 cases each year. For many years it has provided a reassuring, effective and acceptable service. It has provided exactly the service that should be provided and has been much appreciated locally.
  The service is, and was, additionally important for three reasons. First, it is important because Ellesmere Port is an industrial town and provides 15 per cent. of all the jobs in Cheshire. Many cases treated at the unit are the result of industrial injuries. Secondly, the unit is important because there are 25 schools within a mile or so of it. They regularly use the facility. Thirdly, it is important because the town is in a depressed area with a high unemployment rate, a particularly high youth unemployment rate and a high proportion of elderly people, many of whom do not have the facilities to go to alternative units by private transport.
  In spite of that, in October last year the district health authority proposed the closure of the unit on cost-saving grounds. Much concern was expressed locally and many representations were made to the district and regional health authorities. Many constituents wrote to me, including teachers, nurses, industrialists and family men and women. A petition containing 12,000 signatures was organised. The borough council strongly opposed the proposal and went as far as to consider the possibility of financing the unit itself. The community health council also opposed the proposal.
  Nevertheless, the district health authority pressed ahead and after the consultation process the Minister confirmed that he will allow the closure. The case for closure was based on cost savings, but I think that the closure is likely to increase the cost of treatment. The authority says that the savings, based on staff costs, non-staff costs, medical supplies and overheads, will amount to £51,000 a year. That is £5 per patient treated.
  One might think that that is a modest amount for the treatment of one person, but that calculation ignores the fact that patients will still have to be treated elsewhere and that costs will be incurred. It ignores the fact that no staff redundancies will take place, when staff costs total 75 per cent. of the £51,000. Even more important, the calculation ignores the extra costs that will have to be borne by the community. It ignores the costs of extra transport to the alternative facilities at the West Cheshire hospital. It is estimated that over £15,000 will have to be spent on bus fares alone for the additional journeys.
  The calculation also ignores the extra time taken by patients and those who accompany them when travelling to the alternative facilities. It ignores the extra loss of

  531
  working time and disruption to production in factories. It also ignores the fact that some people, because of extra time or cost, may not even bother to present themselves for treatment.
  I do not say that savings should not and cannot be made. The National Health Service is the nation's largest employer. It employs almost 1 million people. Since 1979 National Health Service expenditure has risen from £7·75 billion to £16 billion—that is 18 per cent. over the sum required to compensate for inflation. Between 1971 and 1981 about 200,000 extra staff were employed in the service.
  In any organisation as vast as the NHS in which spending has risen to that extent, efficiency should be increased and savings made wherever possible. In the long term the best way to preserve and expand the National Health Service is to ensure that it provides an efficient service at reasonable cost. That necessitates constant review of practices and resources.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Basically, I agreed with the arguments about cost expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock). I was not impressed by the cost case put forward by the authority. It seemed to me that cost savings were being used as an excuse for a decision that should be based on service grounds. I have never approved of closure on cost-cutting grounds alone. In this case, on balance, I thought that a better service could be provided by the transfer. I think that using cost-cutting as the reason for the closure was a lazy way to present the case that my hon. Friend has effectively destroyed.
  Mr. Woodcock: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister. My point is that, although savings and increased efficiency are necessary, savings within the NHS should not be the result of imposing greater financial burdens on services outside the NHS. It is a false saving to eliminate cost-effective local services by increasing the cost to industry and to the public. Such closures are unnecessary. I suggest 10 areas that the NHS and the Government could consider to improve efficiency and so prevent such closures as that which is about to take place in my constituency.
  First, the NHS should look at its own administrative tail and to the 100,000 or more administrators and 100,000 ancillary staff which it employs. Secondly, the NHS and the Government should make greater use of the opportunites to privatise ancillary services because of the cost reductions that could be so obtained.
  Thirdly, the NHS should examine and learn from the management techniques and manpower planning and management training practices of some large employers in the private sector. Fourthly, it should recognise that voluntary help is important in the Health Service and do more to welcome it.
  Fifthly, the NHS and the Government should now stabilise the organisational structure of the service because continual changes undermine morale and efficiency. One NHS administrator told me, "It seems that in the NHS constant change is here to stay." Recently I led a discussion with a group of senior Health Service staff which included the chairman of a health authority, the senior nursing officer, the health authority secretary,
  532
  treasurer, medical administrator and a senior surgeon. They were united in the view that the major need now is for a period of stability in long-term plans.
  Sixthly, the National Health Service and the Government should together examine ways of utilising unemployed people to assist with care in the community. Seventhly, the Government should encourage private health care, if necessary by tax incentives, not to undermine the NHS but to reduce the burden on hard-pressed resources.
  Eighthly, there should be a tighter audit on those who practise both inside and outside the Health Service. Ninthly, we should all recognise that the nation's health needs are social, mental and physical—probably in that order, and not in the reverse order, as much spending now assumes. Finally, we should pay more attention to health education, particularly in our schools. It is nonsense that many schools insist upon religious education but not compulsory health education. If we paid more attention to health education we should come closer to the health service that we require and move away from the present national disease service.
  If the NHS and the Government concentrated on those 10 areas there would be less need to argue, as we have argued all afternoon, about the financial resources devoted to the NHS, and we should have a much more efficient and effective Health Service.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: I take hon. Members' minds back to October 1982, when the Prime Minister, at the Tory party conference, said:
  "The NHS is safe with us."
  Last October she said:
  "The NHS is safe only with us."
  I do not apologise for repeating those oft-repeated words. A previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), had the words "at a stroke" hung firmly round his neck. We should never let the present Prime Minister forget the words:
  "The NHS is safe only with us"
  if for no other reason than her great belief in her divine right. Who knows, she might try to walk on water!
  The Government's policies are driving us towards a two-tier Health Service—a private sector looking after the healthy and the wealthy, and a poorly financed and demoralised Health Service designed to look after the rest of us. In one short year since the Government took office, what have they done? They have cut the cash for health services in real terms, slashed staffing levels for the first time in the history of the NHS and forced local health authorities to privatise ancillary services. They have done all that they can to encourage the development of the private sector in health care.
  In last year's election campaign the Secretary of State claimed that the Tories had increased spending on the NHS by 7·5 per cent. in real terms during the previous four years. He did not point out that, because of increasing demand, that figure was needed just to enable the service to stand still. Arthur Taylor, the chairman of the Newcastle area health authority, who was confirmed in office by the present Government, has said on television that an increase of 1·5 per cent. per year means simply that the service stands still.
  The Prime Minister constantly bleats about being the daughter of a grocer. She talks about the need to run

  533
  services with the efficiency of a corner shop. The House of Commons Social Services Select Committee said in 1972 that the Government's use of the phrase "efficiency savings" had become a euphemism for expenditure cuts. That cannot be denied. Within a month of the general election, which saw the Tory arty promising to look after the Health Service, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cut £140 million from the hospital and community health services budget. As a result, our Health Service is approaching chaos, because health authorities are faced with a 1 per cent. cut in budgets only four months into the financial year.
  The Government's own calculations for growth by 1·2 per cent. were reduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to just over 0·2 per cent. In 1983–84, despite the growing demands, services have been cut by between 2 and 2·5 per cent. Because of this, hospitals in cities, towns and villages are under threat. Since May 1979, 160 hospitals have been fully or partly closed, with the loss of 8,000 beds, and the threat of closure is hanging over 35 community hospitals and 50 other hospitals in London. Family planning clinics have been axed and some 6,000 newborn babies are at risk each year because of the lack of special care units.
  In the face of that situation, the Government claim that more nurses and doctors are working in the NHS than ever before. Good-oh. However, the Government do not brag about the record level of unemployment among nurses and doctors. Between 1979 and 1982, unemployment among qualified midwives and nurses more than doubled, from more than 4,000 to more than 9,000. In September 1982, when the Government conveniently stopped collecting evidence on unemployment within the NHS, nearly 1,500 doctors were unemployed. Yet there has never been greater demand for comprehensive health care. Even the British Kidney Patient Association states that 3,000 patients are dying each year because of lack of treatment. Perhaps one should allow for the fact that pressure groups tend to make extravagant claims, but even if we assumed that the association had overestimated the figure by 100 per cent., 1,500 patients could still be dying each year. That is a damnable state of affairs.
  The Tory manifesto of June 1983 stated:
  "Conservatives reject Labour's contention that the State can and should do everything. We welcome the growth in private health insurance in recent years…We shall continue to encourage this valuable supplement to state care."
  What is being reflected in present developments is the fact that private practice can survive only as a parasite on the NHS. Private health insurance does not cover childbirth or provide the care offered in our NHS for the very elderly. Private insurance does not cover provision for the mentally ill or mentally handicapped, which costs the NHS so much. The only services in which the private organisations such as BUPA are interested are the lucrative patient services. They do not care about the needs of the community. They care only about the needs of their bank managers.
  Why should men and women who may have lived through two world wars, brought up families and contributed a great deal to the wealth of the country now be treated as unwanted commodities to be shunted off into some place that is financially convenient for Governments rather than socially and morally acceptable to the old people concerned and their families? When someone has spent his life in a certain town, what justification is there
  534
  for pushing him into a large hospital somewhere else when the facilities exist in his own community to enable him to live out his life contented and happy, with his own folks around him? Yet hospitals which offer geriatric care are to be closed because the Prime Minister is too tight-fisted to finance them. I hope that the Minister for Health will explain to the elderly who have given so much to this country why the Conservative Government have neither the time nor the money to look after them.
  As more and more of our Health Service is privatised, more and more of our health provision will be centralised in the major cities. It is not profitable to run hospitals in rural areas, and unless the Government can make a profit out of everything—including the care of the sick and disabled — provisions which may have existed for decades will simply disappear. We must fight to save our Health Service. Although the Prime Minister's performances in recent times could make one doubt it, we still live in a democracy in which the Government do not have power to destroy without recourse to the electorate. That is why public campaigns are so important in educating families on the dangers of allowing our Health Service to bleed to death.
  At some time, every one of us—or some member of our family—will need the facilities of a hospital or the services of a doctor. We must fight to regain and retain the principles of the NHS. It was supposed to be a service which would be free at the point of use and funded out of general taxation. We all need that facility, and we need to retain the NHS at a high level, as a comprehensive and universal service.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I hope that the fact that my speech will last only for three or four minutes will enable one more hon. Member—or even two more hon. Members—to take part in this interesting debate. I regret the fact that I missed the speech of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) because I was detained in Committee elsewhere. However, I heard the speech of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), who made roughly the same points. The right hon. Gentleman said that waiting lists in north Staffordshire were excessively long. The hon. Lady said that waiting lists in the west midlands region were excessively long. We can all refer to individual constituency cases, and identify distortions in the waiting list pattern. However, I should like to suggest a practical solution to the hospital waiting list problem.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: Euthanasia?
  Mr. Heddle: That remark is not worthy of a gentleman who has spent some of his time in an intellectual environment.
  Of the 700,000 people on hospital waiting lists, about 120,000 want orthopaedic surgery. One such person, a 78-year-old great-grandmother, came to my advice bureau in 1981 having been told by her orthopaedic surgeon in the west midlands region that she would have to wait more than 40 years to have her hip replaced. Her hip was causing her pain and might have caused her early death. The problem was the result of a road accident 12 years before. Because pain is not a criterion used by health authorities for a non-urgent case such as hers and because the demand

  535
  on the surgeons in that part of the west Midlands was such, she could not have her operation. For a 78-year-old, the prospect of a 40-year wait is unbelievable.
  I wrote 360 letters to orthopaedic surgeons throughout the United Kingdom. I am happy to say that one, at Stracathro general hospital in Scotland, replied saying that he had only a six-month waiting list and that if she was prepared to travel to Scotland at her own expense to be examined and if he deemed that her case was urgent and if her doctor was prepared to allow her to travel back to Scotland for the operation, he was prepared to put her on his waiting list.
  Mrs. Caroline Pulcella had her operation within six months and now, at the age of 80, she can look forward to at least another 20 years of active life. If an ordinary overworked hon. Member writing 360 letters can identify a vacancy on a surgeon's list somewhere in the country, I believe that a computer and a computer bed bank could do it in a matter of seconds. My right hon. and learned Friend will of course tell me that I am citing an exceptional rather than a general case. I entirely accept that, but the previous Labour Government set up, under Professor Duthie, an inquiry into the problem of hospital waiting lists. He reported to the Department early in the previous Conservative Government's term of office. In response to that report, the Minister said:
  "I particularly welcome the emphasis the report places on the need for collaboration between doctors, other professional and management teams, in evaluating the efficiency of their existing services, and in studying how they may be improved within the resources available to them. In my view, the approach proposed by the working party should be studied also by those in other surgical specialities."
  The time has now come for the Department to announce the pilot scheme to see whether a computer bed bank which links hospital waiting lists with surgeons' operating lists is possible and to see whether patients in genuine need can travel from one part of the country to another to have their pain relieved.
  Today's debate is not about the district health service or the regional health service but about the National Health Service. Everyone, whether living in England, Wales, Scotland or even the EEC, has an equal right to the facilities and access to the facilities which the NHS offers. A computer bed bank, if only initially on a regional basis, might provide a solution to the problem of hospital waiting lists.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I was interested in what the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock) said, as he gave us something other than the catalogue of approbation that we have heard from most Conservative Members. Today's debate, which is supposed to demonstrate our solidarity on the 36th anniversary of the foundation of the NHS, has not taken the debate about where the NHS should go much further forward. The knockabout across the House has demonstrated the accuracy of the alliance amendment.
  There can be no doubt that the NHS needs more resources. There always has been and always will be such a need. It is obvious wherever we go. I am regularly assailed by constituents who tell distressing stories of long and painful delays for treatment. Whenever new treatments or techniques become available, they are
  536
  immediately assumed to be available to everyone, whatever the cost. In that respect I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who honestly drew attention to the problem that expectation will always outrun resources.
  A debate on the NHS and which Government put more resources into it which failed to recognise the fundamental problems of accountability and the legitimacy of decisions on health provision and financial control does not do much to help the marvellous service to which many hon. Members have paid tribute. As the Secretary of State showed, we judge how well a Government are looking after the NHS by the amount of money that is spent on treatment and how many patients are treated.
  In one way, that is entirely the wrong end of the telescope, as success might better be measured by reductions in the amount spent on the curative service. It is odd that we tend not to consider whether the nation is healthier. It has constantly been said that the prime aim of the NHS is preventive. Beveridge said that, as did the Merrison Royal Commission, and yet today we still spend only 7p on health education for every £1 that is spent on curative medicine.
  It is significant that it is the women's movement which is leading the field in changing our perception of health care. It is significant that the Well Woman clinic, for example, is drawing attention to a different way of looking at the type of service which we need and which might be possible in future. In 1983, more than 2,000 young women died of cervical cancer. The death rate from that complaint has risen from 11 per cent. in 1969 to 30 per cent. in 1980. That is not evidence of our becoming a healthier nation. However, the recommendations sent out by the Department suggest that tests be made only every five years and general practitioners are paid only for tests on women over 35. The health authority in Cornwall, which ignores those guidelines, has found that deaths from cervical cancer in its area have fallen by 60 per cent. since 1969. Such health care is not getting the attention that it deserves.
  Because the subject is highly emotive, and because the needs of the Health Service are infinite, it is an easy subject for any party to launch an attack from the Opposition Front Bench. Following his period as Minister of Health, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) wrote honestly and shrewdly:
  "The separation of the power to tax from the power to spend ensures that health authorities have no incentive whatever to make economies, or even to extol the successes and virtues of their facilities. Just the opposite."
  He made an interesting comment when he added:
  "The contrast between the nationalised and local health services is not explained solely by the fact that the local elected representatives share the responsibility. It extends far beyond the politicians and goes right through all who provide and use the services. One does not find the professions in the local health services embattled against local government as the professions in the National Health Service are embattled against the central Government."
  The problem of raising the finance for the proper type of health services that we need lies in the fact that the RHA and DHA members have no electors to whom to answer. They have no decision to make on what their areas can afford and they have no public forum to which to report. Rudolf Klein, in his book "Politics of the NHS", described
  "the uncomfortable shifts in management style and structure in a vain attempt to control service."
  He repeatedly comments that

  537
  "the local option has never been tried."
  My hon. Friends and I believe that it is about time that it was tried.
  The only other point on which time permits me to comment is the question of clinical freedom. Nye Bevan in 1947 gave the assurance that it was "a basic principle" that there should be no interference with the clinical freedom of any doctor. I am concerned that there is an understandable deference on the part of lay people and politicians towards clinicians which is increasingly detrimental to broader health care.
  There is a constraint on clinical freedom, and that constraint is the waiting list. Rather than have what is an unspoken and negative constraint, we need to look at legitimate ways of balancing the positive benefits of such freedom with the damaging effects elsewhere. A start could be made by developing the medical audit. What evidence there is for this concept goes back to the turn of the century in America and back to the 1930s in Britain. People examined the quality of service and the results of certain kinds of treatment and drew conclusions from that. That work has not been acted on and we have not developed the medical audit. As a result, we have the way in which clinical freedom motors at expenditure without necessarily producing results.
  The NHS deserves better treatment than it has received from the Front Benches today. There is a crisis and a huge problem, and it does no good to pretend that it can be solved by centralised management or by pumping more and more cash into the existing service. We face a very difficult prospect and it is about time that we tackled it.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. John Maples: I hope that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the road which he has been exploring, because I wish to confine my remarks to the Griffiths report.
  We can probably all agree that our objective is to see that the NHS delivers the best possible health care for the money available. That involves the most effective use of the resources that are available to the service.
  There is some confusion between input and output. People boast about the amount of staff or money that they would devote to the NHS, but those are inputs. The outputs are represented by the quality of health care. The relationship between them depends on how the money and staff are used, and the processes by which those decisions are arrived at are what management is all about.
  The need for better management in that respect in the NHS is clear. A telling passage about it appeared in the Griffiths report, on page 10:
  "The NHS does not have the profit motive, but it is, of course, enormously concerned with control of expenditure. Surprisingly, however, it still lacks any real continuous evaluation of its performance against criteria such as those set out…Rarely are precise management objectives set; there is little measurement of health output; clinical evaluation of particular practices is by no means common and economic evaluation of those practices extremely rare."
  I should have thought that that was a telling and fundamental criticism of the way in which necessarily scarce resources are managed and that it was an almost overwhelming argument for the type of management system which the Griffiths report proposed.
  I suspect that the fear which people seem to have of the implementation of a general management system has to do
  538
  with fearing — I believe wrongly — that the style of management would be dictatorial and that professional work would be controlled by non-professionals with an eye only to cost. No large service organisation, particularly one which is delivering a public service such as health care, could function in that way.
  Management plans must be agreed by most of the people involved in working with them, or they will not work. While everybody must be involved in the decision-making process, management is about making sure that there is clear individual responsibility for implementing the decisions which are taken.
  It was also clearly the intention of the Griffiths report that clinicians should be involved in those procedures, for the report said that it was essential to
  "involve the clinicians more closely in the management process, consistent with clinical freedom for clinical practice. Clinicians must participate fully in decisions about priorities in the use of resources."
  Thus, it is not the intention to involve them less in the process, but to involve them more than is the case at present, and if it is on that ground that the fear of the change proposed by the Griffiths report is founded, I hope that that fear will not be borne out. I am sure that it will not, and perhaps, when he winds up the debate, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will say how the Labour party views the proposals in the Griffiths report. If he does not agree with them, perhaps he will tell us how he would propose to deal with management problems in the Health Service.
  We are all aware that staff costs account for much of the budget of the NHS. The South East Thames regional health authority is responsible for the area in which my constituency lies. During 1978–83, when enormous cuts are supposed to have taken place, it increased its work force by nearly 2,000, from 64,500 to 66,500. I do not resent that, for I do not suggest that manpower policy should be directed only to getting rid of employees. It should be directed to ensuring that employees are used in the most effective way to deliver health care to patients. If someone is employed by the Health Service, let us ensure that that is what he does. Let us ensure that Health Service employees are utilised properly.
  Several hon. Members have referred to unit costs, especially to the performance indicators that are published by the Department. The indicators tell an interesting story. I shall quote some telling comparative figures for the South East Thames regional health authority and the Oxford regional health authority. For example, the South East Thames authority employs 441 ancillary workers per 100,000 patients treated, against 278 in Oxfordshire. On the same basis, the South East Thames authority employs 250 clerks and administrators, against 203 in Oxfordshire. The Thames authority employs 61 management staff, as against 44 in Oxfordshire. There may be good reasons for the massive disparities, but they cry out for management attention.
  Some comparisons are even more telling. The cost of preparing 100 items of laundry can vary from £4·50 to £18. That is a huge disparity. Ambulance trips can cost between £7 and £17 depending on the local authority involved. The cost of a maternity admission can vary between £215 and £690. These are pieces of evidence to which any management should want to address itself to ascertain whether more efficient systems are available to allow it to free resources on overheads to deliver more patient care.

  539
  Another area to which new management might address itself is the Health Service Supply Council. At the end of last year, the Comptroller and Auditor General drew attention in one of his reports to the council, which had been instituted to try to get health authorities to co-ordinate their purchasing to save money. He reported:
  "My staff were unable to establish from their selective inquiries that HSSC activities since 1981 had resulted in any increase in the use of co-ordinated contracts by health authorities in England."
  That is a telling criticism of what was an extremely good idea. Such co-ordination would save money and allow it to be deployed on patient care.
  A third area to which a new management system might address itself is the choice of implementation of objectives, which so often goes by default or goes because a part of the Health Service has a momentum of its own or because consultants choose to do one thing rather than another. Should we perform less exotic and expensive operations and direct ourselves to humbler and cheaper ones? The queues for hip replacements and the treating of varicose veins and hernias could be reduced. It may not be possible to remove queues in the Health Service altogether, but it would be possible to remove some of them. Consultants often choose to do an exotic or interesting operation because it interests them rather than six or seven hip replacements. These are choices that lie with the Health Service, but they are often made by default rather than decision. Is some Health Service surgery too expensive? One heart transplant probably costs as much as 15 hip replacements.
  There has been some well-documented criticism recently of hospitals purchasing high technology equipment sometimes because another hospital down the road has the same piece of equipment. It seems that this happens because a hospital will say, "They have it, so why should we not have it too?" Very often there is no cost-benefit analysis. These are the sort of decisions taken by the management of the Health Service, with everyone involved discussing them, but they should be real management decisions. Decisions should not be allowed to go by default merely because that is how the system has developed or because an especially powerful consultant says that he wants to do something in a certain way.
  This leads to clinical practice, an area in which the chairman of the district health authority in my constituency says enormous savings lie. According to him and many others, consultants often do not know the costs of the different treatments which they can prescribe. If they knew the costs, they would make their decisions in that light. It is not that they would necessarily choose the cheaper treatment; they must be free to choose whichever they feel is most appropriate. But if one treatment costs 10 times as much as another — as it does, for example, in the difference in cost between human and pig insulin for the treatment of diabetes — that is a factor that the consultant should bear in mind when deciding which to prescribe.
  Doctors are often not aware of the costs. They are not involved in the decision-making processes that lead to the allocation of resources and the statement of objectives. If they made decisions in the light of the costs, resources would be used more effectively. The process in which consultants are involved in evaluation will show great
  540
  benefits. Doctors will then realise the cost of the different choices available to them and the trade-off between them. There can be trade-offs while the total resources of the NHS are limited.
  There is a clear need for better management in the NHS. The proposals in the Griffiths report will lead to that, and I look forward to their implementation. It will improve decision making and ensure proper evaluation of choices and proper allocation of resources to agreed objectives, so that plans can not only be made but can be implemented and monitored. Above all, it will lead to better health care for the community.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) in talking about the Griffiths report. If he had deigned to grace the Chamber with his presence a few Fridays ago, he could have taken part with other hon. Members in the six or seven-hour debate on the report.
  I hope that I shall be forgiven if I begin on a personal note. Members of other parties may not understand, but I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will when I say that I count it a great privilege to reply to the debate on the anniversary of the founding of the NHS—on behalf of the Labour party that founded it and against the Conservative party that sought to strangle it at birth.
  In July 1948, although I was only a child, I can remember how my parents—both Labour party members—were buoyed up with hope and pleasure when the NHS came into being. They, and thousands like them, had, in those familiar words on Labour movement banners, worked to educate, agitate and organise to achieve the establishment of a Health Service. It was the outcome of years of struggle by millions of ordinary people against the pain, suffering, inequality and impoverishment that had gone before. The benefits of that for working-class people were movingly explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) in his contribution to the debate.
  The Labour party manifesto of 1945 made a simple promise on health. It said:
  "The best health services should be available to all. Money must no longer be a passport to the best treatment."
  On those unimpeachable principles, the NHS was founded. It was, and it remains — despite all the Government's efforts to undermine it—the cheapest and most efficient system of health care in the developed world. But it is now under threat, not only in practice but in principle. The Right-wing obsessives who run the Conservative party challenge its continued existence. They claim that market place medicine can do the job better. They are arguing not only about practicalities—they are saying that individualism and greed are a sound basis on which to organise society. We know that they are wrong.
  Our view of the world conflicts with theirs, and nowhere is the distinction clearer than over the future of our nation's health. That is why there is such a fundamental division between the Labour party and the Government on the issue. We believe that people should obtain treatment when they are ill because they are ill—the Government do not believe that; we believe that the worse off should have priority—the Government do not; we believe that the NHS needs more money — the Government do not.

  541
  Apparently, faced with that fundamental division of belief between the Labour and Tory parties, all that the SDP-Liberal alliance can say is that there is a sterile current debate about the future of the NHS. It simply does not understand—perhaps the Tories do not understand either—that, when there are fundamental decisions to be made, one must come down on one side or the other. My impression is that if their intellectual forebears had been around in the United States at the time Abraham Lincoln said
  "'A house divided against itself cannot stand'";
  we cannot be
  "half slave and half free"
  the SDP-Liberal alliance would have said, "Oh yes, we can."
  We live in a society that is steeped in inequalities—not minor matters of how many colour televisions or videos there are but fundamental inequalities. It is still the case that manual workers are usually worse off, live in worse housing, work in worse conditions and get less pay. They are more likely to be unemployed, to be ill more often and to die sooner. There can be no greater inequality in life than an early death. Chronic sickness is twice as likely for an unskilled man and three times as likely for an unskilled woman as for a professional. We in the Labour party are saying that we want all our people to live as long as the well off and for their lives to be as healthy. Until that has been achieved, our society will be unjust and unequal. It will be a hard, long struggle to achieve that aim, but we believe that the National Health Service, true to its original principles, has a vital role to play in achieving that aim.
  What do the Government propose instead?
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: I am sorry, I shall not give way.
  Do the Government propose running down the NHS, starving it of money, decrying its efficiency, abusing its dedicated staff, constantly subjecting them to reorganisation and privatisation, and promoting private medicine instead? Many parts of our country are now badly served — not just deprived inner-city areas, but many rural areas where the collapse of public transport and other services makes getting proper health care difficult for many. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) pointed out, preventive work such as screening for cervical and breast cancer is being reduced and medical research is being cut back. It is not just those measures that are damaging the nation's health—3 million people cannot afford to heat the living areas of their homes, 6 million people lack some essential clothing, 5·5 million people cannot afford all the food that they need and the proportion of children getting school meals has decreased from two thirds to under one half during this Government's term of office. All those things damage our nation's health.
  We need to spend more on the NHS. We need to improve our hospitals, to staff them properly and to restore the confidence of people working in the Health Service; but we need to go much further. We need to make our health system more responsive to individuals' needs, including the special needs of women and the ethnic minorities, because early and sympathetic treatment is good for patients and costs less than later drastic remedies. We need more and better-directed efforts put into health
  542
  education. Even that will not be enough. Much ill health springs from poor housing, bad working conditions, inadequate diet and, above all, too much stress and strain. Yet the Government's general policies worsen working conditions. The Government care little about the environment, and less about the housing needs of poorer people. Above all, their policy of competition at all costs and of throwing 4 million people on the dole and filling those in work with fear of the dole is causing stress and strain such as we hoped had been banished from the end of the second world war.
  The Government's priorities for spending are wrong—more money for the army and police than for nurses and health workers, more money on the dole queue while hospital beds lie empty and waiting lists stretch years ahead, more money on status symbol weapons such as Trident, and less on research into cot deaths.
  The Prime Minister claims a mandate for all this. She wants us to go back to having flag days to raise money for our hospitals. If she is so confident that her priorities command the people's support, I offer her this challenge: try a few flag days to pay for Trident and give the Health Service the funds that it needs.
  Because the Government know that the Health Service is so successful and popular, they pretend to look after it, but they are like that guyed version of the Hippocratic oath:
  "Thou shalt not kill but need not strive officiously to keep alive."
  No one could accuse the Government of striving officiously in that respect.
  The Secretary of State spends most of his time in public fiddling the figures and making speeches claiming that all is well with the NHS. He did it again today. When I challenged him, I had not the figures readily to hand. But I can tell the House now that even the last Labour Government — many of whose actions on health I criticised before I came to the House and whose capital spending on hospitals the right hon. Gentleman abuses and despises—spent £654 million a year on average during their five years in office and that the present Government have not yet reached an average for their five years of £600 million a year.
  Mr. Fowler rose
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way.
  Mr. Fowler rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Fowler rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
  Mr. Dobson: I am merely using figures that the Minister gave me in answer to a parliamentary question on 4 November. In private the Secretary of State connives at the destruction of the Health Service. He claims in public that the Health Service is getting more resources than it is. However, Government spending on the Health Service has not kept up with the combined effects of inflation, the higher costs of medical technology and the needs of an aging population.
  Mr. Maples rose—
  Mr. Dobson: No. I shall not give way.
  Mr. Maples rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member will not give way to the Secretary of State, clearly he will not give way to a Back Bencher.
  Mr. Dobson: Without the increased income from prescription charges, the financing of the Health Service would be quite disastrous. Everyone but the Government knows the truth and by "everyone" I mean not just the Labour party and the trade unions but the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the junior hospital doctors. All say that there are cuts and that the cuts are doing damage to patient care. Can it be that we are all out of step except little Norman?
  When people ask what is the truth about the Government's claim to be spending more, I advise them to look around, to read their local papers, to watch local television and to listen to local radio. They should trust the evidence of their own eyes and ears. All over the country hospitals are closing, wards are closing and improved services are being postponed, and the Government's response is just a blather of statistics.
  The most distinguished politician to come from my constituency was Benjamin Disraeli, and we all know that he said there are
  "lies, damned lies and statistics."
  He said that before the Secretary of State was born. He also described the Tory party as "an organised hypocrisy", and so it is.
  The Government's alternative to a well funded Health Service is to promote private medicine. They know that every time that they damage the Health Service they help their friends in the private sector and that, every time they promote the private sector, they damage the Health Service. No one is more guilty of this than the Prime Minister. Honeyed words about the Health Service put together by her public relations advisers for slick delivery at Tory party conferences are one thing. Deeds are another. She claims to lead by example. Perhaps she does. But she should ponder the words of her favourite poet, Rudyard Kipling:

  "Ah! What avails the classic bent

  And what the cultured word,

  Against the undoctored incident

  That actually occurred?"

  Let me remind the House what actually occurred. The right hon. Lady has had two operations since becoming Prime Minister. In 1982 she had her varicose veins seen to at the Fitzroy Nuffield hospital. That was just plain, old-fashioned queue jumping; paying to get better treatment. However, the Prime Minister's next operation the following year was something different. She had a detached retina and it needed to be put right. There is no queue for detached retina treatment. The NHS can provide it. But what did the Prime Minister do? She appeared on television and said, "We chose a quiet little hospital near Windsor." She gave the impression that the NHS and all its staff were not good enough for her. Only the private Princess Christian hospital was good enough. What she did not say on television was that the equipment for the operation had to be borrowed from the King Edward VII NHS hospital down the road. Contrary to the impression that she deliberately created, only the NHS had the tools for the job. The private hospital could not cope.
  544
  What prospects for our country's health does private medicine, this Tory alternative, offer? Does it concentrate resources on patients and areas most in need? It does not; quite the reverse. Despite all the misleading advertisements by BUPA, its claim to classlessness has been rumbled. The general household survey shows that 23 per cent. of professionals and 19 per cent. of employers and managers have private medical insurance, compared with just 2 per cent. of semi-skilled and unskilled workers.
  The Government's policy is to shift health resources from what they call the prosperous south-east to other areas, but most existing private hospitals and the new ones have been and are being built in that very area. There is precious little private hospital building in the areas that the Government say need more hospital beds. Why? Because there is no money to be made. Private hospitals seek out not sick people, but quick profits.
  There is also the myth that private medicine supplements the NHS. To be fair to the Tories, not just they are involved. The Social Democratic party and the Liberals are at it too, in the form of Lord Wigoder, the Liberal peer who chairs BUPA. He said that NHS patients benefit because users of private medicine contribute tax and national insurance to the NHS while
  "for the most part seeking nothing in return."
  Poor man—being a Liberal, he does not know the facts. For a start, BUPA does not usually cover general practitioner visits, and 90 per cent. of everyone's contact with doctoring is through general practitioners. However, even more revealing is the fact that the general household survey shows that, for those with private medical insurance, more than half of their inpatient stays in hospital and four fifths of their outpatient attendances are made under the NHS. Those are official Government figures.
  As one of my hon. Friends said, private hospitals are parasites living off the NHS. In their unguarded moments, they admit it themselves. The Private Patients Plan, BUPA's greatest rival, drew up a feasibility study for a private hospital to be built on NHS land next to University College hospital in my constituency. The glossy brochure for potential investors stated:
  "The private sector would gain a high-quality, new, private hospital with the back-up availability of the full resources of a major teaching hospital. For a private hospital, the availability of sophisticated supporting services and skilled staff within University College Hospital would provide a range and quality of services which are not generally available in private hospitals and which probably could not be provided by other means."
  In other words, if the patients got really sick, they would be able to rely on the NHS.
  Following that example, United Medical Enterprises had a plan for a dozen private hospitals, each to
  "be developed in close proximity to a major teaching hospital."
  We all know why. Private hospitals also rely heavily on the NHS to provide pathology and other services. They must do so because they are so ill equipped. In 43 per cent. of them there is no radiology department, and in 70 per cent. no pathology laboratory. To promote private medicine the Government have given tax handouts to hospital companies, including American ones, and have changed consultants' NHS contracts to encourage them to moonlight in private hospitals. Most consultants do their NHS jobs, but no less a person than Oliver Rowell of Nuffield hospital publicly admitted that the present arrangements cause
  "some detriment to the NHS".

  545
  Jim Barker from American Medical International said:
  "a lot—or a significant number—of consultants abuse their NHS contracts."
  Almost all the skilled staff in private hospitals were trained in the NHS at public expense. It costs taxpayers £100,000 to train a doctor and £9,000 to train a nurse. That is yet another massive subsidy to the so-called independent sector. All over the country from St. Albans to Blackpool NHS hospital services are being damaged by the loss of trained nurses to private hospitals nearby.
  I have another objection to the Tory alternative to the NHS. On top of its incapacity and parasitism, it would introduce American values and practices to the detriment of patients and staff. Recently I received a letter from the United States which, as Tory Members will agree, describes the position more eloquently than I could. It states:
  "I was born, brought up, and trained as a State Registered Nurse in Southampton. I now live and work in the United States, although I am still a British citizen. I have worked as a Registered Nurse in Maryland and am now working in Tucson, Arizona; I hold licences in both states. Nursing in America is hard, high-stress, and very frightening. There is so much paperwork, so much 'litigation phobia' and so much emphasis on the abstract that it is hard to find time for the patients…I would do anything to prevent such a situation happening in England."
  So would anyone with sense.
  We face a stark choice about the future for the Health Service. The Government offer a two-tier system an accelerating rundown of the NHS to provide poor-law medicine for many and the development of highly subsidised, highly suspect private medicine for the healthier and better-off. The alternative is to return to the basic principles of the NHS, and to find sufficient resources to give health workers the tools with which to do their jobs. That must be accompanied by a new attitude to health care—a commitment to give full priority to the health implications of all that we do as a country, and to raising everybody's prospects to the level of the best.
  The trouble with the Tories is that they know that they are on the run. They know that the Opposition's analysis of the present and vision for the future has the support of the majority of British people. Labour Members are proud of the NHS, and British people cherish it to the same extent that hardline Tory Members fear and hate it. They hate it because it is based on Socialist principles, is popular and has blown a great hole in the idea that market forces are the answer to the world's problems. They fear it because its success and popularity demonstrates the effectiveness of Socialism in action. They are scared that people will think that if Socialist principles work in the Health Service they should be applied across the board.
  The Opposition are proud of what our party established on 5 July 1948. In adversity — we have had our bad times, and Tory Members will meet adversity ere long — we take heart from the commitment of those who struggled for years to give the great Nye Bevan the opportunity to set up the NHS. We take heart from the growing recognition of the British people that the Tories must not be allowed to destroy their Health Service. We are confident that it will survive even the most vicious attacks. We promise that the next Labour Government will restore a reinvigorated National Health Service to its right place in this country's priorities and, again, set an example to the world. We shall not rest until that job is done.
  9.34 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): It is my recollection that when the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) goes around the country delivering his speeches he usually rolls into town accompanied by the Labour party's campaigning ambulance. After hearing his performance over the past 25 minutes, I believe that the old van is beginning to run out of steam. I believe that that is true of the campaign being mounted on the National Health Service. The Labour party has, I will concede, had a pretty good run with its campaign about NHS cuts with the general public over the past 12 months, but the campaign is losing credibility, and the attempt to revive it this evening also lacks credibility.
  The Opposition made a fundamental mistake at the election, which can be made in politics, as it can be made in other walks of life. They cried wolf. They accused us of wishing to dismantle the National Health Service; they said that it was near to destruction; they said that they were saving the NHS from people who wanted to turn us into Americanised recipients of private practice. That has proved to be nonsense, and the attempt to sustain it is becoming sillier by the moment, and it has never been sillier than in the Front Bench speeches that we have heard today.
  I shall even agree with the alliance on half a point—the public are becoming more and more irritated with the sterile debate where one side howls "Cuts" about every problem in the Health Service, while we describe the growth in services and the attempt that we are making to develop services in the face of the demand. That is repeated each time a member of the Opposition Front Bench, and most of their Back Benchers, attempt to turn the figures on their heads and produce statistics which the public merely find a nuisance in the way of their understanding.
  Mr. Lofthouse rose—
  Mr. Clarke: If the Opposition Front Bench will not give way to the Secretary of State, I do not see why I should give way to the Opposition in the first 30 seconds of my speech.
  I was going to try to reply to the figures which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) gave. We are familiar with them. He made his usual attempt to try to demonstrate that an 18 per cent. real increase in expenditure is a cut if one makes all kinds of notional calculations. He criticises us for boasting that we have employed more doctors since we came into power—there are 6,519 more doctors. He was worried by our claiming that there are more nurses—there are 46,100 more nurses since we came into power. That is a 13 per cent. increase. I was going to deal with his attempt to try to turn all those matters into a rundown, a cut and a despairing cry on behalf of the Health Service, but the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras got up—
  Mr. Tony Favell: No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend heard the hon. Member for Oldham. West (Mr. Meacher) refer to a petition which was raised in and around my constituency. There is no finer place for a petition to be raised, because it is the best-attended shopping centre in the north-west. Since then I have had a word with the chairman of the district health authority, and my right hon. and learned Friend will be pleased to

  547
  hear that over the past three or four years there has been no reduction in services in Stockport, nor did the chairman foresee any reduction in services.
  Mr. Maxton rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounded rather more like a speech than an intervention.
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Oldham, West is no more reliable on the problems of Stockport than he is on the problems of the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras produced yet another variant of the figure of which he is proud, after an accusation that we were fiddling the figures. He was challenged, but he stood there refusing to retreat. He has the figures of the average capital spending in the period of the Labour Government compared with the figures for the period of our Government. He knows what is wrong with that comparison, which is why he would not give way. The Labour party took over a high capital programme and reduced it by 35 per cent. We took over a low capital programme and we have increased it.
  Mr. Dobson: No.
  Mr. Clarke: Oh yes, we have. The hon. Gentleman takes an average—
  Mr. Dobson rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall worry the hon. Gentleman by giving way in a moment. He is reckless to seek to intervene. He is taking an average from a pattern of a peak, a trough and a rise again, and he reckons that the average spend during the Labour period of government was higher than the average during ours.
  However, the hon. Gentleman is taking credit for the higher spending which the Labour Government inherited from the Conservative Government to get this higher average, and he is lumbering us with the problems of the low spend that we inherited, which brought our average down. I have the figures. At constant 1982 prices, the period of 1974–75 to 1979–80 shows an average of £652·5 million. In the period 1979–80 to 1984–85, the average is £652 million. On that totally fraudulent average, the hon. Gentleman can show, in a £652 million average, a £500,000 advantage to his Government, based on the fact that they inherited a big capital programme from us and we have not managed to get the programme up high enough now to get the £500,000 difference.
  Mr. Dobson: Unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not have a gang getting the figures for me. All that I can do is rely on the parliamentary answer given on 4 November by the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Minister said that when the Labour Government took office they immediately reduced the Tory level of spending. That is not true. The figures are these. The level of spending started at £711 million, which rose to £733 million, and went down to £714 million. There were then the cuts and the figure went down to £552 million, then it went back up again to £562 million and then, under this Government, it went down to £514 million. It then crept back up to £558 million and then to £650 million, then to £655 million and now, according to the answer that I received from the Library this evening, it has gone back down to £625 million.
  Mr. Clarke: I have never accused the Labour Government of immediately cutting capital spending, because they inherited a building and construction programme. They did not come in and immediately stop the benefits of what was under construction, so the spending for the first year or two was what they had inherited from the projects in the pipeline, which had been started by the previous Government. Our first year or two spending was what we had inherited from the previous Labour Government. When the crash came, they made a 35 per cent. cut, which set back the building of the new hospitals to which reference has been made. We are putting the capital spending up and bringing on the new hospitals again.
  There is an important figure about closures and openings. We have closed the old and opened the new. People correctly say that we have closed more old hospitals than we have opened new ones. That is because we have opened big new ones and closed small old ones. There is another figure. Between May 1979 and March 1984 we authorised closures representing 11,900 beds. Since we have been in office, in the same period, 34 new major schemes have opened, with 11,000 new beds. A whole lot of smaller schemes are providing yet more beds. My hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), and for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) are able to point their constituents in the direction of hospitals which were delayed by Labour Governments and inherited by us and opened. Only this afternoon the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital was formally opened for inpatients. The new hospitals are coming through the pipeline steadily and will improve patient care.
  We should not be arguing about the phoney figures that pour out of Transport house and the research departments of trade unions. We should measure the Health Service in the terms that matter to the public. They include how many patients are being treated, what is happening to waiting lists, what should be done about those awaiting treatment and where we are going. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave objective, dispassionate figures which were unchallenged. I shall not repeat those figures, which can be studied on the record. They show that more patients are being treated, there are more inpatients and outpatients, that waiting lists became shorter when we took office and are decreasing further after the hiccup of the strike, and that we are not just providing extra money—we have, of course, spent more money on the service—but are providing a substantially better service.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) so eloquently said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) said in an extremely clear speech which explained the point about value for money—it was immediately followed by a cheap remark from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who went on to give knockabout, spartist rubbish with his fiddled figures in the middle—our efforts to get better value for money come on top of extra spending. We should try to get more value for money to deliver more patient care and to deal sensibly and constructively with the needs which we know exist.
  The most criticised area of higher efficiency, because the day has been organised outside the House by the trade unions, is the tendering process which we are introducing to try to reduce the support costs of the NHS to a more

  549
  reasonable level so that we can release more money for patient care. The most amazing attack upon that operation was conducted earlier today, including an attack on several of my hon. Friends who are supposed to have private interests. No hon. Member on either side of the House has approached me or my colleagues on this subject without declaring an interest. No improper approach has been made. I have no evidence that any right hon. or hon. Member has behaved improperly, although that was the innuendo running through much of what was said.
  A source of such innuendo was The Guardian, which tried to attack my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State because he had had lunch with representatives of a catering association. My hon. Friend also had tea with the trade unions, and he will have dinner with the NHS catering and laundry managers. I have met the NHS catering managers. Ministers constantly meet anyone with a legitimate interest in their subject, and it is farcical to try to trivialise the attack on our policy in that way. Are the Opposition claiming, or is it their answer to the savings that have been made, that we are embarking on the exercise because of some shareholdings that may or may not be held by my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) or for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi)? We shall make substantial savings that will boost patient care and we shall continue to expand services in the way that we have done.
  Mr. Lofthouse: The Secretary of State and Conservative Members said much about savings and efficiency, but I wish to be clear what they mean by that. A few weeks ago, I visited Stanley Ryhood hospital, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison). I visited an all-male ward of aged people. These men had fought in two world wars, had worked hard all their lives, and had had psychiatric breakdowns, and their one pleasure in life was one day a year out with the staff. For the other 364 days they sat inside four walls. They were all looking forward to the following week, but when I went back that following week it had been decided that because of cuts and savings only half of those men could go on that one day outing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Is that the type of saving to which the Minister is referring?
  Mr. Clarke: I have visited the hospitals in Wakefield. I have met the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) and the chairman of the Wakefield health authority. Wakefield is suffering, not from cuts of any kind, but from a combination of demands. In particular, we are discussing ways of improving geriatric provision in Wakefield and are trying to sort out an effective policy.
  One way of improving services in Wakefield and elsewhere is to cut out unnecessary costs and to make sure that we provide basic support services at a competitive rate. At present, £1 billion is spent on catering, cleaning and laundry support services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West and others have said, the gap between the costs in the Health Service and outside makes it obvious that there are savings to be made which can be devoted to looking after more patients. If the Ministry of Defence were to make savings of up to 20 per cent., we would be talking about substantial sums.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that the Labour party would reverse privatisation. Presumably, in the interests of those who lobby the Labour party and
  550
  support it, he would eliminate those savings and go back to the spending levels which previously existed. If that is the vision that the hon. Member is offering to the electorate, I do not understand where that will lead to. He solemnly promised £500 million more on behalf of a future Labour Government. I do not think that he had the slightest authority from his shadow Chancellor to say so, but I may be contradicted. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman promised £500 million more in real terms.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West is committed to abolishing health charges, which in itself would absorb more than £400 million of that £500 million of new money. If he were to reverse the savings on tendering, he would overshoot his £500 million total before he even started. That financial commitment, even if he could make it, would, when combined with his other policy commitments, wipe out any advances that he might otherwise make in patient care. The monument to Socialism described by the hon. Member for Oldham, West is a return to what happened twice under a Labour Government. They would return to real cuts in NHS financing. That is something which we have never done and never propose to do.
  What are health authorities to do in the face of the Labour party resisting savings which it could make by reducing the costs of support services? Opposition Members made a great issue of Barking and claimed that privatisation had damaged Barking's interests. However, cleaning in Barking has always been carried out by a private contractor, and the same private contractor was given the tender at a reduced price after a fresh tendering process. Barking health authority now makes a saving. ft cut manning levels, but not wage rates. Barking has saved £143,000 in a year. — [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not want to listen. That £143,000, I am assured by the chairman of the Barking health authority, is being spent on improved nurse staffing levels and a night community nursing service. The Labour party is putting pressure on me and on the health authority to reverse those savings, to reinstate the previous arrangements and to go back to high staffing and high cost cleaning at the expense of improvements in nursing services.
  I ask the more responsible members of the Labour party, who have been outnumbered in the Chamber for most of the day, to ask themselves why they are putting pressure on the health authority to go back to high cleaning costs at the expense of nursing improvements, at the request of the people on the picket line inside and outside Barking hospital. Greenham common women and Kent miners are turning up. They take no notice of the so-called TUC guidelines about emergency supplies. In response to that pressure, the Labour party is eager to put up cleaning costs again in Barking to the level required by NUPE, and they have the nerve to say that we are pressing on because of our interests. The Opposition include 43 hon. Members sponsored by trade unions who are on the TUC health services committee.
  At the end of the last Labour Government, Mr. Roland Moyle, the then Minister for Health, was a NUPE-sponsored Member. He went through an entire strike with divided loyalties because the union was trying to close the service down and he, supposedly, was trying to keep it going.
  We know why we had that performance at the beginning of today's debate. We know why the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) went into a

  551
  diatribe, dragging out all his old and favourite phrases. We know why we had a procession of Members of Parliament, who do not often attend our health debates, getting in their points of order about outside interests. The reason was that two general secretaries of trade unions were sitting in the box under the Gallery. The general secretary of NUPE and the general secretary of COHSE were sitting there watching their creatures perform.
  Mr. Terry Lewis rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) should not do things like that.
  Mr. Clarke: It seems that I am being provocative. I am sure that not only my hon. Friends regret that members of a once great party should put on a lot of silly badges, sit here and perform in front of two general secretaries of two powerful unions. We are as concerned as anyone on the Opposition Benches about staff interests.
  Throughout today's debate there has not been a mention of the pay and conditions of nurses. There are a few nurses in COHSE, and fewer in NUPE, but they do not count inside the trade union movement, because they do not take industrial action. Labour Members, so passionate about nurses' pay two years ago, know that the recent settlement of nurses' pay was a triumph of common sense over militancy. The Government chose a special case with public support and gave those dedicated people an independent review body. We took the advice of that review body and gave a special case award in this year's pay round. That is our approach to the NHS—that and delivering patient care. I am sorry that our critics are driven by unpleasant pressures to make such a performance of themselves and such an unconstructive contribution.
  Mr. Michael Cocks 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 the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 297.

  Division No. 393]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Anderson, Donald

  Campbell, Ian

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ashton, Joe

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Bagier, Gordon A, T.

  Clarke, Thomas

  Banks, Tony (Newharn NW)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Barnett, Guy

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cohen, Harry

  Bell, Stuart

  Coleman, Donald

  Benn, Tony

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

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

  Corbett, Robin

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Cowans, Harry

  Boyes, Roland

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Craigen, J. M.

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Crowther, Stan

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

  Cunningham, Dr John

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

  Dalyell, Tam

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Buchan, Norman

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Caborn, Richard

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

  552

  Deakins, Eric

  Maxton, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Dixon, Donald

  Meacher, Michael

  Dobson, Frank

  Michie, William

  Dormand, Jack

  Mikardo, Ian

  Douglas, Dick

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dubs, Alfred

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Eadie, Alex

  Nellist, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

  O'Brien, William

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ewing, Harry

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Fatchett, Derek

  Park, George

  Faulds, Andrew

  Parry, Robert

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Patchett, Terry

  Fisher, Mark

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Flannery, Martin

  Pendry, Tom

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Pike, Peter

  Foster, Derek

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Foulkes, George

  Radice, Giles

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Redmond, M.

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Golding, John

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Gould, Bryan

  Rooker, J. W.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Hardy, Peter

  Rowlands, Ted

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Ryman, John

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Haynes, Frank

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Snape, Peter

  John, Brynmor

  Soley, Clive

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Strang, Gavin

  Lambie, David

  Straw, Jack

  Lamond, James

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Litherland, Robert

  Tinn, James

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Torney, Tom

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Loyden, Edward

  Wareing, Robert

  McCartney, Hugh

  Weetch, Ken

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Welsh, Michael

  McGuire, Michael

  White, James

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  McKelvey, William

  Winnick, David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Woodall, Alec

  McTaggart, Robert

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  McWiiliam, John

  Madden, Max

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Martin, Michael

  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton and

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Mr. John Home Robertson.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Beith, A J.

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amess, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Ancram, Michael

  Benyon, William

  Ashby, David

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Best, Keith

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Blackburn, John

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Baldry, Anthony

  Bottomley, Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  553

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

  Gregory, Conal

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

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

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Grist, Ian

  Bright, Graham

  Ground, Patrick

  Brinton, Tim

  Grylls, Michael

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Browne, John

  Hancock, Mr. Michael

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hannam, John

  Budgen, Nick

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Harris, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Harvey, Robert

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawksley, Warren

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

  Hayes, J.

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Cartwrlght, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Cash, William

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Heddle, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Henderson, Barry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hickmet, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

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

  Hill, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hirst, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Colvin, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Hooson, Tom

  Coombs, Simon

  Hordern, Peter

  Cope, John

  Howard, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

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

  Corrie, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Couchman, James

  Howells, Geraint

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Crouch, David

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dover, Den

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dunn, Robert

  Johnston, Russell

  Durant, Tony

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Kennedy, Charles

  Evennett, David

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Key, Robert

  Fallon, Michael

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Farr, Sir John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Favell, Anthony

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Knowles, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Knox, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Latham, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Forth, Eric

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fox, Marcus

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Franks, Cecil

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Lester, Jim

  Freeman, Roger

  Lilley, Peter

  Freud, Clement

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Gale, Roger

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Galley, Roy

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Maclean, David John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Major, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Maples, John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mather, Carol

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Greenway, Harry

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  554

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Stern, Michael

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Moore, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Stokes, John

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Murphy, Christopher

  Sumberg, David

  Needham, Richard

  Tapsell, Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Newton, Tony

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Norris, Steven

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Osborn, Sir John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Parris, Matthew

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Pawsey, James

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thurnham, Peter

  Penhaligon, David

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Porter, Barry

  Tracey, Richard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Trotter, Neville

  Powley, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Price, Sir David

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Viggers, Peter

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Walden, George

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Rost, Peter

  Wallace, James

  Rowe, Andrew

  Walters, Dennis

  Ryder, Richard

  Ward, John

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Warren, Kenneth

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Watson, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Watts, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Wheeler, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Whitfield, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Shersby, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Sims, Roger

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wolfson, Mark

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wood, Timothy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Speller, Tony

  Yeo, Tim

  Spencer, Derek

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Squire, Robin

  Mr. Ian Lang and

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question,That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 195.

  Division No. 394]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amess, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Ancram, Michael

  Benyon, William

  Ashby, David

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Best, Keith

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Blackburn, John

  Baldry, Anthony

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  555

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gregory, Conal

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

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

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

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Grist, Ian

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Ground, Patrick

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Grylls, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Brinton, Tim

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hannam, John

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Browne, John

  Harris, David

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Harvey, Robert

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Budgen, Nick

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Hawksley, Warren

  Butterfill, John

  Hayes, J.

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayward, Robert

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

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Cash, William

  Henderson, Barry

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hickmet, Richard

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hill, James

  Chope, Christopher

  Hind, Kenneth

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

  Hirst, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Holt, Richard

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hooson, Tom

  Colvin, Michael

  Hordern, Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Howard, Michael

  Coombs, Simon

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

  Cope, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Corrie, John

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Critchley, Julian

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Crouch, David

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Dover, Den

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Key, Robert

  Dunn, Robert

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Durant, Tony

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knox, David

  Evennett, David

  Lang, Ian

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Latham, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Farr, Sir John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Favell, Anthony

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lester, Jim

  Forman, Nigel

  Lilley, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Fox, Marcus

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Franks, Cecil

  Maclean, David John

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Major, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Maples, John

  Gale, Roger

  Mather, Carol

  Galley, Roy

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Moore, John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Greenway, Harry

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  556

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Needham, Richard

  Stokes, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Newton, Tony

  Sumberg, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tapsell, Peter

  Norris, Steven

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Osborn, Sir John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Parris, Matthew

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Pawsey, James

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Porter, Barry

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Powley, John

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Price, Sir David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Tracey, Richard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Trotter, Neville

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Rost, Peter

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rowe, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Ryder, Richard

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Walden, George

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Walters, Dennis

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Ward, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Watson, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Watts, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Silvester, Fred

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Sims, Roger

  Wheeler, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Whitfield, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wilkinson, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Speller, Tony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Spencer, Derek

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wood, Timothy

  Squire, Robin

  Woodcock, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Yeo, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Stern, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mr. John Hunt and

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Mr. Archie Hamilton.

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Ian

  Anderson, Donald

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Ashton, Joe

  Cartwright, John

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Clarke, Thomas

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Barnett, Guy

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cohen, Harry

  Beith, A. J.

  Coleman, Donald

  Bell, Stuart

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Benn, Tony

  Corbett, Robin

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

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cowans, Harry

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Boyes, Roland

  Craigen, J. M.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Crowther, Stan

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Cunningham, Dr John

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

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Buchan, Norman

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

  Caborn, Richard

  Deakins, Eric

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Dewar, Donald

  557

  Dixon, Donald

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Dobson, Frank

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Dormand, Jack

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Douglas, Dick

  John, Brynmor

  Dubs. Alfred

  Johnston, Russell

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kennedy, Charles

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Eadie, Alex

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Eastham, Ken

  Lambie, David

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Ewing, Harry

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Litherland, Robert

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Fisher, Mark

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Flannery, Martin

  Loyden, Edward

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  McCartney, Hugh

  Foster, Derek

  McCrea, Rev William

  Foulkes, George

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  McGuire, Michael

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Freud, Clement

  McKelvey, William

  Garrett, W. E.

  McNamara, Kevin

  Godman, Dr Norman

  McTaggart, Robert

  Golding, John

  Madden, Max

  Gould, Bryan

  Martin, Michael

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Maxton, John

  Hancock, Mr. Michael

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Hardy, Peter

  Meacher, Michael

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Michie, William

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Mikardo, lan

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Haynes, Frank

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Nellist, David

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Home Robertson, John

  Brien, William

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Neill, Martin

  Howells, Geraint

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Park, George

  558

  Parry, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Patchett, Terry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Pendry, Tom

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Penhaligon, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Pike, Peter

  Straw, Jack

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Radice, Giles

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Redmond, M.

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Tinn, James

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Torney, Tom

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Wallace, James

  Rooker, J. W.

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Wareing, Robert

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Weetch, Ken

  Rowlands, Ted

  Welsh, Michael

  Ryman, John

  White, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wilson, Gordon

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Winnick, David

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Woodall, Alec

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

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

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Noes:

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

  Mr. John McWilliam and

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

  Mr. Austin Mitchell.

  Snape, Peter

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the Government on its record of increasing the resources and efficiency of the National Health Service; applauds the higher level of service provided by the National Health Service and its staff which this has made possible; and supports the Government in its determination to maintain and develop a 'modern health service, giving maximum value to the public as patients and taxpayers.

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)
  10.26 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
  This is important legislation. The community in Northern Ireland continues to be subject to criminal attack from terrorists, and exceptional powers are therefore necessary for the protection of people in the Province. The House will know that this is the first occasion for some years that the issue of renewal has been put before Parliament against a background of a comprehensive and independent review of the emergency legislation.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel lonely? Before he started his speech, two or three of his colleagues, including the Prime Minister, were in the Chamber, but they have now gone. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe in what he is saying?
  Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman would have done better to keep his mouth shut.
  Sir George Baker delivered his report to me in March, and it was published in April. I have already made clear my regard for Sir George and for the depth, sincerity and clarity of his review. All hon. Members will have been deeply saddened to hear of his recent death. I take this opportunity—I am sure that all hon. Members join me—to pay tribute to him.
  The review of the emergency provisions legislation was Sir George's last public duty. His report showed the same remarkable qualities of humanity and fairness that marked all his work. Everyone who met him during his review was deeply impressed by the speed with which he grasped the complexity of the political and security situation in Northern Ireland. Moreover, we were all impressed by the depth of feeling which he quickly developed for the people of the Province. We were fortunate to receive a report from someone of such independence and powerful judicial integrity.
  There is no doubt that it is of vital importance that the emergency legislation applying in Northern Ireland should be subject to independent review from time to time so as to inform us in our regular scrutiny of such measures. The spirited and readable quality of Sir George's report will, I hope, stimulate and prompt wide-ranging debate in the House and throughout the country. There will be an opportunity in due course to debate Sir George's detailed conclusions and recommendations very thoroughly. I shall take most careful note of everything that is said in framing the Government's eventual response.
  Of course, some of Sir George's recommendations will require a great deal of study and consultation. Others can only be considered when the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill has reached the statute book. But I must make it clear that the Government are in broad agreement both with the tone of Sir George's report and with most of his conclusions and recommendations.
  Our starting point has been that we are committed to ridding the statute book of all emergency measures as soon
  560
  as improvements in the security situation allow. Until that time, those measures which remain necessary to enable the security forces to deal effectively with terrorism must be maintained with the minimum possible effect on the ordinary civil liberties of the citizens. We are also committed to seeing that these measures are enforced with due sensitivity. To decide what measures are necessary, we must have a realistic appreciation of the continuing capacity of terrorists to commit their appalling crimes of violence. Moreover, we must recognise that emergency measures of themselves are insufficient to deal completely with terrorism. As I said in the House on Monday, political and economic development within the Province are crucial to the long and hard fight to bring terrorism to an end and in increasing the identification of all parts of, the community with the forces of law and order.
  Sir George makes it clear, and the Government share his view, that there is no scope at present for making wholesale or fundamental changes to the emergency legislation which currently applies in the Province. Events since the last renewal of the Emergency Provisions Act have regrettably underlined this conclusion.
  I should remind the House that since 1 December 1983, there have been 47 deaths arising from the security situation in the Province. I know that hon. Members whose constituencies and preoccupations are on this side of the channel will appreciate from this hideous statistic just what violence confronts the community in Northern Ireland and the dreadful strains it imposes on the whole community, and I do not think that we should be in any doubt about the special strains that it imposes on Members of Parliament who come from Ulster and who have to bear the heat and burden of the day.
  Whatever the temporary setbacks, the resolve of the Government and of the security forces remains absolute. We are committed to enforcing the rule of law which is fundamental to any civilised society, and we are committed to doing it according to the highest standards of impartiality and justice. The initial responsibility for implementing this policy falls of course on the courageous and dedicated members of the security forces. I believe we owe a heavy debt to the extra ordinarily high standards of professionalism and devotion displayed by all the security forces in carrying out their duties under the law.
  It may help the House if I give a few figures to illustrate some of the success which the security forces are having in tackling terrorism. I do this because it is murders that make news. The successes that the security forces have had do not make news.
  Over the six-month period from the beginning of December to the end of May, 272 people were charged with terrorist-type offences, including 56 for murder and attempted murder, and 86 for firearms and explosives offences. In the same period, over 7,000 lb of explosives were found and a large number of devices containing over 4,000 lb of explosive were neutralised. These are the actual finds. They do not deal with the number of terrorist attacks that were frustrated as a result of security action, and they are numerous.
  In an environment in which terrorists seek to infect the community with suspicion and distrust for the very institutions that make humane government and an ordered society possible, we must constantly be on our guard against propaganda and smear tactics. We must build and sustain confidence in the security forces, and especially in the police who have the primary responsibility for

  561
  enforcing the law. To do this, we must recognise the dangers they face daily, on and off duty. On those occasions on which the police are confronted by criminals who are or appear to be armed, we must face the fact squarely that they have, and indeed must have, a legal right to defend themselves using reasonable force and to protect the lives of others. Like every other citizen—
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: How does the Secretary of State distinguish between "appear to have arms" and "suspected of having arms"?
  Mr. Prior: It is not for me to draw that distinction. It is difficult for a constable, a policeman or a soldier, faced with such a decision, to make it in a split second. Such decisions have to be made not only in Northern Ireland. There have also been recent cases in this country when the same sort of problems were faced.
  The hon. Gentleman and the House know that the security forces in Northern Ireland—the Ulster Defence Regiment, the part-timers, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army—as well as the judiciary and politicians, now bear the brunt of the terrorist attacks. These are difficult matters for them. I personally believe that the manner in which the security forces have carried out their duties has been absolutely exemplary. If there have been any lapses—there are bound to be from time to time—the same people have been subject to the law in exactly the same way as others. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman also feels that the manner in which the security forces have behaved in Northern Ireland is exemplary. They have a fantastically difficult job. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want any other thought to go out from the House tonight except that they behave in the most exemplary manner.
  A member of the security forces who uses force is answerable to the courts, which will have to decide on its reasonableness in the particular circumstances of the case. Those circumstances are extremely varied. The pressures of having to make split-second decisions cannot be wished away. We must not confuse such situations with summary execution or a policy of "shoot to kill". No such policy is possible under the rule of law and could not and never will be tolerated.
  I shall give the hon. Gentleman another illustration of the difficulties. Quite recently in west Belfast a house was surrounded by policemen who had good reason to believe that there were terrorists inside. When they went to the door of the house, the three policemen were shot from inside by one of the alleged terrorists. They did not have a chance to shoot back; they were just shot. One man was killed and two were seriously injured. One of the terrorists shot himself in circumstances that we do not completely understand. That is the sort of risk that policemen take while doing their daily job in Northern Ireland. It does not happen in many other places.
  The Government are committed to ensuring that the police and the Army have all the necessary resources to carry out their tasks effectively. Hon. Members will recall that I recently authorised an additional 500 posts for the RUC. I hope that those fresh vacancies will all be filled by the end of the financial year or, in the case of the 250 full-time regular RUC men, by the end of the calendar year.
  One of the most virulent propaganda campaigns about which I advised circumspection a moment ago is of course
  562
  directed at the use of accomplice evidence. There is nothing new about that form of evidence, which is firmly rooted in British law, but the decision of some former terrorists to turn their backs on their colleagues has led to cries of "Betrayal" and bitter attacks on all such evidence, no matter what the circumstances of the particular case. But it is for the independent Director of Public Prosecutions to assess the allegations of an accomplice and determine their value against the background of any other evidence which can be presented. It is for the judge to determine how much weight should be put on it and he must give his reasoning when setting out his eventual judgment. This process is in the public interest. It is not a matter for Ministers or for political interference.
  The Act provides for trial by a judge sitting alone for persons accused of specific scheduled offences. It contains additional arrest and detention powers for the police and the Army, together with certain exceptional powers of search and seizure. The Act also provides for the proscription of certain criminal organisations. The Act does not alter the central principles of British justice as they apply in the Province The onus remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Accused persons have the right to take legal advice of their choice and to be represented by their own lawyers in open court, and there remains the right of appeal against conviction or sentence on matters of law and fact.
  I fully recognise that emergency powers are not the answer to Northern Ireland's problems. We all recognise that, and I hope that Opposition Members who have objected to the legislation—
  Sir John Farr: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, will he confirm that people tried in open court have the benefit of legal aid if they need it?
  Mr. Prior: Yes, they have legal aid, and the best possible advice. A reason why there is often a delay in bringing cases to trial is that defendants are intent on having specialised legal advice and certain barristers only. That is their right and they are perfectly entitled to it. But that is a reason why it takes time before some cases come to court.
  Mr. McNamara: I am sorry to keep interrupting, but I must pursue this point. Today the Secretary of State said that the reason involved the choice of counsel. At Question Time last week he said that it was a question of the different supergrasses presenting different charges and so changing the nature of the indictment. What are the real reasons? Is it not that the Government cannot prepare their cases in time and so we have internments without trial?
  Mr. Prior: That is not true. There are a variety of reasons. First, other charges are often brought against people while they are on remand. Secondly, there is the problem of defence counsel and of congestion in the courts. The process has been speeded up and I am doing all I can to speed it up further. The average time spent on remand is 46 weeks, which is still too long but better than before.
  I am aware of the difficulties of the Act, but we must have these measures at the moment. The crimes in Northern Ireland mean that we are still in a state of emergency.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: On the question of the delay of justice, will my right hon. Friend say something about the Baker recommendations to appoint another High Court judge in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Prior: I am not dealing directly with the Baker recommendations, because we shall have a proper debate on them. His recommendation to have another High Court judge is for the Lord Chancellor and has my full support. We need another High Court judge as quickly as possible. Anything that can be done to speed up the course of justice must be done, because it will remove some arguments that are raised by hon. Members.
  The Government will do everything within their power to develop the political and economic fabric of the Province in order to reduce and eventually to eliminate the tensions and problems which lie at the root of this violence. I look for assistance from every responsible quarter to that end, within Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I have been heartened by the strength of the Republic's commitment to tackling terrorism, which is as much a threat to them as it is to us. The close and effective working relationship between the two police forces on either side of the border remains a key and valuable element in the fight against terrorism. We whole-heartedly approve this co-operation and are ready to look realistically at practical ways of developing it further. Equally, we welcome the strong condemnation of terrorism and its supporters given recently by the President of the United States. Terrorism is indeed a problem which goes much wider than Northern Ireland and we are very ready to act internationally to counter it.
  Despite those efforts, the work of the security forces, and the political developments that I would like to see, I hope the House will accept that for the time being the emergency powers we have must remain in place. They are still needed to sustain the whole confidence of the community in the rule of law, and in the willingness and ability of this Parliament, where the ultimate responsibility lies, to support the security forces and courts who are upholding it.
  I ask therefore that the House approve that the powers in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 which are currently in force should be allowed to continue.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the House that the debate must finish at 11.55 pm, and I ask for brevity.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer: When the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 was placed on the statute book the Government of the day wisely included the section that we now have as section 33 which provided for a review of the main provisions by the House at six-monthly intervals.
  The reason for that was explained on Second Reading by Lord Whitelaw, as he now is. He said:
  "It is the Government's intention that none of the provisions of the Bill, if it is passed, should continue in force for a moment longer than it is needed."—[Official Report, 17 April 1973; Vol. 855, c. 278.]
  The then Attorney-General, now Lord Rawlinson, asserted that the measures were draconian and alien to many of us.
  That approach was wise. All of us who have studied civil rights at various times and places know how easy it
  564
  is to introduce a measure, honestly believing that it is temporary and necessary to deal with an emergency and intended to cease when the emergency is over, only to find that it drags on year after year, and sometimes for generation after generation until the necessity for it is taken for granted and it has become an integral part of the administration of justice. The intention was that the House should apply its judgment at six-monthly intervals to consider whether people are better protected from violence by continuing its provisions or whether those provisions may have become counter productive.
  The Opposition have attempted to carry out that duty twice each year and to do so responsibly. Our most prejudiced critics cannot accuse us, in the context of Northern Ireland, of opposing the Government, for the sake of opposition. Where we have agreed with the Government we have said so. We have sought to be fair to Ministers and, as the Secretary of State is aware, we have avoided any action that might endanger those people who have to spend their lives in Northern Ireland. We have done that even when it has led to our being misunderstood. I do not shrink from being misunderstood. It is a risk that politicians have to take.
  We have no sympathy with lawlessness. I doubt whether any hon. Member has spoken and written on that subject as frequently as I have, and always to emphasise that social justice and anarchy are incompatible, that law and order is protection for the most vulnerable—those who can least afford to buy themselves protection; those who live in the least affluent areas.
  No one can accuse us of underestimating the importance of law and order. The Opposition have been incessant in condemning violence in whatever cause. And I echo the tribute which the Secretary of State offered to those who have the unenviable task of maintaining law and order. We are well aware of the work they do.
  But we have two anxieties. First, and I saw this repeatedly when I was active in Amnesty International, it is possible in the course of defending a way of life to pollute and distort it to a point where it ceases to be worth preserving. The issue that has given rise to the difficulties in Ireland is how best the people in each tradition can be guaranteed a daily life free from want, free from fear and free from harassment. We have to ensure that those freedoms are not endangered by the authorities.
  Secondly, the most effective factor that there can be in the preservation of law and order is for the sympathy of the community to be in favour of law enforcement, and against those who infringe the law. That depends largely on its confidence in the fairness of the methods of law enforcement and the legal processes.
  In one respect after another, there has been a dangerous erosion over the past few years in the standards of civil rights in Northern Ireland. The position is seen by the paramilitaries as a war, and they encourage their potential recruits and their supporters to see it in that way. I do not believe that it is any such thing. Murder is murder. But the authorities, and those who demand effective and dramatic action, will not discourage that perception if they, too, see it as a war. Slogans such as "Shoot on sight" are the slogans of war.
  If this is to be seen as issue of crime against law and order, the authorities must be seen to be acting in accordance with the highest and most careful traditions of justice. If there is to be an end to terrorism, local communities must see it for what it is. That entails two

  565
  things. They must see some hope of an acceptable political settlement through constitutional discussion, and they need to see the agents of law enforcement as themselves the agents of justice. There is a deep sense of resentment and alienation among many decent, normally law-abiding people from both traditions at what they see as oppressive and unfair measures which were adopted in the name of law enforcement.
  I do not suggest that these measures were introduced in bad faith. At the time, I have no doubt, they seemed like a good idea. However, this feeling is all part of what has added up to a near despair with constitutional government. People are saying that it does not matter whether you observe the law or not, they will get you either way.
  Mr. Harold McCusker: The right hon. and learned Member has made a strong statement about what many people on both sides of the community think. Will he take it from me that he is talking about a small minority of people in Northern Ireland? Most people there are concerned about getting through today to tomorrow, and staying alive into the next day. The people who have expressed the reservations that he is expressing are those who probably have some member of their family behind bars for murdering innocent people, or who will soon have members of their family behind bars for murdering people. The majority of people in Northern Ireland have decided reluctantly that this law is necessary to protect them.
  Mr. Archer: That was a somewhat lengthy intervention, but I have seen a number of the people about whom I am talking.
  Mr. McCusker: I live among them.
  Mr. Archer: I accept that. I do not know the statistics of how many there are, but they are decent people, and I believe that they are law abiding, and I am sure they were telling me the truth. I shall talk about a few of them in a moment. Those who say that that feeling does not exist are shutting their eyes to the facts. I make it clear that that is not the fault of the police. I recognise, as the Secretary of State did, what difficult and dangerous tasks they have to carry out, and I pay tribute to their courage. They are not all perfect. It would be as silly to suggest that they are all without blemish as it would be to assert that they are all part of a dishonest conspiracy, but I doubt whether any police force, having to administer the powers and duties which are imposed on them by this legislation, could have avoided leaving local communities with a sense of alienation.
  It is not the fault of the Director of Public Prosecutions, nor of the courts. They, too, are faced with insoluble problems. It is vital that this resentment, mistrust and alienation should be recognised, and that the whole extent and balance of the powers and safeguards should reflect that recognition.
  For some years, the Opposition have expressed these anxieties, I hope with moderation and patience, whenever the House has been asked to consider this legislation. As long ago as 1975, the Gardiner committee reviewed the original Act, and concluded that emergency powers
  "can, if prolonged, damage the fabric of the community,"
  They added
  "and they do not provide lasting solutions."
  As I understood him, that was recognised by the Secretary of State. The committee continued:
  "The continued existence of emergency powers should be limited both in scope and duration."
  566
  On 22 July 1980, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) reminded the House of what the Gardiner committee had said. He urged that the time had come for a further review, as the House could not pass judgment on the necessity for any or all of the provisions without information as to how they were working. The Government agreed to consider that idea, and on that occasion the official Opposition did not divide the House.
  On 10 December 1980 my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) again raised the question, with a similar result. On 2 July 1981, when the Government had not responded, the Opposition moved an amendment to the motion for approval to the effect that it was time for an inquiry. The Government rejected that, and the Opposition divided the House on the amendment, but not on the substantive motion. In December 1981 the Opposition again called for a review, but did not divide the House. On each occasion, it is fair to say, some of my hon. Friends divided the House because they felt strongly on the subject, although there was no official Division, and I pay tribute to the sincerity of their concern.
  On 30 June 1982 the Secretary of State at last announced that there was to be a review and, on that basis, again the Opposition did not divide the House. It was not until 5 April 1983 that the Secretary of State announced who was to undertake the review, and then there was a further delay in completing the submissions, admittedly because of the general election.
  The Secretary of State appointed Sir George Baker. It is regrettable that his conclusions were constrained by his terms of reference, which began with the words,
  "Accepting that temporary emergency powers are necessary to combat sustained terrorism and violence."
  It might have been better to invite him to say whether that conclusion was supported by his findings. It was the very issue into which he was inquiring, but in the event I doubt whether his conclusions would have been different had those words been omitted, and I make no point about that.
  Sir George Baker reported, as the Secretary of State reminded us, in March of this year and his report was presented to Parliament in April. I gave oral evidence, as did many other right hon. and hon. Members. I spoke to Sir George more than once. The report did not say all that I had hoped it would say, but it was careful and conscientious piece of work; it absorbed his interest and fully occupied his mind. It is tragic that he did not live to see what became of it, and echo the Secretary of State's tribute to Sir George. It was my privilege to know him for many years. He made a great contribution to the jurisprudence and public life of this country, and he had a gift that is by no means universal among public men of not being carried away with his own importance. He possessed a sense of humour and a sense of humility, and I saw repeated instances of his capacity for revising his first impressions in the light of other people's views. He was, above all, a good listener.
  The Government have had that report since March. No one looked for instant reactions; of course, it was necessary to consider it. Perhaps it was even necessary to consult, although Sir George had already consulted widely. But the Government have not even consulted the House. The Opposition have called repeatedly for a debate; the Leader of the House told us there would be a debate, but like Joseph he has never named the day. Now the Secretary of State asks the House to extend the provisions of the Act without amendment, and without

  567
  implementing even the limited recommendations of the report. Perhaps understandably in the circumstances, he told the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) tonight that he could not discuss the detailed recommendations of the report.
  Had we been given the opportunity, the Opposition would have argued for amendments more extensive than those that Sir George recommended. Of course, we would not have sought a complete repeal of the Act; we recognise that the time for a return to complete normality in Northern Ireland is not yet, but we would have urged some changes. We would have wished to discuss the recommendations relating to bail, especially the proposal for an unconditonal entitlement to bail for those who have been on remand awaiting trial for more than 12 months. The reasons why there has been a delay do not matter; what is important is that in no civilised community should someone be imprisoned, unconvicted, for that period.
  I constantly receive letters from families of men who have been detained, unconvicted, sometimes for successive periods as one set of charges is withdrawn and they are re-arrested on others. May I quote briefly from a letter that I received this week:
  "I am writing to you as a mother whose son has been held on `five supergrasses' and in all these cases there was no corroborated evidence."
  She added,
  "My son has been held since February 1982 and has been told he will not get a trial until 85 or 86."
  We would have wished to discuss Sir George's recommendation for the descheduling of many offences where there is no obvious connection with terrorism. Mr. Dermot Walsh claimed recently to have discovered that 40 per cent. of those tried in the Diplock courts had no observable connection with terrorism. We would have wished to discuss Sir George's proposal for the requirement of a reasonable suspicion for arrest without warrant.
  It is unfair both to the police and to citizens to have so ill-defined a power as at present, to stop people going about their lawful business and to take them into custody. We would also have wished to urge matters going further than the Baker recommendations.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the use of supergrass evidence. Of course, in certain circumstances most jurisdictions introduce accomplice evidence, but there are features of its use in Northern Ireland which mark this out as unique in its dangers of injustice and its occasions for loss of public confidence in the legal system.
  First, there are the numbers who are tried together on one indictment. I am aware of the reasons why that is thought necessary, but I do not believe it possible for anyone to consider evidence against 30 or 40 defendants without allowing at least one of them to be smeared by a piece of evidence which, in fairness, does not implicate him.
  Even Sir George recommended 20 as the maximum number of defendants to be tried on one indictment. I would argue that 20 is far too many to receive a fair trial in those circumstances.
  Secondly, there is the fact that trial is by a judge alone, without a jury. In Great Britain it is the function of the judge to warn a jury of the dangers of convicting on uncorroborated accomplice evidence. One of the purposes, perhaps the principal purpose, served by
  568
  separating the function of judge and jury is that such warnings make a substantial impact. There can be no similar impact where the judge attempts to warn himself and simply endeavours to keep it in his mind.
  Thirdly, the kind of witnesses on whom the Crown has relied again and again are men who on their own admission have been at the very centre of paramilitary activities, knowing no moral standards but such as serve the purpose of their organisation, with an overwhelming temptation to pay off old scores, and with a motive to please the authorities by lengthening the list of those they implicate. They cannot be seen by the public as people on whose uncorroborated evidence it is safe to convict.
  I am, of course, aware that responsibility for initiating and conducting prosecutions does not lie with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State says, "Let the Director decide the merits of each individual case", but the Director is in an impossible position. Naturally, he says, "Where there is evidence that is capable of being believed, it is not for me to adjudicate on it. I must place it before the courts".
  The judges cannot introduce a universal rule as to what evidence should be believed. They, too, can decide each case only on its merits. We need a general rule, introduced by legislation for the guidance of the courts, that at least in Diplock cases accomplice evidence will not support a conviction in the absence of corroboration. The legislation can be introduced only by the Secretary of State, and it could sensibly be included in an amending Bill.
  These are some of the matters we would have wished to debate, but there is no time to debate them tonight. That is precisely our complaint. This debate should have followed, not preceded, the debate on the Baker report. The House is asked to renew these provisions with no such debate, and without even the improvements proposed by Sir George Baker. It is not on.
  The Opposition would not be facing up to the consequences of our judgment, repeated time and again, if we agreed to this order. We have only two choices—to agree to a continuation of these powers without any change, or to vote against their continuance. That is what we propose to do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]
  We are not discussing the position without the order. We are discussing the repeated calls to the Government to make the amendments which, with great restraint, the Opposition have proposed. We are confronted with a stark choice, and that is the Government's doing.
  I have a sense of reality. It has been driven into my heart in this Parliament by repeated experience of winning the argument and losing the vote. The Government have multiplied the offence by arranging this business so that the Division will take place at 11.30 on a Thursday evening, when it is known that many hon. Members must travel in order to meet their weekend commitments—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I observe the comments and faces of some Government Members. There is no grin on the faces of the Secretary of State or the Minister because they know that if they wish the Opposition to try to understand their difficulties they must have some regard for the rights of minorities, not only in Northern Ireland, but in this House.
  Some hon. Members will seek to distort our reasons and seek to portray us as being unmindful of the victims of violence, or even as encouraging the men of violence. But there are hon. Members on all Benches who have given serious thought to these matters, and who will know that

  569
  potential victims are best protected from violence by public support for law and order, born of a careful scrutiny of every provision to ensure its fairness. I invite them to join us in the Lobby tonight.
  11.5 pm
  Rev. William McCrea: I appreciate that we must be as brief as possible, to allow as many hon. Members as possible to participate in the debate. I welcome the opportunity to address the House, but I do not do so with joy, because all hon. Members will regret that such legislation is required in the United Kingdom.
  It is necessary to comment on the background to the emergency legislation before expressing opinions on items requiring review or comment. The emergency legislation was enacted as a weapon in the armoury against terrorism, which was rampant at the time the initial legislation was introduced. Unfortunately, that terrorism persists.
  I accept that the legislation was never intended to become a permanent feature of the legal process, but to date its continuation is inevitable—unfortunately. The overwhelming desire of the people of Northern Ireland is to witness the total defeat of terrorism and a return to the normal legal position and peace and normality for all Northern Ireland citizens.
  My constituents have suffered much from IRA outrages and murder gangs. Many young widows, orphans, brokenhearted parents and shattered family circles are left to carry an unbearable load. [Interrupion.] I hear mutterings from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). I have never once seen him holding the hand of an Ulster widow, or of an Ulster father who has a broken heart because of a son cut down by the murderous thugs who are rampant in our country. Until that hon. Gentleman has the decency to come into our Province and sympathise with those stricken by bereavement, it is better for him to be silent in the House.
  I commend the courage displayed by such families throughout the years of tragedy. I salute their solemn and quiet determination never to give in to the murdering thugs and gangsters of the IRA. I pay tribute especially to the families in the border areas, where the terrorists seek to drive the Protestants away from their homes and farms. A deliberate campaign has been conducted against isolated farming communities. Unfortunately, successive Governments have failed to restore peace in Northern Ireland. There seems to be an unwillingness to initiate an offensive strategy to win the war against terrorism. Defensive measures have certainly been taken, but I believe that to rid our Province of terrorism we shall need to take offensive measures against the terrorists, who at the moment are safe in their terrorist dens.
  The failure to end the campaign of murder and violence that stalks the Province is, in my opinion, caused by the failure of security policy in Northern Ireland. It has not been caused by any failure on the part of the security personnel. The policy under which they operate, however, gives rise to genuine and grievous concern. Every hon. Member should, in common decency, salute the bravery of the members of the security forces—the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the RUC Reserve, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Army. They have stood in the front line and protected the law-abiding citizens. I unreservedly and totally give the highest praise to the members of the security forces. They deserve it.
  570
  Unfortunately, the order that we are debating relates to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which shows that the emergency is continuing.
  In principle, I look forward to the return of jury trials for criminal offences. I recognise the immense diffiulties involved in having trial by jury for serious terrorist offences. I recognise also the problems involved in the siting of the trial and the intimidation, selection and ultimate safety of the jurors. All those problems must be dealt with if there is to be a fair trial. Given the situation which has developed in Northern Ireland, I understand the need for the existence of section 7 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which allows for trial by judge alone, but as an additional safeguard, I believe that consideration should be given to the idea that all cases should be heard by a panel of three judges.
  I am also concerned about the excessive delays which can occur between arrest and trial. In particular, such delays should be avoided where bail has been refused and the defendant is held in custody. I appreciate the difficulties involved and the great burden placed upon court administration, the police and legal personnel, but, in the interests of justice, it is desirable that delays should be kept to a minimum and trials expedited.
  I wish to refer also to mandatory minimum sentences. The House should be alarmed by the fact that over one third of all who are convicted of terrorist offences escape a custodial sentence. The current sentencing policy and practice are in urgent need of a thorough review.
  Finally, there is the question of proscribed organisations. I am sorry that I do not have time to give my views in detail. I make no apology for stating that I believe that Provisional Sinn Fein should be a proscribed organisation. Even the position in the South of Ireland is preferable to that in Northern Ireland. Have hon. Members considered how a widow must feel when the front men for terrorists appear on the television screen and, with brazen cheek, glorify acts of terrorism?
  The powers in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act are not used to the full. Section 21(1)(6), refers to anyone who
  "solicits or invites financial or other support for a proscribed organisation".
  That power could have been more widely used. Ulster people believe that on several occasions in the past Sinn Fein leaders could have been prosecuted for urging support for the Provisional IRA and for acts of terrorism. That section should be used, as it is clear that bodies such as Sinn Fein are mere front organisations for terrorist groups.
  I support the retention of the Act, and trust that all hon. Members feel similarly. I trust that we shall see an end to terrorism and therefore an end to the need for the Act, but while the emergency lasts the Act should remain in force so that we can deal properly with events.
  11.14 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: When I first spoke on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 on 8 December last year, I found it useful to look up what was said in earlier debates on the renewal of the Act. In May and December 1983, Ministers made much of the fact that Sir George Baker was reviewing the operation of the Act. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) expressed support for such a review and said that he would welcome it and the subsequent debate. The right hon. and learned Member for

  571
  Warley, West (Mr. Archer) raised the matter again today. they have a right to feel considerable grievance at being asked yet again to extend the Act for a further six months, before the House has been given the opportunity to debate the Baker report. However, I could observe that it would not have been beyond the bounds of possiblity for an Opposition Supply day to be allocated to the matter if they were as anxious as we are to discuss the Baker report.
  Mr. Archer: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that we have repeatedly been promised by the Leader of the House that there will be a debate? That was intended to mean that the debate would be in Government time.
  Mr. Maginnis: I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, but the report should be debated urgently. If he is as anxious as he says he is—I have no reason to doubt him—he could have tried harder to ensure that the report was debated. It was presented to the House in April and it should have been accorded the importance that I think it merits.
  I should also like to pay tribute to the late Sir George Baker. I met him a couple of times and found him a humane and understanding man. He was patient and obviously dedicated to learning all that he could about the subject on which he had to report. I know that he felt deeply about the death of my colleague, Edgar Graham, who was murdered by the IRA and who had submitted evidence to him. It was typical of Sir George that he expressed his sympathy to Edgar Graham's family and my party.
  My party will support the order. We share Sir George's reservations about the validity after 11 years of referring to the Act as emergency legislation. He admitted, as do we, that it is temporary and renewable but it is hardly an emergency. The continued killing by terrorists is, as Sir George said, neither "sudden nor unexpected" to those of us who live in Northern Ireland, although the Secretary of State usually seems able to act as though it is. I do not want to pick on the Secretary of State tonight, although I am aware that it would not worry him a great deal if I did, but he has puzzled me occasionally in the past three years.
  When there is an emergency—for example, when somebody is killed—the right hon. Gentleman tells the House that he will not be rushed into taking precipitate action. He will not be rushed after three years? I often wonder what he means when he uses such phrases and why we have not seen rather more urgency from him when it comes to protecting my constituents along the frontier.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to there having been 47 deaths since last December. I thought, when he spoke of that matter, that he was beginning to understand how those of us feel who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland. But he rather spoiled that impression I had of him when he referred to "these temporary setbacks." That did not make me feel that he appreciated the need for urgency in the matter.
  Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to the security forces who serve under difficult conditions, often with qualified sympathy from some hon. Members. There is the possibility — it will not happen this year — that the Ministry of Defence will withdraw the Northern Ireland emergency allowance of £2·15 a day. It would be scandalous if that allowance—I do not call it danger money because I do not believe that it has been intended
  572
  to be danger money—were withdrawn, for it is given for a special type of operation that the Army carries out in Northern Ireland. It provides a little compensation for the forces who come there, with their families, for two years, yet the Army pay review body has talked about possibly doing away with the allowance.
  For their own safety, neither the soldiers nor their families leave the camp in which they live for that two-year period, except when the men are on duty, and during their spells of duty they work under the most arduous conditions. I hope, therefore, that there will be no more talk about abolishing the Northern Ireland allowance.
  We should not need to go through this routine of renewing the emergency provisions Act. It is clear that we shall not be able to do without this legislation for some time to come. Eleven years have shown that we could safely renew the provisions, say, bienially and thereby save the House from the frustration of having to listen to some of the cant and hypocrisy of those who will undoubtedly advocate its repeal before this night is out.
  Only those who would capitulate in the face of terrorism or who nurse a latent sympathy for a particular terrorist faction would employ such a strategy. Those of us who live with terrorism know that the Act was a valuable aid to the police in reducing the amount of retaliatory violence that Northern Ireland suffered in the mid-1970s.
  As the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights states,
  "the people of Northern Ireland still require special protection from terrorism, and for this reason we agree that some exceptional measures are still required."
  Sir George Baker clearly recognised that the emergency provisions Act is required to help bring to justice the men who are committed to violence, and that it is the duty of society to balance our desire to protect human rights with an acceptance of our human duties. He said that many who attack the Act, the forces of law and order and the judicial system do so not to protect our rights and liberties but for sinister reasons, and that any attempt to protect our people would be opposed by them. I agree with him and I see daily that those who oppose the Act most strongly are those who employ the law of the jungle. They beat young men unconscious with hurling sticks, blast their knee joints with guns and, when they summarily decree, blow their heads off, as they did with Jimmy Campbell when they murdered him in a Falls road club on 9 June. And these are their own co-religionists.
  In recognising the need to continue to implement the Act, Sir George Baker was aware that it was not ideal legislation, and on occasion was forthright in his criticism. My party fully agrees with Sir George. It continues to be disturbed by the delay in bringing to trial those who are charged with serious offences. The Minster must tell us more clearly what progress he has made and hopes to make in reducing the delay. If delays are attributable to lack of defence counsel, it is up to the prosecution to bring the men to court. If that is done, the public will hear that it is the defence which is not ready to proceed with the case. We do not want suspect terrorists to be freed on bail without having to answer the charge in court. Sir George made it clear that he considered a delay longer than a year to be too long.
  We all know that if any IRA man is freed on bail he will have little trouble finding a safe haven in the Irish Republic. The bail money is usually obtained from the

  573
  proceeds of a bank robbery or by threatening some unfortunate Roman Catholic business man who, in fear of his life, dare not refuse the demand. In the constituency adjacent to mine, a Roman Catholic business man was blown up and killed for refusing to meet a demand from the IRA.
  Another area of mutual concern is the treatment of young persons convicted of scheduled offences, who are normally known as SOSPs. These young men are held at the Secretary of State's pleasure, as they were only lads under 18 years of age when they committed their offences. Eleven years later, in some instances, they are the forgotten victims of the violence that they barely understood when they first became involved. I draw the Minister's attention to Sir George's comments without further emphasis, because I have applied to Mr. Speaker to be allowed to raise the matter on the motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 1 at some future date.
  My party recognises the need to have the Act reviewed. It has made no secret of the fact that it wants to see the strictest application of the law that is necessary to deal with terrorism. It wants to ensure that it is good and just law. The matters that I have referred to in the Baker report and others must be taken on board by the Government as a matter of urgency. If we fail to do so, we shall lose yet another propaganda battle and the Act will be devalued rather than revalued.
  Governments owe it to the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland to provide the best laws and not the second best. The Baker report suggests, but not in so many words, that we are getting the second best. That is not because it is inherently bad, as some will attempt to prove, but because it is not administered speedily enough, it is unbending where it might be merciful and it is ineffective where it needs to be strong.
  Baker realised that the provisional IRA leadership or Sinn Fein leadership—it is one and the same thing—is engaged in both terrorist and political battles with the Government. He wants, and I and my party want, to see people like Adams and Morrison properly dealt with when they incite others to murder and maim. If the existing law is unable to deal with them, we must amend it. If necessary — I know that I will be opposed on this in certain quarters—we must have selective internment for people such as Adams and Morrison.
  How can we assemble here to debate this order every six months, yet not appear to care that we have failed to bring to justice those who, brazenly and openly, advocate the slaughter of British citizens? Those are the real issues to which we should apply ourselves tonight, rather than some of the diversions with which certain hon. Members regularly assail us. If our courts cannot be seen to deal with the purveyors of violence, other elements will be tempted to do so. No one in my party wants the shame of retaliatory killings visited, yet again, on the Unionist and Protestant community to which we belong.
  I ask the Minister whether my party has not consistently advised the Northern Ireland Office in much the same terms as Sir George Baker now advises in the report? Let him tell us—were we right, or is Sir George wrong? That is the question to which he must address himself tonight.
  11.31 pm
  Sir John Farr: I, too, congratulate the security forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary on some incredible feats of professionalism and bravery since we last debated this order, but, like everyone in the House, I bitterly regret that, once again, we must discuss it. I look forward to the day, to which most of us look forward, when we will not need to approve an emergency order for Northern Ireland.
  We hear much the same things said in the debate from both sides of the House every six months. We hear that the security forces have done a great job, and disquiet is expressed over the present system of legal administration, but one thing that has changed slightly, and significantly, is the professionalism of the terrorist. He is no longer an old boy from the bogs. The professional terrorist is very much to the fore in Northern Ireland.
  There are countries and organisations in the world—including Libya and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation—which train professional terrorists from Northern Ireland in the very latest tricks of their trade, in the most scientific way. It is therefore only right and proper that our security forces and the RUC should be trained in a way that is at least as good to combat the sophisticated crimes.
  It is no longer enough for our security forces and the RUC to show courage, loyalty and determination. They have to be given the opportunity to be equipped with effective techniques in order to counteract some of the sophisticated terrorist devices used today. I believe that our army receives that training and is well equipped for the techniques that it deploys to counter terrorist activity. I am not sure that the RUC is getting the more than up-to-date training that it needs. How is the new RUC training camp and headquarters complex proceeding? What is its stage of development? Has a site been chosen? The establishment is long overdue. Will it be able to give the RUC the necessary training and modern instruction on how to combat the modern, late 20th century terrorist?
  It has been said in the House, and will be said again, that the cause of much of the terrorist strife in Northern Ireland is the large number of idle hands in the Province. There are an exceptionally large number of unemployed people in Northern Ireland, and that has been a cause of great regret to every Government. I pay special tribute to what the Labour party did when in office, because it tried to solve the problems by setting up the De Lorean scheme. The Labour Government provided jobs at De Lorean, but the scheme went awry. I am not one of those who condemn the Opposition for trying to provide more employment by backing De Lorean.
  Once tranquillity is restored to the Province, there will be hope once again for tourism. Northern Ireland is one of the most beautiful parts of the world. There is natural beauty and tranquillity there. If we can get on top of terrorism, tourism will provide many tens of thousands of extra jobs.
  11.37 pm
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I, too, express my deep regret at the untimely death of Sir George Baker. He made 74 recommendations. Some of those recommendations were disappointing, but the response by the Secretary of State was even more disappointing. The right hon. Gentleman talked of an eventual response. When will that be? It may not even be in the next Session.

  575
  Jury trial should be restored wherever possible. I am told—the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) mentioned this—that a number of cases still going through the Diplock courts could be transferred to the ordinary criminal courts. Retaining trials by a single judge is a mistake. We should note public disquiet about that aspect. We are asking any judge to bear too great a burden, especially in the supergrass trials, where there can be up to 41 defendants. There should not be any token immunity for supergrasses.
  There is still too long a delay in bringing cases to trial. The Secretary of State said that the average delay was 46 weeks, but some people have been in custody for more than two years. Sir George Baker said that there is to be no independent review of exceptional cases where a defendant persists in claiming his innocence. There are cases of innocent men being in prison. I question that procedure. Sir George drafted a complete new clause on confessions. Will that measure be brought in quickly? That step would not bring us into line with the rest of Britain, but at least it would be a step in the right direction.
  We recognise that, in the present circumstances, there must be an emergency powers Act. I, too, feel great respect for the security forces. The time has come to implement substantial changes, which must not be long delayed.
  11.38 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Anyone who regards this debate and the renewal of this legislation as an excuse for underpinning the criminal law and the enforcement of justice in Northern Ireland is deluding himself. To explain those actions away just as criminal activity is foolish. We must look at the social, economic and political reasons behind this legislation. Fortunately, to the delight of the House, I do not have the time to do that, but I shall make a number of points in the short time available. So long as the law is seen merely as an instrument to enforce the dominance of one section of the community over another, it will not be accepted.
  The Secretary of State spoke of the community seeking and having confidence in the law and its enforcement officers, but he is completely wrong. There is no confidence among the majority of the minority community in the enforcement of the law. There is no confidence in the courts. There is no confidence in the administration of justice because of the use of supergrasses, bills of indictment, and intensive remand as another form of internment without trial. There can be no confidence when thousands and thousands of people are arrested on mere suspicion and few are proceeded against in the courts. There is no confidence that the police and the UDR are intruments for the impartial enforcement of justice. They are seen as sectarian forces. There is no confidence in the judiciary, especially after recent decisions and recent obiter dicta of the judges.
  These facts must be understood. Merely to agree to this continuance order is no substitute for the Government trying to gain the confidence of the whole community and trying to create a new opportunity so that people can see that the standards on which we in the House pride ourselves can operate in the six counties of Northern Ireland.
  576
  If we have merely the odd hour and a half in which to discuss this matter, we cannot be expected to support the legislation, because we have no opportunity to amend it and to go through the steps which we believe to be necessary to try to get the support of the whole community not only in Northern Ireland but, what is even more important, in the United Kingdom as a whole.
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I shall not comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), save only to say that they are damaging to the national interest.
  There has been a significant improvement in the security situation in Northern Ireland — it is nowhere near sufficient—and I say that, declaring my interest in the police service, as a result of frequent visits that I am privileged to make to Northern Ireland.
  Security has improved for three main reasons. The Royal Ulster Constabulary is now almost certainly the best counter-terrorist force in the world. Its professionalism, its courage and its dedication, to which many hon. Members have paid tribute, are beyond compare. Its relations with the community have improved greatly. It is in fact a community police service. It has established excellent relationships with the Army. This was not always the case, and I pay my tribute to Sir Maurice Oldfield, who was able to improve the liaison between the RUC and the British Army in Northern Ireland.
  The second principal reason for the improvement in security is that there is much better cross-border cooperation between the RUC and the Garda. It is right to pay some tribute to the Northern Ireland Police Federation and the Garda representative body, which have come together in many ways of which the House is perhaps not aware. They have been able to establish a person-to-person confidence on both sides of the border, which is quite separate from the rhetoric of politicians. It is a practical working relationship which has helped to make the RUC more able to do the job required of it.
  The third reason why there is an improvement is that the United States has to some extent cut off the supply of money and of arms. I pay my tribute to President Reagan here. Under the Carter Administration there was a substantially higher flow of both money and arms, and it is to the credit of the present American Administration that they have taken steps to reduce that substantially. I hope that they go further. The remarks of the President of the United States to the Irish Parliament were most helpful, in that he put out of court many of the aspirations of those south of the border to achieve their purpose by force. Against that background, it is only fair to say that the RUC deserves the tributes paid to it in the House.
  Therefore, I find it extraordinary that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), whom I have known in the House for a long time, and for whose moderation of language and commitment to parliamentary democracy I have the greatest admiration, should lead his party into voting against the emergency provisions. I recognise the point that he made. It is a difficult choice for an Opposition, and I understand it. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should consider what the position would be of our fellow countrymen in the RUC and the British Army if they were tonight to be deprived of the emergency provisions legislation. I do not like the legislation—no one in the House can do so—but to vote

  577
  to deprive the armed services and the police of the legislation at this time seems to me to be irresponsible. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman feels obliged to do so.
  I have three matters to put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. First, I hope very much that when we debate the Baker report and, I hope, put new legislation on the statute book, my hon. Friend will make sure that the necessary steps are available to deal with the problem of drug running. Quite often these days, drugs are the method by which terrorists finance their activities. It is essential both on this and the other side of the water for the police to have the powers to deal more effectively with drug smuggling.
  Secondly, there needs to be much more effective international co-operation in dealing with terrorism. I welcome what was agreed at the summit conference and what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said at the EEC conference on this subject, but I am bound to say, for my part—I think that I speak for a considerable number of people in the police service on both sides of the water—that the Foreign Office has yet to get a grip on the problem of terrorism. From time to time its advice has been inadequate. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary casts the legislation that is required, I hope that he will not be too influenced, on international terrorism, by the advice from the Foreign Office. I hope that he will rely more heavily on the professionalism of the police.
  Finally, several matters affect the morale of the RUC. Externally, its moral is sky high. The recruitment shows it. I welcome very much my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's decision to increase the numbers in the force, but he knows, as I do, that there are problems of housing, particularly in the border areas. When our police in this country go on mutual aid duties, they often complain about the conditions in Nottingham and south Yorkshire. The conditions in which the RUC live in many of the border areas are far worse than that, and the RUC does not complain much about them. The matter needs attention.
  There is also the matter of transferring men from one area to another, which is often done capriciously and without good judgment. It is also right that the Police Authority of Northern Ireland should make room for the federation to attend more of its meetings, but I welcome the progress that has been made in that respect. It should go further.
  I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the efforts that they made recently to overcome a small domestic problem concerning social and recreational facilities for the RUC. It is right that the federation has been allowed to provide them. It will help. I hope that when Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, Philip Myers, completes his inspection of the force, he will recognise that there has been an improvement in the social and recreational facilities. Overall there is an improvement, but the Act is essential. To deny it to the RUC is to take away its means of protecting the lives and property of our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Only one Back-Bench Labour Member has spoken during the debate among a whole team of other hon. Members.
  11.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): It is impossible in the time available to answer all the points raised. I shall write to hon. Members who raised specific points, which I have not time to answer.
  The House is generally agreed, apart from some predictable dissent, that the renewal of the powers is sad but necessary. Sir George Baker in his report said:
  "throughout this inquiry over nine months, having read a vast amount of material with many different opinions and spoken with the authors, I have become increasingly more convinced that any provision of the EPA which may save even one life or bring even one guilty terrorist to conviction and sentence should be retained until the paramilitary forces foreswear terrorism unless there is a powerful convincing reason for repeal or amendment".
  That was his considered judgment after nine months studying every aspect of the matter. He was supported by the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. It said:
  "the Commission consider that the people of Northern Ireland still require special protection from terrorism and for this reason we agree that some exceptional measures are still required"
  All hon. Members regret that they are necessary, but the need for them is widely recognised throughout the Province.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) described the measures as draconian and criticised them.
  Mr. Archer: I did not describe the measures as draconian. I quoted a Conservative Attorney-General.
  Mr. Scott: The right hon. and learned Gentleman drew that description into the debate. I accept that we would love to do without these powers, but without them the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army could not pursue the battle against terrorism with the success that they have achieved recently.
  I beg the House to understand when hon. Members criticise the use of accomplice evidence and the provisions in the Act that people are alive or unmaimed today who would have been murdered by terrorists if the powers had not been available. I agree that we must find a balance and that we would rather be without them. But Sir George Baker, to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman paid the warmest tribute for the way in which he tackled this work, concluded that we could not do without these powers—broadly as they are.
  I hope that we shall soon be able to debate the Baker report in its entirety, but I do not decide the business of the House. As I understand it, had the Opposition wished to debate that report before the House rose for the summer recess, it could have been arranged. However, there was not that sort of pressure for the debate, which is why the House will debate it in the autumn. That is my understanding of the position.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) seemed to imply that the Government were not providing the Army and the RUC with the resources necessary to conduct the exercise against terrorists. By the time we have recruited the extra policemen, the size of the RUC — both the full-time service and the full-time reserve—will have increased by more than 1,100 in two years. That illustrates the Government's commitment and determination to provide the RUC, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Army with sufficient manpower and resources.

  579
  I could raise many other points, but the whole matter is summed up by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland in remarks following a recent judgment. He reminded us that 2,000 years ago, Cicero said:
  "Amid the clash of arms the laws are silent."
  The Lord Chief Justice went on to say, as Lord Atkin did during the second world war, that most assuredly in our country that is not true, that peace, order and society can be under fierce and constant attack, but still the law has its way. Although we may have to change the law to deal with the terrorist, the same burden of proof—proving beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of the offence with which they are charged—
  Mr. Flannery: You do not do that.
  Mr. Scott: Indeed we do. We provide, as has been said already during the debate, defence counsel of choice at public expense, and the automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, at public expense again. I believe that we try, when society itself is under the most grievous attack from the men of terror, to ensure that all the principles and integrity of the British system of justice are upheld in Northern Ireland.
  We should ensure that the judges and those who have the difficult task of enforcing the law—
  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).
  The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 70.

  Division No. 395]

  [11.44 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Cope, John

  Ashby, David

  Couchman, James

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Baldry, Anthony

  Dover, Den

  Beggs, Roy

  Dunn, Robert

  Beith, A. J.

  Durant, Tony

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dykes, Hugh

  Benyon, William

  Evennett, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Farr, Sir John

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Favell, Anthony

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Forth, Eric

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Freeman, Roger

  Bright, Graham

  Galley, Roy

  Brinton, Tim

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Browne, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Bruinvels, Peter

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

  Budgen, Nick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Ground, Patrick

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hannam, John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Harvey, Robert

  Cartwright, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayes, J.

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hayward, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Conway, Derek

  Hickmet, Richard

  Coombs, Simon

  Hind, Kenneth

  580

  Hirst, Michael

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Holt, Richard

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Hooson, Tom

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Howard, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

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

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Silvester, Fred

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Speller, Tony

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Spencer, Derek

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Squire, Robin

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Kennedy, Charles

  Stern, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Knowles, Michael

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Lang, Ian

  Sumberg, David

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Lester, Jim

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Lilley, Peter

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Thornton, Malcolm

  McCusker, Harold

  Thurnham, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Tracey, Richard

  Maclean, David John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Maginnis, Ken

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Major, John

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mather, Carol

  Walden, George

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Ward, John

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Warren, Kenneth

  Needham, Richard

  Watts, John

  Newton, Tony

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wheeler, John

  Nicholson, J.

  Whitney, Raymond

  Norris, Steven

  Wilkinson, John

  Osborn, Sir John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Parris, Matthew

  Wolfson, Mark

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Wood, Timothy

  Pawsey, James

  Woodcock, Michael

  Porter, Barry

  Yeo, Tim

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

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  NOES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dubs, Alfred

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Eastham, Ken

  Barnett, Guy

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Fatchett, Derek

  Benn, Tony

  Fisher, Mark

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

  Flannery, Martin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foster, Derek

  Caborn, Richard

  Hardy, Peter

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Haynes, Frank

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lamond, James

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Litherland, Robert

  Cohen, Harry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Corbett, Robin

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McGuire, Michael

  Dalyell, Tam

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  McKelvey, William

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Deakins, Eric

  Madden, Max

  Dobson, Frank

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Dormand, Jack

  Meacher, Michael

  581

  Michie, William

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

  Mikardo, Ian

  Snape, Peter

  Nellist, David

  Soley, Clive

  Parry, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Patchett, Terry

  Strang, Gavin

  Pike, Peter

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Redmond, M.

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Wareing, Robert

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Welsh, Michael

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Winnick, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Mr. Don Dixon and

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. John McWilliam.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, at the next sitting of the House on which Motions are moved on behalf of the Committee of Selection, such Motions 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. Douglas Hogg.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Objection taken.

  Phillips Rubber Ltd. (Industrial Dispute)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
  12.6 am
  Mr. Ken Eastham: The entire country is aware of the mining dispute, which has lasted for about four months. However, tonight I shall present to the House the details and history of a strike at the Phillips Rubber Company in Dantzic street—a back street in Manchester—which has brought suffering and shame well beyond the bounds of reasonableness and fair play.
  The strike was declared and made official by the Transport and General Workers Union on 3 January 1984. The dispute, which involves 102 workers, is still unresolved. It was a consequence of a breakdown in negotiations on the company's final pay offer of a £1.92 increase on a basic wage of £48 a week. The current average national wage for a full-time male worker is £167·50, and for a female worker it is £108·80. A meeting was convened through ACAS on 20 January, but the company still refused to improve its offer. Furthermore, Phillips Rubber threatened the workers involved with summary dismissal if the miserable wage was not accepted and they did not return to work by 7 February.
  We hear much about the conduct of strikers; for a change, I shall put on record the unmerciful conduct of an employer, some of whose work force have been loyal employees for more than 30 years. May I also dispense with an assumption sometimes made, that the women are working only for pin money? Nothing could be further from the truth.
  When picketing, the strikers have been passive in their conduct, and very little policing has been required. Knowing the details of the shabby brutality accorded to the employees by the company, it is a great wonder to me that there has been no violence during this dispute.
  By way of illustration, let me cite the case of one of my constituents, Mr. A. Cooper, who lives in the Moston area of Blackley. He furnished me with photostat copies of letters received from the Phillips Rubber Company. One was dated 9 February 1984, and stated in brief and brutal form:
  "Dear former employee, Please find enclosed parts 2 and 3 of your P45. Please keep them in a safe place as your new employer will require them when you get a new job. Part 1 has been forwarded to the tax office. Yours faithfully, Phillips Rubber Company Ltd. L. J. Holt, Joint Managing Director."
  All the documentation is available for examination. My constituent asked, "If the firm returned my cards, and if I am now unemployed, why can I not receive unemployment benefit?" I pursued this case with the manager of the DHSS and asked for a ruling and detailed summary of Mr. Cooper's circumstances.
  Mr. Cooper is a young married man with two children—a daughter under one year and a small son aged two. According to the DHSS assessment — it should be remembered that its figures are based on subsistence level—his minimum total requirements were calculated at £52·65 a week. His income comprised child benefit, £13; family income supplement—because of his starvation wages — £9·90; and strike pay £15. The DHSS concluded that he needed a supplement of £29·75.
  However, thanks to the Conservative Government's Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980, there was a deduction

  583
  of £15 from that figure because this man was on strike, leaving him with a benefit entitlement for his family and himself of £14·75p a week, this at a time when the Manchester Guardian, on 25 June 1984, said that the average weekly food bill was £34·24p.
  After I made inquiries on Mr. Cooper's behalf, and received a ruling by the regional adjudicating officer at the Department of Employment, his benefit was finally restored as from 11 June 1984. The whole story is one of complete shame, and many more such cases could be recorded.
  That brings me to the question of low pay generally. I recently served on the Select Committee on Employment. The Low Pay Unit told the Committee:
  "Low wages are a cause of social and economic deprivation and proverty."
  Earlier I mentioned the £9.90 paid to Mr. Cooper in FIS because of his Phillips Rubber poverty wages. In reply to my question the Low Pay Unit told the Committee:
  "One of the main problems with FIS, apart from the fact you have employers telling their staff to go to the DHSS for their pay, is that it causes the poverty trap whereby for every increase in earnings you often lose up to 100 per cent. of that increase in withdrawals of means-tested benefits and tax and national insurance."
  If Mr. Cooper had received a wage increase of anything less than £10 per week, his overall increase would be almost nil.
  Ever since 1891—confirmed in 1909 and 1946—we have supported the fair wages resolution against sweatshops. To our shame, an early-day motion calls for the abolition of wages councils. The motion, which carries the signatures of 110 Conservative Members, reads:
  "That this House views with great concern the detrimental effect that wages councils have on the free working of the labour market and in particular the loss of job opportunities for young people; believes that the ending of such restrictions will enable the cost of labour to move to market levels and thereby create new jobs; and therefore calls on Her Majesty's Government to abolish wages councils as soon as its international commitment allows."
  Today, 7 million adult workers suffer from low pay. That figure excludes young workers. It is easy to see that the figure will be increased if we abolish wages councils. Wages councils are an essential mechanism for the protection of the most vulnerable workers in our society.
  I am told that, with a small scab labour force, the Phillips company in Manchester is producing on a small scale. The firm has been fulfilling export orders, including some for the police and the army in South Africa. However, there is undoubtedly continuing and strong feeling throughout the trade unions about this catalogue of shame and this rogue employer who is disgracing the high reputation of my city of Manchester.
  Is the Minister prepared to help to put matters right? There is an overwhelming case for an immediate high-level inquiry into the financial and labour affairs of the company. In appalling cases such as this, consideration should be given to the introduction of some form of automatic Government inquiry mechanism, obviating the need to go to a Minister.
  Government Departments should not in any way be party to the abuse of workers by firms. Departments should not interpret the rules in such a way as to force workers back on to the mercy of such heartless employers. Despite what some politicians may believe, the general public do not applaud minority firms which behave like a
  584
  form of leprosy, eating away at decent forms of conduct towards workers. Although attention is more frequently directed solely at the trade unions, employers are accountable too. In the 1980s, no company in Britain has a licence to treat its work force as brutally as the Phillips Rubber Company does.
  These workers are not asking for luxuries. They ask only for the dignity of being able to make ends meet. The Prime Minister, during the general election, talked about the need to return to Victorian values. In a growing number of instances throughout the country, we seem to be rapidly returning to Victorian wage rates, on which workers cannot cope with the cost of living of 1980.
  I believe that the Minister of State has the authority to take action to bring the dispute to a fair and just solution. It is a catalogue of shame. The shareholders of the company should re-examine the details of their business undertaking. There are things other than profits and balance sheets to be considered. Morality is important too. I appeal to the Minister to find a positive solution to restore some humanity to this dispute, which has lasted for six months.
  12.23 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I have listened with considerable concern to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham). I begin by saying that I shall be unable to answer some of the points that he made because a number of cases are to be heard by an industrial tribunal. I do not wish to avoid answering, but, for obvious reasons, those cases must be protected. If there is truth in what the hon. Gentleman has said—and I do not mean to suggest that what he has said is other than the truth—he will understand that I do not want to say anything that might cast doubt on those cases or interfere with them. The cases cover a wide range of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I will therefore address myself to the matter with care, but avoid those matters that might be embarrassing to those who have brought those cases. Some of the cases are in the initial stages of preparation, and we do not know how far they will extend. That is another problem.
  In January this year 143 disputes began, involving 127,000 workers. About half of them were about pay. I put that on the record because it is obviously true that, in each case, there is considerable difficulty attached to knowing the issue from both sides. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that I have all the details, as that would be impossible from the outside. I understand that the facts are as follows. The Transport and General Workers Union, which represents workers at the firm, submitted a pay claim which, if accepted, would have increased pay rates by some 56 per cent. It is quite right for the hon. Gentleman to say that that should be put in the context of the wage rates that are paid by the firm. The firm responded by making an offer of 4 per cent., which the union negotiators rejected, so 110 production workers stopped work.
  The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service then stepped in. That is the first thing that a governmental body, albeit an arms-length one, should do. It held meetings with both sides in an attempt to help them reach a mutually acceptable settlement. Talks foundered when the union rejected the employer's revised offer and it became evident that the union claim was more than the

  585
  employer felt he could afford. I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's objection to that, but what wages can be afforded when a company is being competitive is a real issue. The result was that the 110 striking workers were dismissed early in February 1984 after they had rejected their employer's request to resume normal working. The employer then advertised in the press for replacement labour.
  On 20 February the strikers occupied the factory unlawfully and, began a sit-in. On that same day the company obtained an injunction against that occupation, and the sit-in ended on 23 February. New workers started at the factory on 5 March 1984, when a second sit-in began. It ended the same day with the granting of a second injunction. As the hon. Gentleman said, I understand that there was no violence. I was sorry to hear him comment on the fact that there was very little policing, as it would be sad if we had to have policing whenever industrial problems occurred. I think that he will agree that that would be undesirable.
  I am informed—I say that because we ensure that the independence of ACAS results in its informing when asked and I have asked—that ACAS continued to keep in touch with the parties to the dispute and that it met both sides on 15 March, but was unsuccessful in helping them to resolve their differences. Meanwhile, work is continuing at the factory, despite picketing of it. I understand that the employer has withdrawn his vacancy notification from the jobcentre, as the jobs have been filled.
  Those are the essential details of the dispute. The work force feel that they are underpaid and the employer believes that he cannot afford to pay more. That is not new. It has frequently happened as declining markets and increasing competition, part of which is for export orders, have brought home awareness of the need to produce quality goods at a better price than our competitors. I put it as clearly as that, not because I am taking sides but because there might be another side to the argument that the hon. Gentleman advanced.
  Mr. Robert Litherland: We know what the employer thinks and what the workers think, and we want to know what the Government think. People might have worked at the factory for 30 years and devoted their lives to the company and been restrained from taking wage rises in the past to keep the company going. All they wanted was an increase on £48 a week. In all of the discussions with ACAS, the employer has not improved the offer. What do the Government think about a company paying £48 for a 40-hour week?
  Mr. Gummer: I understand that after the discussion with ACAS, the employer improved his offer. We are faced here with a number of people having made applications to an industrial tribunal, and I understand that others are preparing applications. It is important that I should not prejudice those cases, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that. That is the problem of dealing on the Floor of the House with a specific case which is about to come before an industrial tribunal. I am not trying to avoid the hon. Gentleman's question, and I hope that he will appreciate how the problem arises.
  I will, therefore, deal with some of the wider points that the hon. Member for Blackley made. He will recall that I have spoken several times in the House on the subject of
  586
  wages councils and have made it clear that I have not made up my mind about the question of the abolition or retention of wages councils. I have said clearly that their continuation or abolition depends on a simple proposition, but a difficult one to prove.
  If it could be shown, in a society which now establishes a minimum wage by the level of supplementary benefit, that the existence of wages councils reduced Job opportunities without improving the wages of those in work, that must be a serious matter for the Government to take into account. If what the hon. Gentleman says about wages councils is right, it would be wrong to abolish them.
  The Government have simply said that they have asked for the evidence and that they have the results of a good deal of research, some of which has surprised me—produced, as it was, by someone who was known to be a supporter of not just the Labour party but something to the Left of that—in that it suggests that some of the worries of my hon. Friends are not without foundation. However, we do not yet have all the evidence, and I have said that when we have it all I shall consider it carefully.
  Mr. John Evans: Will it be published?
  Mr. Gummer: We shall be happy to make clear the evidence on which the decisions are made, whatever those decisions are, but something worries me and, in speaking of it, I hope that Opposition Members will not take it in a combative spirit but will accept that it is a real problem.
  Comparing not just Britain but the whole of Europe with America over the last 10 years, there is one very noticeable difference. Whereas in America, in general, wage costs are slightly lower today than they were 10 years ago, the Americans in those 10 years have created 13 million new jobs. In Britain, wages are considerably higher in real terms, ahead of the rise in the cost of living, than they were 10 years ago.
  Mr. Evans: In some areas.
  Mr. Gummer: I am talking in general, in terms of national figures. They are considerably higher in general in this country, yet we have not produced anything like that proportion of jobs — indeed, we have produced fewer—under Labour and Conservative Governments, and the same is true throughout Europe
  This is an issue which cannot be ignored by anyone who is concerned with unemployment. If we could find the reason why the United States has been so much more successful in the production of jobs, while we in Europe have been so much less successful, that would do more to help the unemployed than any amount of polemic, whether from the Government or Opposition Benches.
  If I became convinced that wages councils reduced job opportunities without any real compensating advantage to those in work, I should have to present the House with that evidence and suggest that changes should be made. That cannot be done without the evidence. We should not take the position that the hon. Member for Blackley suggested, that those who investigate the operations of the councils and take evidence from elsewhere are trying to get at the poorest in society. Many of those who signed the early-day motion are known for their concern about unemployment and they see the Government's approach as one way in which we can begin the important business of trying to produce more jobs.

  587
  I accept that those with large families who are in work and who for competitive reasons, or through their own inability, earn only low wages must be provided with help, otherwise we force them into the belief that it is better—
  Mr. Eastham rose—
  Mr. Gummer: Very little time is left. Without that help, we force them into the belief that it is better not to work. They will then take the whole of their income from the state, and not only family income supplement. That is
  588
  damaging to personal integrity and personal pride. I take severe issue with the Low Pay Unit. I wish that it would broaden the base of its political sympathies so that it did what it claims to do instead of what it actually does. I believe that FIS is a humane and proper use of the state's resources, and it would be wrong to attack it in the way that the hon. Gentleman has—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-four minutes to One o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Mergers Policy
  Mergers Policy
  NEXOS
  NEXOS
  Telecommunications (Private Suppliers)
  Telecommunications (Private Suppliers)
  Take-away Food Retailers
  Take-away Food Retailers
EMPLOYMENT
  Training Opportunities Scheme (Leaflet)
  Training Opportunities Scheme (Leaflet)
  Adult Training
  Adult Training
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Take-away Food (Job Losses)
  Take-away Food (Job Losses)
ENERGY
  Nuclear Industry
  Nuclear Industry
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Embassies (Demonstrations)
  Embassies (Demonstrations)
  Libyan People's Bureau (Siege)
  Libyan People's Bureau (Siege)
  Data Protection Bill
  Data Protection Bill
  Crime Prevention (Policy)
  Crime Prevention (Policy)
  "Television Without Frontiers"
  "Television Without Frontiers"
  Animal Experiments (Alternatives)
  Animal Experiments (Alternatives)
  Dr. Hadwen Trust for Humane Research
  Dr. Hadwen Trust for Humane Research
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Holiday Visitors (Indian Sub-continent)
  Holiday Visitors (Indian Sub-continent)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Shotguns
  Shotguns
  Immigration Appeals
  Immigration Appeals
  Parole
  Parole
  Remand Prisoners
  Remand Prisoners
  Prisons (Psychotropic and Hypnotic Medicines)
  Prisons (Psychotropic and Hypnotic Medicines)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Foreign Armed Forces
  Foreign Armed Forces
  Empty Residential Properties
  Empty Residential Properties
  Deer Act 1980
  Deer Act 1980
  Prisons (Statistics)
  Prisons (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Court Files (Merseyside)
  Court Files (Merseyside)
  Mr. Bill Bush (Arrest)
  Mr. Bill Bush (Arrest)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Illegitimacy
  Illegitimacy
  Firearms Offences
  Firearms Offences
SCOTLAND
  Deciduous Trees
  Deciduous Trees
  Police Officers (Criminal Offences)
  Police Officers (Criminal Offences)
  Killearn Hospital Site
  Killearn Hospital Site
  Mental Health Officers
  Mental Health Officers
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  European Economic Community (Reform)
  European Economic Community (Reform)
  Prime Minister's Questions
  Prime Minister's Questions
  EC (Refunds)
  EC (Refunds)
  EC (Expenditure Control)
  EC (Expenditure Control)
  EC (Veto)
  EC (Veto)
  European Assembly
  European Assembly
  EC (Budget)
  EC (Budget)
  EC (Agricultural Surpluses)
  EC (Agricultural Surpluses)
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Sir Timothy Creasey (Appointment)
  Sir Timothy Creasey (Appointment)
  London Economic Summit (Hospitality Costs)
  London Economic Summit (Hospitality Costs)
WALES
  Boundary Commissioners (Qualifications)
  Boundary Commissioners (Qualifications)
  Joint Projects (Funding)
  Joint Projects (Funding)
  Post Offices (Administration)
  Post Offices (Administration)
  Roads Expenditure
  Roads Expenditure
  Solvent Abuse
  Solvent Abuse
TRANSPORT
  Merchant Fleet
  Merchant Fleet
  Road Service Licences
  Road Service Licences
  Road Accident Statistics
  Road Accident Statistics
  Deceased Persons (Airport Clearance)
  Deceased Persons (Airport Clearance)
  London Regional Transport (Staff)
  London Regional Transport (Staff)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Docklands Light Railway
  Docklands Light Railway
  Pre-school Traffic Clubs
  Pre-school Traffic Clubs
DEFENCE
  Spanish Slate
  Spanish Slate
  Oman (Secondment)
  Oman (Secondment)
  Officers(Performance Standards)
  Officers(Performance Standards)
  Aircraft Landings
  Aircraft Landings
  Mr. Robin Walsh
  Mr. Robin Walsh
  Military Personnel (Civil Emergencies)
  Military Personnel (Civil Emergencies)
THE ARTS
  Objects in Lieu of Tax
  Objects in Lieu of Tax
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Pension Funds
  Pension Funds
  Export Licences
  Export Licences
  Levies and Duties (EC Budget)
  Levies and Duties (EC Budget)
  Unemployment Benefits (Taxation)
  Unemployment Benefits (Taxation)
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Department Advertising
  Department Advertising
  Tax Credit Scheme
  Tax Credit Scheme
  Demergers (Fiscal Provisions)
  Demergers (Fiscal Provisions)
  VAT (Take-away Food)
  VAT (Take-away Food)
  EC (Contributions)
  EC (Contributions)
  Tax Evasion
  Tax Evasion
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Disabled Persons (Car Tax Relief)
  Disabled Persons (Car Tax Relief)
  Mr. Telliez (Milk Subsidy Payment)
  Mr. Telliez (Milk Subsidy Payment)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Prisoners(Statistics)
  Prisoners(Statistics)
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Secondary Education (Trafford)
  Secondary Education (Trafford)
  Students (Indebtedness)
  Students (Indebtedness)
  Thompson Report (Youth Training)
  Thompson Report (Youth Training)
  Teachers (Special Qualifications)
  Teachers (Special Qualifications)
  Teaching (Foreign Degrees)
  Teaching (Foreign Degrees)
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Higher Education (Course Monitoring)
  Higher Education (Course Monitoring)
  General Certificate of Secondary Education Examination
  General Certificate of Secondary Education Examination
ENVIRONMENT
  Smith Houses
  Smith Houses
  GLC (Green Belt)
  GLC (Green Belt)
  Water Authorities (Direct Labour Organisations)
  Water Authorities (Direct Labour Organisations)
  Local Government Superannuation Scheme
  Local Government Superannuation Scheme
  London Planning Commission
  London Planning Commission
  London Boroughs (Unitary Development Plans)
  London Boroughs (Unitary Development Plans)
  Office Development
  Office Development
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Green Belt Development Applications (Bromley)
  Green Belt Development Applications (Bromley)
  Adopted Local Plans
  Adopted Local Plans
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Departmental Residential Properties
  Departmental Residential Properties
  Public Sector Capital Expenditure (Moratorium)
  Public Sector Capital Expenditure (Moratorium)
  Lead-free Petrol
  Lead-free Petrol
  Carsington Dam
  Carsington Dam
  Air Pollution Conference, Munich
  Air Pollution Conference, Munich
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  "Home Defence and the Farmer"
  "Home Defence and the Farmer"
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Pig Prices
  Pig Prices
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Culled Cows
  Culled Cows
  Drainage Schemes
  Drainage Schemes
  Herring Quotas
  Herring Quotas
  Upland Farms
  Upland Farms
  Grain Quotas
  Grain Quotas
  Farm Wardens
  Farm Wardens
  Potato Marketing Board
  Potato Marketing Board
  Broad Leafed Woodlands
  Broad Leafed Woodlands
  Agricultural Support
  Agricultural Support
  Racing Pigeons (Vaccination)
  Racing Pigeons (Vaccination)
  Small Dairy Farmers
  Small Dairy Farmers
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Capital Returns
  Capital Returns
  Departmental Efficiency
  Departmental Efficiency
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Newcastle Disease
  Newcastle Disease
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Food Imports
  Food Imports
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970
  Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970
  Community Care
  Community Care
  NHS (Anti-smoking Treatment)
  NHS (Anti-smoking Treatment)
  Health Authorities (Staff Cuts)
  Health Authorities (Staff Cuts)
  Casualty Units (Closure)
  Casualty Units (Closure)
  Local Office Staffs (Dundee)
  Local Office Staffs (Dundee)
  Hospitals (West Midlands)
  Hospitals (West Midlands)
  Sugar-based Medicines (Children)
  Sugar-based Medicines (Children)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  NHS (Efficiency Improvements)
  NHS (Efficiency Improvements)
  Clatterbridge Hospital
  Clatterbridge Hospital
  Treatment Times (Liverpool)
  Treatment Times (Liverpool)
  NHS Beds (Liverpool and Merseyside)
  NHS Beds (Liverpool and Merseyside)
  NHS Expenditure Cuts (Liverpool)
  NHS Expenditure Cuts (Liverpool)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Sickle Cell Anaemia
  Sickle Cell Anaemia
  Cigarette Sales (Children)
  Cigarette Sales (Children)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Crothalls (Cleaning Contracts)
  Crothalls (Cleaning Contracts)
  NHS (Privatisation)
  NHS (Privatisation)
  Financial Management Initiative
  Financial Management Initiative
  Consultants (Thames Region)
  Consultants (Thames Region)
  Benefits (Departmental Reviews)
  Benefits (Departmental Reviews)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  France (No-passport Excursions)
  France (No-passport Excursions)
  Departmental Efficiency
  Departmental Efficiency
  Oman (British Citizens)
  Oman (British Citizens)
  Mr. Robin Walsh
  Mr. Robin Walsh
  Oman (Costain International)
  Oman (Costain International)
  Namibia (Arrests)
  Namibia (Arrests)
  Belize
  Belize
  Treaty of Utrecht
  Treaty of Utrecht
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua

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

The Postal Service
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to check the increasing deterioration in the handling of mail by the Post Office.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, recent disappointing performance levels have owed much to industrial relations difficulties associated with the annual pay round and with the Post Office's ongoing drive to increase the efficiency of the business. This followed a period of improvement in service in late 1982 and in 1983, when the Post Office came close to meeting its delivery targets. In the light of the recent deterioration, the Post Office undertook an intensive review of mail arrangements in London. This review has now been completed and far-reaching changes implemented. The Government will now he discussing with the Post Office its plans to secure significant and sustained improvements over recent delivery performance.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that moderately encouraging reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the public are deeply disturbed at the deterioration in service in recent months and are not prepared to accept mere declarations of intention? If these declarations do not bear fruit, may I ask what the Government propose to do about it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my answer was not intended to he a declaration of intent but to indicate that the Post Office board is doing something: for example, a better breakdown of postal services for London districts' traffic in inner area offices; a reduction in the number of weekday first class dispatches between inner area offices to two per day; and a separate van network solely for inner area to inner area first-class traffic. I accept my noble friend's point that the public are suffering both distress and inconvenience from the failure of the Post Office to meet performance targets. But this is due to the changeover in the management of the Post Office, who are going a considerable way towards reducing restrictive working practices within the organisation. Regretfully this cannot be done overnight so some disruption w ill, I am afraid, continue for some little time.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, going back further than that, would the Minister agree that the real deterioration in Post Office deliveries was when we had the introduction of the second tier letter service?
400
Arising from that and following on, is he further aware that the consequent additional delay in each subsequent year of the second-class mail to fulfil the obligations that it should arrive later has greatly added to this late delivery? Will he look at that.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am certainly prepared to look at it, but my information is that the introduction of the second-class letter postage has nothing to do with the problem. If we still had a single rate and delivery service all that would have happened would be that the whole system would be very much worse rather than just part of it.
Lord Somers: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House any assurance that the Government will not try any such remedy as privatising the Post Office?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is rather a different question; but it is of course an important policy aim of the Government to reduce the size and scope of the public sector, and privatisation in all sectors is under review. The Post Office is not excluded from this review although there are no immediate plans to privatise the corporation.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, does my noble friend think that it might meet the Post Office's wish to be more efficient if post codes were fully used? If this is the case, will my noble friend try to encourage the Post Office to encourage the public to use post codes more?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the recent mechanisation programme is proceeding apace and relies to a great extent on postal codes, but the Post Office has not been encouraging use of postal codes until the mechanisation process is complete. Once it is complete I have no doubt that the Post Office will follow my noble friend's suggestion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the profitability of the Post Office—which is one of the main criteria imposed by Her Majesty's Government—has increased progressively over the years and that last year it contributed £59 million net into the Exchequer? Is he further aware that all the productivity indicators have gone consistently upwards? Will he bear in mind that where the profit motive alone is taken as the principal criterion with consequent changes in management practice, it is not unusual for services to deteriorate slightly in the short term?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think that it is the profit motive alone which has caused this, I hope, temporary deterioration from the Post Office's published aims. As far as the surpluses that are made by the Post Office are concerned, I did not have the £59 million figure for last year, but I can tell the noble Lord that they have had surpluses of £131 million since the year 1981–82. I may add for the information of the House that they owe the National Loans Fund £178.6 million.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is no single measure which

401
would give greater savings and greater efficiency to the postal service than the universal introduction of the postal code? Is he also aware that in some areas of the country where the posting public use the postal codes there is no machinery at all to use it in the postal service? Can my noble friend give an assurance that he will ask the Post Office authorities to give top priority to the universal introduction of the postal code? Nothing would give greater economy and a greater boost to efficiency.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He is perfectly right but, until the machinery exists in all sorting offices to deal with the postal codes, the Post Office feel that there is little point in encouraging more than they are at the moment the use of the code.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in my area of Wimbledon, in south-west London, we had an absolutely superb service, as efficient as it was personal and friendly, and that now all that has gone under the drive for efficiency when too much of the sorting is centralised at the big new Nine Elms sorting office?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Nine Elms sorting office is, I would say, a great improvement which affects not only the whole of London but also the postage throughout the whole country because so much mail goes through London. I accept that in its building and implementation there have been hiccoughs such as those in his own district of Wimbledon to which the noble Lord referred, but, when it is fully operational, I can assure the noble Lord that he will find the service considerably better.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, rather than being led astray by the anti-profit question as put by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is my noble friend aware that extra profits invariably reflect extra efficiency and that it is extra efficiency that we want at the end of the day?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that I am grateful to my noble friend but, of course, profits come from a whole different range of things—including, I may say, the interest on investments.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord when, on first installing this equipment, it was expected to be completed and what is causing the hold-up?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the major hold-up is that at the beginning the Post Office workers refused to operate the machinery. I am glad to say that this is now getting considerably better. The implementation of the entire outward sorting will be completed by the end of 1985.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us sympathise with the postmen in trying to decipher the horrible calligraphy resulting from the use of that anti-calligraphic weapon the ballpoint
402
pen, which is ruining human handwriting and making the reading solution of an address almost impossible for the postmen?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, arising out of my noble friend's reply to my noble friend Lord Nugent and to the noble Baroness opposite, can he explain—other than by suggesting that it is an indication of a lack of drive on the part of the management of the Post Office—why there has been since postal codes were announced this enormous delay in bringing them into operation? It has taken many years.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I thought that I had already done so. It was because of the inability of the Post Office to persuade the Post Office unions to use the machinery which is being installed.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider adopting the system of post codes prevailing in all other countries? This is a decimal system consisting of numbers only, where successive numbers serve to indicate area, a district of an area, a region within a district, etc., so that anybody on reading the number can, more or less, fix the location of the place. Is not our system, which consists partly of letters and partly of numbers, very difficult to remember and absolutely meaningless to anybody?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid that I must disagree with the noble Lord. As somebody who has had in the past an interest in direct mail advertising, I can understand the postal codes in this country perfectly well.
Lord Plant: My Lords, would not the noble Lord the Minister agree that over the country as a whole the Post Office are giving us an excellent service? Would not the workers in the Post Office be deserving of more helpful and constructive criticism from your Lordships' House?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I have been at pains to point out, although there have been difficulties within the Post Office, they are coming to an end.

Reservoirs Act 1975: Implementation
3.17 p.m.
The Duke of Atholl: 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 they propose to bring the provisions of the Reservoirs Act 1975 into force, and whether it will apply to all reservoirs of over 25,000 cubic metres in capacity.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are consulting the local authority associations about the implementation of the Reservoirs Act 1975. The present intention is

403
that the provisions of the Act relating to the keeping of information by undertakers, the establishment of registers of reservoirs by enforcement authorities and emergency procedures will be implemented on 1st October 1984; and the remaining provisions mainly relating to regular engineering supervision of reservoir operations on 1st October 1985.
Implementation in Greater London and metropolitan county areas depends on the future structure of local government in those areas. The Act applies to all reservoirs holding or capable of holding more than 25.000 cubic metres in capacity.
The Duke of Atholl: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. May I ask him whether, before bringing into effect the second section of that part of the Act that he was going to bring into force on 1st October 1985, if all goes well, he would consult with some or all of the many conservation bodies that exist in this country; and also whether it would be possible to exclude large raised reservoirs in remote areas where, even if the dams burst, they would do little harm and where they are useful both for fire fighting and as a wetlands habitat for many species of birds, butterflies and dragonflies which are becoming very rare in this country?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. No. I have not in fact thought of consulting the conservation bodies in this respect, but I note the points that my noble friend has made and will study them with care.

Road Safety: USA Comparisons
3.21 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will summarise the information they have received about casualties and road accidents in the United States of America since the national speed limit was reduced to 55 miles per hour; how these figures compare with the previous three full years; and what conclusions they have reached in the context of growing pressures to increase the speed limit on United Kingdom motorways to 80 miles per hour.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, a national maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour was introduced in the United States in January 1974. The number of road fatalities and injuries fell in 1974 by 17 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively. On inter-state rural roads, the reduction in fatalities and injuries was 30 per cent. A large part of these reductions could be associated with the 55 miles per hour limit. United States' casualty figures have been creeping up steadily since then. It is extremely difficult to assess the benefit of the 55 miles per hour limit because many other factors are known to have an effect.
Differences between the United States and the United Kingdom on such matters as speed distributions, road design, driving behaviour and levels of enforcement make the United States' experience of
404
little relevance in deciding what limits should be imposed here. Noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently decided that the speed limit on motorways should remain at 70 miles per hour.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. In spite of the somewhat hostile press reaction to the decision to keep the speed limit at 70, is my noble friend aware that a great many people regard 70 miles per hour, which often means 75 or 80, as quite fast enough? The decision will therefore he very widely welcomed, as I say, in spite of the remarkably hostile press reaction. Now that the Government have made up their minds about the matter of the speed limit, which will presumably last a number of years, may I ask whether they have open minds about the possibility of introducing a minimum speed limit on dual carriageways, which has worked very successfully and is regarded as having brought down the number of road accidents considerably in many other countries?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks with regard to the decision my right honourable friend announced on 3rd July so far as the 70 miles an hour limit is concerned. As regards minimum speed limits, we have no current proposals to investigate this matter further. This was done some years ago and did not find favour, particularly for two reasons. One was that it could in fact encourage higher speeds than would be safe in particularly bad conditions. Secondly, there is no evidence that it would have a road safety benefit by producing a reduction in speed differentials over a shorter speed band.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that when the House was discussing the variation of the speed limit orders on 8th March reference was made to the national speed survey conducted in 1983? On that occasion the noble Lord himself said that it had been received in the department only two or three weeks before, and the matter was being studied. Do I understand from his answers that the study says that there should be no change, or is the matter still under consideration?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, if I have understood the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, correctly, my right honourable friend has made a decision that the limit for motor cars on motorways should remain at 70 miles an hour. As far as that answer is concerned, there is no more to say on the matter.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, quite apart from whether we should or should not raise our speed limits on motorways or trunk roads, the American connection has little relevance because, apart from the list he read out, the citizens in the United States of America, from what I have seen, regard any journey over 100 miles as having to be travelled by air, and therefore they do not use the roads. Therefore, there is not the same sort of feeling that they want to go faster on roads.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that may well be a factor. Certainly, conditions in the United States of America vary so considerably from our own that, as I suggested in my original Answer, their conditions have little relevance to our own.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister not agree that the 50 miles per hour limit in the United States means nothing at all? When I was in that country last week, all the cars were going at far in excess of that speed. Can the Minister give an assurance that he will continue to resist the pressure in this country to raise the speed limit to 80 miles per hour?
Lord Lucas of Chiworth: My Lords, how the Americans arrange their road traffic affairs is, of course, their business. I do not think I could possibly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, said. I was in America last year and I noticed a great deal of observance of the limits. He will also know that in different states different levels of enforcement apply. Again, I do not think there is a relevance between what happens there and what happens in the United Kingdom, where distances are so very different.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, has my noble friend any explanations as to why large lorries and transporters seem to have increased their speeds to up to 70 miles an hour in the last months in a way that is rather surprising? Is there a new dispensation for them, or are they still restricted to 50 miles an hour?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I had known that there was this noticeable difference to which my noble friend refers.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that, while there is no exact correlation, international comparisons show that the lower the speed limit the lower the number of road deaths?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, no, that is not so. On their own, speed limits are only a contributory factor towards accidents and, as I suggested again in my original answer, very many different factors have to be brought into account when assessing the relativity of road deaths and casualties.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, could my noble friend answer my question as to whether there has been a dispensation for heavy goods vehicles to go faster than 50 miles and hour?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, there is no dispensation. The speed limits for some commercial vehicles were altered by way of regulation during March of this year.
Lord Mottistone: Altered to what, my Lords?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, to 60 miles and hour.

Foreign Embassies: Planning Control
3.28 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will review planning control of foreign embassies, consulates and their associated buildings with regard to their use and immunity.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, diplomatic missions are well aware that their immunity does not in any way absolve them from the responsibility to comply with planning and listed building consent regulations and building by-laws. The Vice-Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps reminded heads of missions of this in a circular letter last year. There is therefore no need for a review.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that very helpful Answer, I would like to ask if she would confirm that this would be a suitable opportunity to communicate with her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in regard to serving a dangerous structures notice on the Iranian Embassy.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we are presently negotiating with the Iranians with a view to a settlement by which 16 Prince's Gate would be completely reconstructed and the Iranians would meet our claim for damage to British Government properties in Iran.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, would my noble friend confirm that the question of embassies and associated buildings in the context of planning controls is not dealt with sub nominee in the principal Act, the Town and Country Planning Act of 1971? Would she further confirm that Sections 10 and 11 of that Act which extend a Crown exemption to visiting forces and international headquarters again do not specify embassies and associated buildings which are the subject of the Question so appropriately and cogently put by my noble friend?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord on the particular point he raises about the sections of the Act, on which I do not at present have the information. The Answer I have given in my original reply indicates that diplomatic missions are subject to planning laws and building regulations, and indeed if there were to be a breach of planning permission by diplomatic missions we would protest to the head of the mission, had there been a breach in the law, and we would insist that the breach was rectified.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Police and Criminal Evidence

407
Bill will be adjourned for dinner at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment, the appropriate stages of three Scottish consolidation Bills as well as the Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1984 will be taken.

Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill
3.31 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to make a very brief Statement about the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. The Government have decided to table an amendment to the Bill at the Report stage to the effect that the present members of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils will continue in office until 1986 but without elections next year. At the same time, further provisions will be introduced to prevent unreasonable actions by the outgoing authorities.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for making the Statement, especially in view of the accumulating press reports about the position. We are gratified that the result of the Division on 28th June has caused the Government to a significant extent to accept the views of the House in this matter. We are nevertheless disappointed that elections are not to be held and we shall clearly have to reserve our position until we have had an opportunity to consider the amendments in detail after they have been tabled.
Will the noble Viscount be kind enough to answer the following brief questions? First, when exactly will the amendments be tabled? We hope it will be very early next week so that we may appraise ourselves of the Government's exact intention.
Secondly, can he confirm that there will be no interim commissions or other interim bodies as a result of the amendments? Can he clarify further what is meant by the words in the Statement, "going on into 1986"? What precisely is the meaning of those words? Will the Bill further enable by-elections to be held for any reason? Lastly, going back to the Statement, the noble Viscount also used these words in the Statement: "unreasonable actions". Will he be good enough to say what is the significance of those words and what exactly they mean?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, perhaps I may say that we on these Benches are most grateful to the noble Viscount for two reasons: first, for his courtesy in making the Statement and, secondly, for the further evidence which he has shown ever since he became our Leader—I hope the House will permit me to use the phrase "our Leader"—of his willingness to listen to the views of your Lordships' House, especially when they are expressed with great clarity, and to carry them favourably with his colleagues in the Cabinet.
It is a short Statement, but I take it to be a clear acknowledgement that this House has been carrying out its proper and very important constitutional function. The questions that arise are, first, as has already been stated, in relation to the date. It has many
408
implications, as the noble Viscount will immediately appreciate, both as to the length of the period and as to what might be the situation in regard to the main legislation going through this House. I should be grateful, therefore, if he would say as much as he can as to what is meant by the words "going into 1986".
So far as our general view of the Statement is concerned, I am bound to say that there are many aspects which require careful consideration. The Government have given this matter careful consideration before making the Statement. Indeed, they have taken, in all the circumstances, a very full time to do it. I think it would be very appropriate that we should reciprocate that and give the Statement the courtesy it requires of very careful consideration.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reception of the Statement, which I felt it right to make, even though of course it is somewhat exceptional because statements of this sort are not normally made in these conditions; but I thought it was right on this occasion.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I am grateful that he feels that some progress has been made. It was my clear view, after the debate last week, that the nominated transitional councils were much disliked by many noble Lords in all parts of the House. It was felt that nominated transitional councils, which in one case would have changed control, were, democratically, not something that should be done.
I represented to my colleagues that this was a very strong view of this House and, while I fully appreciate that other consideration will be given to the Statement I have made and its implications for our Report stage, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for having said that I represented this to my colleagues as being the view of this House. I believe it showed that attention was being paid to the view of this House on a very important matter which many noble Lords expressed.
On the particular points that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me, first, I understand that the amendments will probably be tabled on Wednesday. If they can be tabled earlier they will be. I cannot guarantee it, but the best evidence I have at the moment is that they will be tabled on Wednesday. I hope that that will be felt to be in good time to consider them before the Report stage next Monday. If I can do better than that, I will, and I shall be extremely angry if I do not do as well as that: I shall make every effort so to do.
As I have stated, the interim commissions, the transitional councils, have been dropped as an idea, and I know that will be welcomed, at least in many parts of the House.
The phrase "into 1986" basically means April, when the borough council elections would take place. I think it is right to use the phrase "into 1986" because in these new circumstances there may now be various transitional arrangements which ought to be looked at very carefully; but basically April is what is meant.
The Bill will enable by-elections to be held; and, so far as "unreasonable actions" are concerned, your Lordships did consider one such proposal in the paving Bill during the Committee stage this week. I

409
think I should confine myself at this stage to saying that the amendments will have to be looked at in detail when they come, and they will cover such "unreasonable actions" as asset stripping and long-term contracts of a major order which might prejudice the position of successor councils.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and to the points I have not answered so far, April 1986 is basically the time. I am, as I said earlier, very grateful to the noble Lord. Having said that careful consideration should be given to these amendments, I hope that, having taken this somewhat exceptional step by way of informing your Lordships at the first opportunity—despite all the speculation—when the Government had taken a firm position, your Lordships would feel it would be best to leave detailed discussion to the time when the amendments have been tabled and the Bill comes up for discussion on the Report stage.
Lord Alport: My Lords—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Alport! Alport!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that, as we have received three positive expressions of support, it may well be helpful to have a negative? Is my noble friend aware that there will be acute disappointment that the Government have capitulated so soon? Will my noble friend bear in mind that the House on Second Reading gave a majority of 20 to show that the general line was the one the House wanted? To capitulate merely on the result of the first amendment, when we have still the Report stage to go through, is too early a capitulation to bring about happiness among the people who thought that the Government were right. Is my noble friend aware that the grudging acceptance of his Statement by the Benches opposite is so grudging that he has not got out of the problems? Could we still retain our final decision until the end of the Report stage, when the House as a whole could give its final decision rather than capitulating now, so early?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, my noble friend is of course entirely entitled to his view, but I cannot accept the word "capitulation". If I were to accept the word "capitulation", it would mean that I, as Leader of this House and certainly as a Member of the Cabinet, took the view that on no occasion should this House be allowed to change something in a Government Bill, and I do not take that view. I take the view that this House has a role to play. I take the view that it is my job to represent that view to my colleagues in the Cabinet. If my colleagues in the Cabinet agree with me, good. If they do not, very well. It would be absurd to say that my colleagues in the Cabinet always agree with me, but on this occasion they did.
It is my job as Leader of the House simply to put forward what were expressed as the views of many people in all parts of the House, that the transitional councils seemed to them undemocratic; and my colleagues accepted that that was the view of the
410
House. It was a view so strongly held that it would be unwise and, in my judgment, wrong to seek to reverse it. That is why this amendment will be put down. I quite understand that my noble friend may feel differently, but I hope he will think carefully about what I have said.
Lord Molson: My Lords, I am unable to agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls in his interpretation of the right procedure in this House. I do not claim to speak for anybody except myself, although it may be that my views are shared by a number of my noble friends who found themselves unable to follow the Government last Thursday. I should like to congratulate the Government upon the response which they have made to the expression of your Lordships' opinion. It shows strength and not weakness to heed reasoned argument, especially relating to important constitutional principles.
I should like to express my gratitude—and I believe that of a number of my noble friends—to the Leader of the House at the way in which he has handled this, matter. In the short time that he has been Leader of this House he has shown understanding, sympathy, flexibility, and above all wisdom. Those are the qualities that make for a successful Leader—and never more than in this last matter, the most difficult that he had had to deal with. I thank him very much for the way in which he has I know personally intervened in order to represent the views of what was—whatever my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls may say—the expressed majority of this House in a critical Division. I read in the newspapers that Mr. Kenneth Livingstone declares that no settlement such as this was in your Lordships' minds when you voted as you did on 28th June. This is a flat contradiction of the dictum of a medieval judge:
"The Devil himself knows not the thoughts in the mind of man."
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, perhaps I should simply say to my noble friend that I paid considerable attention to his speech and to what he said. He has made so many kind remarks about me that I think the best thing I can do is to put them in the bank quickly, so that I shall have a little credit before I begin to lose it again.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, as I was involved in this Bill, may I also underline what my noble friends have said about the courtesy of the Leader of the House in coming to the House and being extremely helpful? But I should like to ask him a couple of questions. The Statement itself says "into 1986". In answering questions, the Leader said that it was basically April. Is it not unlikely that the Government will be able to complete this extraordinarily complex process of abolishing the metropolitan counties and the GLC in what will be less than a year, and if it goes on afterwards it could be as much as 18 months, when the same councillors will be in situ without any elections?
I must point out that there has been no precedent for this. Under the 1972 Local Government Act, the elections went ahead, but they were cancelled in 1973 after the legislation had been passed. We on these Benches feel that Parliament is still being treated with contempt since the order to cancel the elections will be

411
made before the passage of the main Bill; and the cancelling of elections is, in itself, a very disturbing constitutional departure. I must say we feel that strongly and I have to say so.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness has said. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to get into the arguments today, and she will not expect me to do so. The moment to do that is when we come to the Report stage. There are precedents for postponing elections in this way. April seems to be a reasonable date. I have said "into 1986", and given the target of April. I accept that there will be transitional arrangements to be made. I trust that the main legislation will pass through Parliament in the next Session. That is certainly the Government's intention. I think that at this stage I should say no more.
Lord Alport: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government have given any thought to the holding of the elections for the ILEA? Does my noble friend realise that, in order to have an effective transfer of responsibility between the present ILEA and the newly-elected one, it is important that the elections for the new ILEA should take place at least six months before the present ILEA goes out of existence? This is extremely important—if I may impress it on my noble friend—for the official administration of education in this great City of London.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. No doubt my noble friend saw that I was in discussion, very properly, with my noble friend the Minister of State. I was wanting to be informed fully of what happened at the Committee stage when my noble friend moved his amendment on this subject. We shall study what was said then. We are considering the situation which that produced, and at Report stage we shall come back with a clear indication of what we intend.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a different, narrower but, I think, not unimportant question? In an earlier answer he gave illustrations of what might constitute unreasonable conduct. Would he advise his colleagues to be very careful in the drafting of their amendments, having regard to the maxim governing the construction and interpretation of our statute law that the expression of one excludes the other, not unduly to narrow the application of unreasonable conduct in this context?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend, who has considerable knowledge of these matters. I was giving only one example precisely for that purpose. I thought it was right to come back at Report stage with a clear indication of exactly what is intended. I expect many noble Lords in all parts of the House will think that what we produce is thoroughly reasonable in the circumstances; but, obviously, the legal aspect of this, and exactly how it is done, requires very considerable consideration.

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: 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.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 11 [Meaning of "items subject to legal privilege"]:
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 12, line 17, at end insert—
("; and
() documentary or other records concerning a client who can be identified from them and which are made in connection with the giving of legal advice to the client.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is rather more important than at first sight appears. My noble friend Lord Hunt, at my request because I could not be here on Monday, sat from three o'clock until eleven o'clock rehearsing this important amendment. When he opened his mouth he was immediately made to sit down and the Committee stage was adjourned. Therefore one of my colleagues has already spent a full day on this amendment, so I shall deal with it as quickly as I can.
The amendment is important because there is a tendency to treat legal privilege as something which belongs to organised law. In our opinion, legal privilege should go further than that. This amendment accepts that legal privilege is immune from the various methods of search which are being discussed at the moment. However, we are not satisfied, despite what was said in the other place, that absolute legal privilege will apply to bodies which are giving legal advice, very largely to the majority of people who need it—that is to say, to the petty criminal rather than to the serious criminal.
Increasingly in modern times, legal advice is not given by solicitors, still less by barristers. It is given by legal centres—for instance, by the Children's Legal Centre, which is prolific in its advice to families which get into various difficulties, by citizens' advice bureaux, and so on. The Children's Legal Centre acts under a waiver of the Law Society and may therefore technically come under the protection of Clause 11. However, we want to be very sure that it does.
Therefore I have put down the amendment to make it absolutely clear in the Bill that legal advice given to a client does not necessarily mean legal advice given by a firm of solicitors, or by the clerk of a firm of solicitors, to a client. This is a perfectly clear point which we want to be included in the Bill. Solicitors, I say with respect to my many friends who are solicitors, are a bit of a closed shop and bit exclusive. They like to give to their clerk more authority than they give to a fellow solicitor who is working for a charitable organisation rather than for a firm of solicitors.
The matter goes further than that. The nature of the inquiry and the advice given in such cases are invariably recorded in an efficient legal centre. Because such centres would contain things like a confession by a worried offender, who wishes he had not done it and who wants to know what he ought to do now, they could provide evidence for his conviction. So the argument that they are not evidence, in the sense that a dead body is evidence, will not hold up. They are given in the full understanding of confidentiality. If the confidentiality is breached, or is expected to be breached, it means that these myriad, rather unfortunate people who get themselves into trouble without being major criminals will be less and less anxious and more and more reluctant to engage the help of anybody. This is against the interests of all of us. It is also entirely unreasonable that the closed solicitor's shop should remain closed when one considers that the bulk of legal advice is nowadays given outside that shop and that the people who most need it will tend not to come for it unless it is acknowledge to be covered by Clause 11.
The Minister assured the Committee in another place that the personal records of advice centres would be covered in Clause 12. This is probably true, but I do not think it is good enough. If a member of NACRO, of which I am now president and of which for many years I have been chairman, should give advice to somebody who has got himself into trouble, he should certainly be covered by the provision of Clause 12. However, this is not the same as technical legal advice given by a body with technical legal advisers, in the form of solicitors or barristers, which should rank at exactly the same level as the advice given by Messrs. Sue, Grabit and Run, the firm that Private Eye speaks about.
I have said sufficient to make my objective clear. It is very important. If something of the kind is not done, it seems clear that, under Clause 19, personal records are not protected from seizure during a search for possible evidence of a crime. Therefore a constable may seize any article or item, except those which he has reason to suspect to be subject to legal privilege. Therefore the difference between a solicitor's advice to a client and that of the Children's Legal Centre, or any other legal centre's advice to a client, is absolute. One is totally privileged; the other is partially privileged. I believe this to be quite unreasonable. I do not believe that this is the Government's intention, but whether or not it is their intention the amendment should be inserted into the Bill. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): In general, documentary or other records concerning a client which are made in connection with the giving of legal advice to the client will either already be protected by legal privilege, as defined in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1), or they will not constitute the substantial evidence of crime necessary to get an application for access to them off the ground.
So far as the first limb of that argument is concerned, it is clear that a tape recording of an interview between a solicitor and his client concerned with the giving of legal advice is protected by privilege,
414
as is any note of the interview made by the solicitor. The term "communication" which appears in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) already includes oral as well as written exchanges. This may go wider than the noble Lord's question, but it is important to have the explanation on the record.
Regarding the evidential threshold, there is likely to be a wide range of records in a solicitor's office which, while perhaps not themselves subject to legal privilege, might be of interest to the police but would not constitute admissible evidence of substantial investigative value to them. So, for example, the fact that such-and-such a person is currently a client of Mr. So-and-So may be a desirable piece of intelligence for the police to check over, but it is hard to see how it could constitute substantial admissible evidence of crime. So the police could not apply for access to a list of clients under Schedule 1. If they did, the solicitor would have an opportunity to argue his case before a judge as to why such an application should fail. The Bill simply does not provide for fishing expeditions of such a kind. That protection is in the Bill, and I do not believe that we need to duplicate it as is proposed. By the same token, that which is not evidence may not be seized in the course of a search conducted for other purposes. That is made clear in Clause 19.
As to what constitutes legal advice—and the noble Lord first addressed himself to this question—the legal advice does not have to come from a firm of solicitors. It can come from a law centre or from an advice centre of some kind. What matters, in the case he gave as an illustration, is that the member of NACRO should himself be legally qualified. The fact that he is a member or an employee of NACRO itself will not suffice on its own.
If I may return to the theme I was developing, it seems to us better for the definition of legal privilege in the Bill to follow that employed in the law of evidence. The question that arises about the desirability or otherwise of granting the police access to other forms of material which satisfy the evidential requirements in the Bill and which are not excluded material should he decided in the light of all the circumstances of the serious crime concerned by the judge, on the basis of his determination of the balance of public interest. This is the test required by Schedule 1(2), and I think it is to be preferred to an uncertain extension of the concept of legal privilege in the abstract which might flow from the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Denning: May I just say a word? The words,
"items subject to legal privilege"
are well understood in law. In the civil law, we have a whole ream of cases which tell us that legal advice is privileged from disclosure, and that the assessing of legal evidence and the collecting of it is protected from disclosure. Our cases show the law on this matter exactly. It would be a pity to have a very wide and uncertain addition to the material, such as is proposed in this amendment. It will be much better to restrict the excluded material to personal records and to leave the clause as it is. I hope that this amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I certainly agree that the definition needs to be clear. One of my

415
complaints is that it is not in the least bit clear—although it may be to a lawyer. For example, there is mention in subsection (1)(b) of,
"communications between a professional legal adviser and his client".
Does that mean a solicitor's clerk? Will he be included? If he is, then if in the Children's Legal Centre there are six or seven solicitors or barristers giving advice, why should this provision not include one of their clerks? This provision does not seem to be in the least bit clear to a layman.
I do not know whether the Government can make this clear. If the privilege is to be restricted to a communication by a registered solicitor, then the Government should say so. If it is, then it meets half my case. It means that in the case of the Children's Legal Centre, which has a number of expert solicitors working for it full time, and of organisations such as Justice, which have barristers and solicitors working for them, the advice of the barristers and solicitors on behalf of which those organisations give advice will be privileged. But that is not clear to the ordinary layman. With his vast experience, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, doubtless knows the answer but I am only saying that I do not. I am trying to find out what the answer is. It ought to be much more clearly put in the Bill.
Lord Elton: If I may answer the noble Lord's specific question, both barristers and solicitors are included because they are legally qualified people. I understand that solicitors' clerks are included also for this purpose because they give advice on behalf of the solicitor and therefore come under his professional responsibility.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: In the case of the Children's Legal Centre, its clerk will be doing exactly the same thing. Will he or will he not be covered? I wish to know the answer to that question; it is very important.
Lord Elton: I must have missed the noble Lord's question because I thought that I had just answered it. Will he please repeat it?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The noble Lord made mention of solicitors' clerks. An organisation such as the Children's Legal Centre is not a firm of solicitors but it has solicitors in it, and it has a chief clerk. If that chief clerk gives advice, is it or is it not subject to legal privilege?
Lord Elton: In that case, it will depend on whether or not the clerk is himself a registered solicitor.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: But the solicitors' clerk is not a registered solicitor.
Lord Elton: The solicitors' clerk is giving advice on behalf of a solicitor who has a professional responsibility to discharge, and which is discharged on his behalf by the solicitor's clerk. The noble Lord is now asking whether somebody who gives advice on a body which consists in part of solicitors and in part of others is covered in the same way. The answer I think is logically no—and I believe that is also the right answer to his question.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: As I suspected, the situation is still not very clear. The chances are that one will have to find out whether the clerk in a legal centre was speaking as a direct result of a registered solicitor or as a direct result of somebody else giving advice. This does not seem to me to be the kind of point that laymen would think very clear; still less the kind of point which the sort of petty offender we are discussing would have the faintest idea about.
I will not press this amendment to a Division because I should like to discuss this matter with my noble friends. However, it seems that there is something lacking in the Bill; that the privilege of a man who is protected by his lawyer, for which he has paid, should be no greater than the privilege of a man who is being protected by a legal centre which he uses for nothing because he cannot afford to pay. There is a nasty element here which I do not like and I shall return to it on Report. I will not withdraw the amendment because I see that my noble friend is going to say something.
Lord Mishcon: I hope that what your noble friend is going to say will be useful. Is it not the case that the question of privilege is covered by the contractual relationship of the solicitor to his client? Therefore, if a clerk acts on behalf of a solicitor, is he not acting as the deputed person of the solicitor in regard to that contract? I believe that what was worrying the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was the question of legal centres and places of that kind. Is it not the case that the same contractual relationship would exist with the solicitor at the law centre or at the Children's Legal Centre, as the case may be? If that solicitor deputed a clerk or an assistant of his to advise, would that relationship not be in exactly the same area as the normal one of solicitor and client?
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has expressed more lucidly and with more conviction—and certainly with the benefit of his experience—that which I was trying to say. This matter depends on the contractual relationship between the solicitor and the client. When it comes to a law centre, such a centre is staffed, as I understand it, by legally qualified people on whose behalf the adviser will speak to the client. Since the noble Lord will be withdrawing his amendment, the only other observation I wish to make is that it is important that this point should be generally known. It is not necessary to have it spelt out in detail on the face of the Bill so that petty offenders can understand it because they will not be reading the Bill anyway. What we want to do is to establish that this point is clearly understood.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am grateful for what has been said and I will think about it. This point is a little more important than the noble Lord has suggested. It is important that there should not be any particular privilege extended to a "closed shop". We who are not lawyers have as some of our best friends people who are lawyers, but we do not like that feature of the law. We think it is quite ridiculous to pretend that it does not exist, and exist extremely powerfully. I am speaking for the innocent, sometimes, and the more often guilty, who are poor and ill-advised, and

417
who should be encouraged to go to centres where legally competent people can give them advice.
I will not insist on the noble Lord saying anything, but I should like him to take this point away and look at it. Would the Bill be any worse if it expressed the point that I have made? It is clear that no ordinary petty offender would understand the law. It is clear that the Children's Legal Centre does not do so because it asked me to raise this point now. On withdrawing this amendment, I ask whether there would be any objection, and I ask the noble Lord to consider this very carefully to see whether, in the interests of justice for the underdogs, something should not be done.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord asked a direct question to which I can give a direct answer. As the amendment is drafted, the Bill would be worse. If the noble Lord has thoughts about other matters, he can either write to me or table an amendment at a later stage. But for the reason which he may now have forgotten, but which I adduced at the beginning of this debate, the amendment as it stands would weaken the Bill and that point was quite clearly made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: After all that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 65:
Transpose Clause 11 to after Clause 9.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this rather unusual amendment is to transfer Clause 11 to after Clause 9. When the Bill was introduced in another place "items subject to legal privilege" formed part of the category of "excluded material". As such, it was logical for Clause 11, which defines these items, to appear after Clause 10, which defines "excluded material". However on Report in another place the Bill was amended so that the items subject to legal privilege are no longer part of the category of "excluded material" but form a separate category in their own right. As a result it now makes more sense for Clause 11 to appear after Clause 9 rather than Clause 10.
In support of that, I should only add that if any of your Lordships have worked out, as I did before we started debating Clause 8, a sort of flow chart of how the thing works, it is quite obvious that the clause is in the wrong place now, and where we propose to put it is the right place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Meaning of "personal records"]:
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 12, line 32, at end insert—
("; or
(d) to his education, training or similar activities involving counselling or assistance given or to be given to him.").
The noble Lord said: This is a rather simpler amendment, and it is an appropriate amendment. It is to ensure that excluded material in its definition does include, and therefore protect from the powers of search, personal educational records held by educational establishments and training agencies which concern pupils, students and trainees. It is perfectly obvious that these records are frequently extremely confidential, often have rude remarks about parents and other things of that sort, and it is clearly essential that they should be excluded.
I think from what was said in Committee in another place the Government did say that confidential school records which identified pupils would as a rule constitute personal records under Clause 12 and would therefore be excluded material. The same objections apply to this assurance as to the one in the earlier amendment. The judges, when examining an Act, do not take any notice of what is said in this House or in the other place. I want to be sure that these clearly damaging, or potentially damaging, and confidential records are covered in Clause 12. If the noble Lord the Minister will assure me in the clearest possible way that they are, I shall be content. If not, I think something should be added to the Bill as I have suggested: that there should be a further subsection referring:
"to his education, training or similar activities involving counselling or assistance given or to be given to him".
I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I will indeed do my best to reassure the noble Lord, and I think I can do it perhaps by what I will try to make a brief explanation of how the system works. Your Lordships will know that the purpose of excluding certain kinds of personal records—the kinds already set out in Clause 12—from the scope of the new powers conferred by the Bill was to protect the ability of the caring professions and their counterparts to do their job. Ministers carefully explained on many occasions that it was very unlikely that their records would ever fall within the scope of these powers in the first place, since they would not constitute evidence of crime admissible in proceedings, whatever their value or interest as an investigative aid. It is now history that these reassurances failed to allay the anxieties expressed both within and outside Parliament; and accordingly certain categories of excluded material were established.
I think it is clear that personal records maintained by, among others, school teachers, university tutors and, for example, members of university careers advisory services already fall within the protection of paragraph (c) of the clause. Such persons certainly have responsibilities for personal welfare by reason of their office or occupation. It is worth noting that the Royal Commission expressly referred to teachers' records as falling within the scope of the power of search they recommended—that is in paragraph 40 of chapter 3—and so this is another respect in which the Bill as at present drafted does not extend the powers recommended by the commission as far as the commission thought proper.
There remains a range of records which might be maintained by other persons or bodies—perhaps a local education authority—which is not clearly

419
covered by paragraph (c). We do not believe that it is necessary specifically to cover them. There are very many sorts of documents—educational records among them—to which in practice the new powers conferred by the Bill will simply not apply. They do not pass the evidential threshold created by paragraph 2 of Schedule 1; and, as has already been made clear, the Bill simply does not provide for the police to obtain an order for the production of a whole set of different individuals' records on the basis that among them there might be some piece of information which suggested that one of those individuals was responsible for a certain offence.
But there is no point in adding interminably to the categories of excluded material specified by the Bill: if we added educational records there would be no rational reason to resist the many proposals that have been made for other kinds of records to be, as Samuel Goldwyn would have put it, "included out". Clause 12 would have to mention statistical records, research records and all the other kinds of records that have previously been put up for membership of the Clause 12 club. This, I think, would be undesirable, whether or not the public interest in these particular circumstances was such as to justify an order. It seems to me that the position in the Bill is therefore what the noble Lord wants to achieve, and I hope that he will be reassured.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am not entirely reassured hut I do not think it is a matter to press at this stage. The truth is that it is an awful pity when you are bringing in a very controversial Bill of this kind to add unnecessarily to the controversy. The youth movement throughout is thoroughly nervous about the exposure—as they see it—of reports on them; there is a great deal of feeling about it. A lot of schoolteachers are unhappy about it, and it seems to me to be very unnecessary not just to put something in to put their minds at rest. Sooner or later, these things will come up and they will be settled in the courts and then there will be something to go on, but at the moment I think the situation is very difficult. However, I shall not press the amendment now. I will look at both amendments and see whether it is worth coming back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): The Question is, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: To try to be helpful, I think we did discuss a number of these clause-stand-part amendments and there was an indication that a number of them would not be moved. Perhaps that may not be very helpful.
The Chairman of Committees: That is very helpful; thank you very much.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: Clause 14, Amendment No. 67. Lord Campbell of Alloway?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I think that falls with an earlier amendment.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Search Warrants—safeguards]:
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: May I ask a question on Clause 15? On page 14, paragraph 6(b) says, in connection with the service of a warrant, that the warrant
"shall identify, so far as is practicable, the articles or persons to be sought".
In dealing with the Video Recordings Bill the other day we passed Clause 17, subsection (2), which said that a constable entering and searching premises may seize anything found there which he has reasonable grounds to believe may be required to be used in evidence in any proceedings for an offence under the Act. I assume that Clause 1 5(6)(b) of the Bill under consideration at present is superimposed upon Clause 17 of the Video Recordings Bill.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is right, and he will find in subsection (1) of Clause 15:
"This section and section 16 below have effect in relation to the issue to constables under any enactment, including an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act, of warrants to enter and search premises",
and so on.
Clause 15 agreed to.
4.20 p.m.
Clause 16 [Execution of warrants]:
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 14, line 32, at end insert ("reasonable")
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may deal with Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 70 together.
Amendment No. 69: Page 15, line 10, at end insert ("and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the premises are no less vulnerable to the unlawful entry of trespassers than they were before he had entered them.")
Amendment No. 70: Page 15, line 17, at end insert—
("; and
(c) whether any, and if so what, damage was done to the premises or to things in them during the search.")
These amendments belong very much to the same family. Their purpose is to give further protection to the owner and occupier of premises who has had those premises searched. The purpose of Amendment No. 68 is to ensure that where entry occurs upon premises other than at a reasonable hour such entry occurs only if the constable executing it has "reasonable" grounds for suspecting that the purpose of a search may be frustrated if entry were to take place at a reasonable hour. With great respect, it would seem to me that the word "reasonable" there is clarificatory of the main purpose of that subsection, and that it does not in any way weaken its general purpose.
The effect of Amendment No. 70 is to make it necessary in any event for the constable who has effected such a search to endorse upon the warrant the

421
added information as to whether or not any damage has occurred on the premises concerned, and, finally, to leave a note in writing of such to the owner-occupier of those premises whether or not it has been requested.
The effect of Amendment No. 69 is to make it incumbent upon the police in executing a warrant to leave the premises in the same condition as that in which they found them. It has come to the notice of myself and many of my noble friends that some months earlier this year the Gas Board effected entry under the statutory powers into premises somewhere in England but failed to secure the premises when they left. When the unfortunate occupier returned from holiday he found that not only was he without a gas supply but his television set and other household items had disappeared for ever. The purpose of Amendment No. 69, which in my submission is a very laudable and proper one, is to place a specific duty upon the authority that effects entry—namely, the police force—to be responsible for leaving the premises in no worse a condition than they were when entered. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I suggest there is nothing wrong in these amendments. The word "reasonable" would be implied by law, anyway, even if it was not written in, but it is just as well to write it in. Equally, the words,
"take reasonable steps to ensure that the premises are no less vulnerable"
would also be written in by law, but it is probably better to do that with the amendment and to have it on record. Therefore, to accept the amendments will do no harm, and they are only writing in what the law would in any case imply.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: On the question of the wording, I totally agree with the intention, and if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, says it is all right then I am satisfied. However, normally the words,
"no less vulnerable to the unlawful entry"
mean "as vulnerable" or "more vulnerable". I cannot believe that that is the intention.
Baroness Phillips: Can my noble friend on the Front Bench further explain the example he gave? It was not clear to me whether the Gas Board operators actually removed the articles having made unlawful entry, or whether they made the entry with the police and then other things were removed. That was not very clear when my noble friend was illustrating his amendment.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Perhaps I may clear that matter up now, so far as is possible. The example I gave was of the Gas Board effecting entry into a dwelling-house under statutory powers. It effected entry in order to disconnect the gas supply. It did so, but left the premises in a state where they were no longer burglar-proof. In consequence, it appears, of the perfectly lawful entry of the Gas Board, but also in consequence of its negligence in not leaving the premises burglar-proof, burglary did occur—not, of course, on the part of the Gas Board but by some other persons unknown—and a television set was taken, together with other items.
Baroness Phillips: I am still not clear. My noble friend said it was lawful entry. Is he saying that in the absence of the person who owns the house—I have not actually met this before, and this is what puzzles me—the Gas or Electricity Board can effect entry and cut off the supply?
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Yes. As I understand it, there are dozens of statutory powers which allow entry in various circumstances. It may well be the case, as the noble and learned Lord has already said, that there is a duty at common law, and under statute generally, upon those authorities exercising entry to leave the premises in a proper state; but as the noble and learned Lord said—and I am grateful to him—the Bill would lose nothing of its force and purpose if such a duty were to be spelt out specifically.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: A point has been made, but the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has not answered it. Surely Amendment No. 69 does the opposite of what he intends. Surely what he intends is that the premises shall be left "no more vulnerable". To provide for a statutory duty to leave them "no less vulnerable" seems a rather brutal treatment of the occupier. It may be that I have misunderstood a possible Welsh interpretation.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: It is not a Welsh interpretation so much as a legalistic interpretation. In fact, all the amendment seeks to do is leave the premises in no worse a state than they were. There is no incumbency on the authority that exercises the power of statutory entry to improve the situation. On the other hand, it is the law that it must not make it worse.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: With great respect, the noble Lord's amendment does not effect that.
4.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): At the outset, may I say that the example offered by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, about the official of the Gas Board ought not to be taken too far on these amendments, because Clause 16 does not apply to warrants executed by the Gas Board, and so on, but only by police officers. However, I think the noble Lord was not proposing that we take his analogy too far.
Subsection (4) introduces a new safeguard into the law governing the execution of search warrants. The subsection requires the warrant to be executed at a reasonable hour unless circumstances dictate otherwise. If, for example, the police have obtained a warrant under the Theft Act to search a safety deposit box at a bank for stolen jewels which it is thought are lodged there, it is plainly right that the warrant should be executed at the earliest opportunity that the bank is open for business. It would be perverse and unnecessary for the police to attempt to conduct the search at, say, 3 a.m., and I am sure that they would not, in practice, want to do so.
That is, of course, a straightforward case. A straight-forward case of another kind might occur when the police execute a warrant to search for explosives which it is feared will be used for the purposes of terrorism.

423
They will obviously have to act with great despatch and to carry out the search, day or night, before the birds have flown.
Between these two extremes lies a wide spectrum of circumstances. Most criminals who conceal unlawful articles or evidence of crime on their premises are neither as reliable and accommodating as a bank or as elusive as suspected terrorists. It seems to the Government that the sensible test to apply to the actions of an officer charged with executing a warrant is not the objective test of reasonableness but rather the test in the Bill, which goes to the bona fides of his beliefs. We take this view for two reasons.
First, the officer might have no specific information relating to the individual concerned to go on. Let us take the case, for example, of someone suspected of handling stolen goods. The police, acting on information, obtain a warrant to search his premises. The police always try to execute a warrant when the occupier of the premises is present, for various reasons. He can witness the search; and, if the articles sought are found, he can be arrested there and then. If the police arrive at his house when he is not there, he will find out soon enough that they are after him and dispose of anything that he was carrying on him. It is therefore important from an operational point of view for the police not to turn up to execute a warrant too late in the morning, after he has gone out.
In the case that I have outlined, the officer responsible for the execution of the warrant may have an honest belief, based on police experience generally, that unless he conducts the search at, say, 6.30 a.m. the purpose of the search will he frustrated. It may be that on that occasion the officer turns out to be wrong, and the person would have remained in till 9 a.m.; or it may be that the police were already 10 minutes too late. It seems to me very difficult in such a situation of inevitable operational uncertainty to raise the level of the test required.
My second reason for wishing to resist the amendment is this. It would, I think, be unjust if a search was wholly successful, in the sense that stolen goods were recovered, but rendered unlawful by the simple fact that the police could not prove that they had reasonable grounds for believing it necessary to search at an hour subsequently held to be unreasonable. The police might be liable in damages, and that would be a result which, I suggest, does not accord with a commonsense view of such an occurrence.
There is room for more than one view as to whether we should put a provison such as this into the Bill at all, but I am clear that it would be going altogether too far to open up the possibility of rendering an otherwise successful search unlawful except in a case where the police were acting gratuitously or worse.
I come now to Amendment No. 69, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, also spoke. I fully agree with the noble Lord that the police should take reasonable steps to ensure that premises are secure after a search if the occupier is not present. The only difference between us lies in our approach. We felt that this point was best covered in the code on searching premises which the Home Secretary is required to issue under Clause 63. I refer your Lordships to
424
paragraph 5.10 on page 56 of the red booklet containing these codes, which states:
"If premises have been entered by force the officer in charge shall, before leaving them, satisfy himself that they are secure either by arranging for the occupier or his agent to be present or by any other appropriate means".
This seems quite clear and I believe fully covers the point. It also has the advantage of governing all searches, whereas the present amendment is limited to searches under warrant. Any officer who is in breach of the codes will be liable to disciplinary proceedings under Clause 64(8), and this will ensure that the code is adequately enforced. A further advantage of the provision in the draft code, as compared to the amendment, is that the requirement to leave premises secure is a general one. In contrast, an officer could comply with the terms of the amendment if the premises were unsecured when he found them and unsecured when he left them, which would not be a satisfactory state of affairs.
In our view, securing of premises is an operational aspect of searching which is and can be more appropriately dealt with in a code of practice. It does not go to the lawfulness of the search itself. In view of my remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will not want to press this amendment. Incidentally, I share the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter about the wording of that amendment, but I have addressed myself to what I believe to be in the mind of the noble Lord.
I come now to Amendment 70, to which again the noble Lord referred. I agree completely that a formal record should be made of any damage caused by the police in effecting entry to premises which they search or in conducting the search itself. Allegations are made from time to time that the police cause unnecessary damage, and it is clearly desirable that in the event of a complaint or a claim for compensation there should be a way of establishing what may have been damaged by the police, to be distinguished from damage caused before they came or after they left.
I suggest, however, that the point is already adequately covered in the draft code of practice for the searching of premises, and does not appropriately belong in Clause 16. I draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 7.1 viii of that code, which requires a record to be made of any damage caused and the circumstances in which it was caused. I ask your Lordships to note that this requirement applies to all searches, whether made under the authority of a warrant or not, so that the draft code already goes further than the terms of the amendment.
I do not think that anything will be gained by adding this requirement to Clause 16(9). The point of that subsection, which requires warrants to be returned to the issuing court to show whether the object of the warrant was found, is to enable magistrates to obtain feedback about the use to which their warrants are put and so to assist them in scrutinising future applications. If it appears that officers at a particular station obtain warrants but rarely find anything when they search, I would expect that the magistrates would wish to explore fairly rigorously the case for a warrant on the next occasion that one is sought. However, whether or not any damage is caused is extraneous to this process of feedback, and will not assist the

425
magistrates and their clerks in the quality control, if I may call it that, of applications. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel free not to press that amendment either.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: We very greatly appreciate the full and detailed answer given by the Minister, although for our own part we should not have sought to demand such intricate detail upon each and every matter raised.
May I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter? I have now realised that there is indeed a printer's error in the second line of Amendment No. 69. It should read, "no more vulnerable", and not, "no less vulnerable". I am sure that that is due only to my own unfair hand in having prepared the manuscript in the first instance and that the fault lies entirely with myself.
We are disappointed that the Minister has taken such a negative attitude. It is true that those matters are either covered by the code of practice or, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning said, are already implicit in the terms of the Bill. But since one is dealing with a substantial interference with private rights and privacy, we genuinely believe that it would have strengthened the purpose of this part of the Bill to have spelled them out in the Bill itself. In our submission, there is a difference between something that is a firm, specific statutory obligation and something that is referred to in the code of practice.
However, we do not seek to divide the Committee upon these matters but reserve our right to raise them again at the appropriate stage on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Inglewood: May I make one very brief comment on the first sentence of Clause 16? When the Committee last met, an amendment of mine was sandwiched between two amendments from the other side of the Committee and there were cross-currents of conversation about a Division and about dinner, and my amendment was lost in the middle. I should just like to make this point again, and I can do so very properly on the first sentence of Clause 16.
Some of the functions to which we have been referring require great responsibility, and considerable powers are given to all constables and every constable, irrespective of their very limited service, which can be all too brief.
There was a brief reply from the Minister, in which I think he said he thought it was more appropriate to put this in a code rather than to amend the Bill. I am not sure that he is right. I should like the Minister to look at this again because this has come up for the second time in our discussions on the Bill and I should like to feel that it might be considered again. I certainly hope it is not overlooked.
Lord Trefgarne: I hear what the noble Lord says. At this moment I do not think I can go further than my noble friend did when he replied to my noble friend's earlier consideration of this point. Perhaps he will allow me to study what he has said and see if there is anything further I can tell him.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Seizure of articles]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 18, line 12, after ("privilege") insert ("or excluded material.").
The noble Lord said: I say this with a smile to the Front Bench opposite. I propose very pithily to move this amendment even though it may be an important amendment. Maybe the speed with which I do it will be an encouragement to others, not only in moving amendments but also, if I may say this most humbly, in answering them, because we have a long way to go.
Having said that, I refer the Committee to the fact that Clause 19 deals with the question of seizure. We have up until now been dealing with the question of search, and the power of search and the warrant in regard to a search. In regard to seizure, the present law as I understand it, which is summarised in the Report of the Royal Commission on Law and Procedure at paragraphs 34 and 35, is that the police can seize evidence in the home of someone who has been arrested or while carrying out a warrant.
Under this Bill the power of seizure is indeed extended. The situation under Clause 19 is that a constable is allowed on to premises. Then in certain circumstances, with the consent of the occupier if he is there, under the power conveyed by a search warrant or after making an arrest, he can seize any items except, as the Committee will see, items which are covered by legal privilege.
He can do that if he suspects, under subsection (4), that there are reasonable grounds for believing—not merely suspicion but reasonable grounds for believing—that the item has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence and it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent it being concealed, lost, damaged, altered or destroyed.
The peculiar position is that the Government in drawing up this Bill have recognised that there is an overriding public interest in protecting the confidentiality of medical and social work records in regard to the general search power. However, that exclusion does not appear in this clause when it comes to the question of seizure. There is a very serious lacuna here.
If I may say this in conclusion of my submission—and I hope that bears out the promise I made at the outset of my remarks—there is a very recent case which has been brought to our notice. Only some weeks ago at a health centre in Birmingham two uniformed officers entered the premises with the receptionist's consent as they were investigating an offence of criminal damage to the centre. They asked to have the medical records of two suspects in order to establish that those individuals had visited the health centre on the night in question. They were refused that

427
by the receptionist. Under this Bill the police would not be able to obtain a search warrant for those records. However, under Clause 19, once they had got in there they could seize them. I repeat that this appears to be an undesirable lacuna and I ask the Committee to support this amendment.
Lord Elton: I will try not to exceed the noble Lord's six minutes in his admirably brief introduction. The clause, as drafted, will ensure that the police may not seize items subject to legal privilege found in the course of a lawful search which is also evidence of an offence. This amendment seeks to extend this protection to excluded materials. But the same considerations of the confidentiality of an accused's defence do not arise in this sort of case and I remind your Lordships that it is only legally privileged material which for this reason has a special status under the rules of evidence. Excluded material may now he seized by the police in the course of the search of an arrested person's premises and may now be admitted in evidence in criminal proceedings. It will continue to be admissible after the Bill is enacted. It may indeed constitute crucial evidence at a trial. So the amendment would curtail existing and useful powers. It has to be remembered that the fact that material may be excluded does not mean that it is or should be absolutely protected from coming into the hands of the police. I remind the Committee that excluded material may be obtained by the police under the second set of access conditions in Schedule 1 if there is already provision for its seizure.
With the exception of items subject to legal privilege, the clause will indeed allow the police to seize evidence of offences even though that evidence may constitute excluded or special procedure material. If, in the course of a lawful search, the police came upon such evidence it would be arbitrary and unrealistic to expect them to leave such an article alone. For example, if the police had obtained a warrant under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to search a social worker's house for controlled drugs and in the course of that search properly happened upon excluded material constituting evidence of serious crime by one of his clients, then in our view it would be right for them to continue to have power to seize it subject to the conditions in the clause. Indeed it is not clear what purpose would be served by preventing this. That does not mean that once the police have entered the premises they may search at will for any evidence.
Lord Mishcon: In order to shorten the debate, I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way. This is the very point that was raised in another place. With great respect it has no relevance, because there is not the slightest doubt that unlawful drugs are among items which can be seized under the present law. Here we are dealing not with drugs and things of that kind but purely and simply with the records of social workers and doctors. As I said, it was an error made in another place and I had hoped it would not be repeated here.
Lord Elton: The principle which I am addressing is this. The Bill sets out very clearly and very strictly the grounds on which the police may have access to search for something. It also sets out very clearly and very
428
strictly the extent to which it may be searched. For instance, if the police are looking for stolen video recorders, they cannot go rummaging through correspondence and documents. Judging by the haste at which the noble Lord was wishing to move earlier, I had not realised he was waiting for support of any sort.
Lord Mishcon: I was not. I was just so happy that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, had found another way of amusing himself this afternoon, that is all!
Lord Elton: If I may remind the noble Lord, what I said earlier is that the warrant in that case would be for drugs. If they therefore found something else, then if it was admissible and relevant evidence, it would be perfectly proper for them to be able to take it. The noble Lord took my example the wrong way round. He thought that my example was of a policeman who was looking for papers and had picked up drugs. I have specified a case where the policeman was looking for drugs and found papers which were evidence of a serious crime committed by one of the clients of the persons whose premises he was at that time searching. The noble Lord is suggesting that, although they are admissible evidence, they should not be capable of being seized.
Lord Mishcon: I am suggesting that, if they are in the records of social workers or in the records of doctors, they should not be seized. They will not even be capable of forming part of a search under the provisions of the Bill. I have put the arguments as well as I can. This is regarded by us as a serious point. If the Minister is not able to concede that it is a serious point and that social workers and doctors are so worried about this lacuna, I would obviously wish to seek the opinion of the Committee.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 71) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104: Not-Contents, 109.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L

Amherst, E.

David, B. [Teller.]

Ampthill, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ardwick, L.

Denning, L.

Attlee, E.

Diamond, L.

Aylestone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Balogh, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Banks, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Beswick, L.

Ezra, L.

Birk, B.

Foot, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Bottomley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Gifford, L.

Brimelow, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Brockway, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Grimond, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hale, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hampton, L.

Caradon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

429

Hooson, L.

Rea, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Roberthall, L.

Hughes, L.

Rochester, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Jacques, L.

Scanlon, L.

Jeger, B.

Scarman, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Seear, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kennet, L.

Serota, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Shackleton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Simon, V.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stallard, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stamp, L.

Longford, E.

Stedman, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

McCarthy, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

McNair, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mayhew, L.

Stone, L.

Meston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Milford, L.

Strauss, L.

Milverton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Molloy, L.

Tordoff, L.

Monson, L.

Underhill, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wade, L.

Peart, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Plant, L.

White, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Alport, L.

Hanson, L.

Atholl, D.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Auckland, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Avon, E.

Hood, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Bellwin, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beloff, L.

Inglewood, L.

Belstead, L.

Ingrow, L.

Berkeley, B.

Ironside, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kilmany, L.

Caithness, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cathcart, L.

Long, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cockfield, L.

Luke, L.

Coleraine, L.

McFadzean, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Craigavon, V.

Mancroft, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Margadale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Marley, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Daventry, V.

De Freyne, L.

Mersey, V.

De La Warr, E.

Molson, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Northchurch, B.

Eccles, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elton, L.

Pender, L.

Faithfull, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Ferrier, L.

Porritt, L.

Fortescue, E.

Portland, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pritchard, L.

Gainford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Reay, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Reigate, L.

Gormanston, V.

Renton, L.

Gowrie, E.

Renwick, L.

Gray, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gridley, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

430

Sandys, L.

Tranmire, L.

Savile, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Strathspey, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Suffield, L.

Vivian, L.

Swansea, L.

Westbury, L.

Swinfen, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Windlesham, L.

Terrington, L.

Wise, L.

Teviot, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 19, line 1, after ("shall") insert ("within 28 days").
The noble Lord said: I should be grateful if I could also deal with Amendments Nos. 73, 74 and 75.
Amendment No. 73: Page 19, line 1, leave out (", if so requested by a person showing himself") and insert ("provide to any person who appears to him").
Amendment No. 74: Page 19, line 7, leave out ("provide that person").
Amendment No. 75: Page 19, line 8, leave out subsection (8).
In brief, the purpose and the effect of these four amendments would be to strengthen the safeguards which are already given in Clause 19 to a person whose goods have been seized in the course of a search. As the Bill is now drawn, the provisions of Clause 19(7) are briefly as follows: that an officer carrying out a search shall if requested by a person who appears to be the occupier of premises upon which goods have been seized, provide a record of what has been seized within a reasonable time of a request for that record.
The effect of the amendments would be that such a record would be provided within 28 days of such a search, whether or not a request was formally made for it. Again, the view that we take is that in this case the interference with private liberty and with the rights of property and privacy is so considerable that in any event the onus should be upon the police to leave a clear record as to what has been taken, so that there be no dubiety and no argument in the future as to exactly what took place. Upon that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: As drafted, subsections (7) and (8) require the police to provide within a reasonable time of a request to do so, a record of property which they have seized. These amendments seek to require the police to provide such a record irrespective of whether or not it is wanted, and to impose a time limit of 28 days within which such a record must be supplied. I must confess that I do not see why the police should be required to provide a record which it may be nobody wants. Of course, in any event, for police purposes they will make a record of property seized, and paragraph 7(1) of the draft code of practice for the searching of premises will formally require them to do so. So a record will exist, irrespective of whether the person from whom the property was taken wants one. If he does want one, and that is surely right. If, for whatever reason, he does not want a record, I do not see what useful purpose is served by nevertheless requiring the police to provide such a record.
As to the time within which such a record must be provided, I am sure that, as a rule, 28 days would be

431
more than sufficient. However, occasionally it is necessary for the police to seize very large quantities of property—many thousands of documents comprising the records of, say, an allegedly fraudulent company, or a warehouseful of allegedly obscene material. In these exceptional cases it may simply be impracticable to provide a comprehensive record within 28 days.
The Bill must cover all cases, the exceptional just as much as the standard. For that reason I do not think it would be wise to attempt to impose a time limit in the way proposed by the noble Lord. Subsection (8) requires the record to be provided within a reasonable time, and I would suggest that this approach is to be preferred. What is a reasonable time will depend on the individual circumstances of the case, but if a person is aggrieved by delay in providing the record it will be open to him to apply to the courts for an order requiring its provision. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Somers: The noble Lord has said that the objection is that the record may not be provided, whether or not the occupier desires it. If the amendment is put into context, the subsection will read:
"An officer seizing anything under this section shall, within 28 days, if so requested by a person".
So the request still stands.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. In addition, I think the point can be made that it would appear that the Royal Commission, in chapter 3.46 of its report, envisaged that a receipt would be given in any event. I must say that it seems to us that if careful documentation has to be kept of articles that are seized—clearly that is the situation; the police officer would not be doing his duty were he not to do that—nothing would be lost by leaving such a receipt upon the premises or somewhere where the occupier has access to it. To say the least, it is courtesy, and it avoids all manner of argument about these matters.
After all, these are powers which are inroads into the liberty of the individual, and it is only right that they should be balanced by the most careful documentation on the part of the police when they exercise those powers. In the circumstances, we hope that the noble Lord the Minister will not persist in his Molotovian negative attitude towards these amendments, and will give them generous further reconsideration.
Lord Trefgarne: I have explained two of the difficulties which I see. First of all, the record that the noble Lord is requiring, which he refers to as good housekeeping, will be kept. The code of practice requires that that should be so. Secondly, that can be made available, if so requested by the person concerned. But the further difficulty is that the noble Lord has set a limit of 28 days, and that imposes serious difficulties in the sort of case I have described; for example, where thousands and thousands of documents might have been seized and it might be very difficult indeed—impossible, perhaps—to prepare within the 28-day period that the noble Lord has stipulated in his amendment the sort of record he
432
requires. Naturally, I am willing to arrange for these things to be considered further, but I would not want the noble Lord to be under any misapprehension that in some way we were likely to change our view on this matter.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask one quick question, if he will allow me to put it to him. Does he really believe that, however complicated a fraud case may be, the police would not prepare, within a period of 28 days, a schedule of the documents and books they had seized? We are talking only about scheduling them; we are not talking about examining them.
Lord Trefgarne: I must confess that I have heard of particular cases where literally thousands and thousands of documents have been seized. Certainly I envisage that the police would wish to list those documents. I must maintain my position that that might be very difficult within the 28-day period that the noble Lord has stipulated.
Lord Gifford: I have also heard of cases where solicitors have had the greatest difficulty in finding out, on behalf of their clients, what has been seized after a search warrant has been executed. I accept that there may be the need for a middle way here, that there may be an exception permitted in the case of very voluminous documents, but I hope that the Minister's consideration will take into account that in a normal case 28 days should be quite enough and ought to be inserted in the legislation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It seems to me that a 28-day period could be wholly unreasonable in certain circumstances. What the amendment would require within that period is a recording of what has been seized, involving, as I read it, a description of every document that has been seized. Suppose there was an enormous fraud case, of which, alas, we have had one or two examples in recent years. I myself have seen packing case after packing case loaded with documents. Although it is perfectly true to say that the amendment would not require people to study them, each document would have to be looked at individually to be listed, and in my view at least that would impose a quite intolerable burden on the police. I can see no reason whatever for imposing this time limit, and I hope my noble friend will resist it.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether I may be allowed, again very briefly, to help the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, if he thinks I am being of assistance. All that is required is to count the number of receipts, for example, and to say, "Bundle containing 500 or 540 receipts". Then you say, "Bundle of correspondence passing between", and then you say what the dates are—between such-and-such a date and another date. It is done in every solicitor's office almost every single day, in the very largest of actions, by way of a list of documents in discovery. To leave the position where the police have got to decide whether or not it is reasonable to take three months, six months, nine months or a year, and to leave people without knowledge of what documents have been seized from their premises, is a gross travesty of justice.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: With respect to the noble Lord, there is all the difference in the world between the handling of documents for discovery in a solicitor's office when one is proceeding in an orderly and lawful way to the hearing of a case, and dealing with documents which have just been seized in a case of suspected fraud. One may find that there are 540 documents in a package, the top of which are receipts; but it does not follow that the remaining 538 documents are receipts at all. They may be totally different. Indeed, anybody who anticipates that he is likely to be facing fraud proceedings and police action for fraud may very well leave his documents in a state of deliberate confusion, quite apart from the state of confusion in which some people leave their documents anyway. It is no conceivable answer to say that when one is preparing for trial in a solicitor's office and one has a bundle of receipts, one just counts those receipts. In this case one would have to look at each document and look at it closely to see whether it was a receipt or something else.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: This is a very serious matter. Over and over again in long fraud cases the police go into the office of the defendant or the defendant company and, as has been said, they seize every document that they can lay their hands on. As a result, immediately a fishing expedition starts. Those people who have lost the documents do not know what they are or which have been taken. The police sometimes keep those documents for a period of up to two years—they search through the documents and build up a case, or try to build up a case. The result is that one has no idea what is going on, where the documents are or of what they consist. This really is an opportunity to bring order into this matter and to be even-handed about it. Of course the police have to take documents, but there must be some control over what they have taken, and they must notify the defendant of what they have taken within some period which must be laid down; otherwise it will not happen.
Lord Trefgarne: That is all very well, but what I am being asked to agree to is a proposition which, from the point of view of the police, is wholly unreasonable. How can it be the case—and this is what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is asking me to accept—that the police, having seized a large quantity of documents which the noble Lord on his own admission has said might take as long as two years to examine—
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: With great respect, I said that they might keep them for two years, which is quite a different matter.
Lord Trefgarne: How can it be the case that as regards a large quantity of documents which must clearly take many months to examine—I put it no higher than that—the police should be required to give an accurate list of what has been taken within 28 days, which is exactly the effect of one of the amendments which we are now considering? I ask your Lordships to accept that the best way is to adopt the provisions provided in the Bill which give the police a reasonable time in which to conduct their examination of the documents, to prepare a list and to provide it to the person from whom the documents or other items have
434
been received within a reasonable period of time. To impose the type of limit that the noble Lord is suggesting would I believe tie the hands of the police in these types of cases, particularly the type that I have described.
Let me remind your Lordships of the other example which I gave. The police might have seized a warehouse full of allegedly obscene material. Clearly they would need to examine each and every item of that material to make sure that everything that they had seized was allegedly obscene, because there may in the same warehouse be quantities of material which were of no interest to the police in that context. I believe that the proposals contained in the Bill, without the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, are the best that we can devise in the circumstances and I hope that your Lordships will see fit to agree to them.
Lord Denning: I should like to make one short comment. In the big case, Rosminster, there were 13 van loads of documents taken from the premises. I think that 28 days would be much too short in which to make a record of all those documents. I am not sure that "reasonable time" is not best, as is already in the Bill.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: In my respectful submission, there are two issues here. The first is the question of whether or not the written record should be provided in any event. Upon that matter I very respectfully suggest that there seems to be unanimity in the Committee, or certainly a broad understanding, that that is as it should be.
Lord Denning: I would agree with that.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The second issue is whether or not it should be left to a reasonable period or 28 days. I wonder whether the Minister would consider the proposition that I am going to put forward as a not unreasonable compromise. I have not the slightest desire to embarrass the police or to frustrate them in their lawful pursuits in any way at all. Would the Minister be prepared to consider as regards that second issue that the general time limit shall be 28 days? That, I should have thought, would accommodate 98 per cent. of cases. The provision would read something like:
"within 28 days unless in the circumstances it shall be impracticable so to do".
That would concentrate the mind of the officer upon the general duty and also absolve him from the absolute necessity of providing the list within 28 days in exceptional circumstances.
I should like to pray in aid what has been said by my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson; namely, that it is not a detailed record that is required, but such record as will enable the occupier to know broadly what has been taken from the premises. Like many lawyers, I have been frustrated in many cases where a year after the seizure has taken place solicitors and counsel have no idea of exactly what has been taken. It is an important matter and I very much hope that the Minister will be prepared to give it further consideration.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord has now departed somewhat from what he was originally proposing and I acknowledge his flexibility in doing that. However, I am not now clear how what he now proposes differs from what we already have in the Bill. But maybe I could take the matter away and study what the noble Lord has said, and if it is thought fit perhaps return to the matter at another stage.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I am very grateful, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Seized articles: access and copying].
5.17 p.m.
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 19, line 35, leave out ("by") and insert ("to").
The noble Lord said: I can move this amendment very shortly, and I do so out of a sense of puzzlement. Clause 20(3)(b) provides that an officer must, at the request of an owner of a document, "photograph or copy it". Subsection (4) says that when it has been photographed or copied,
"the photograph or copy shall be supplied by the person who made the request".
It does not seem to me to make sense. My amendment inserts the word "to" instead of "by". I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I grovel before your Lordships because of this inadvertent slip. I am happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 20, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Gifford: I should like to raise a short point on Clause 20. It is a valuable clause because it provides certain rights to those whose documents have been taken, which they did not have previously—that is to say, it provides access to them and enables them to be photo-copied or photographed. However, in subsection (6) the rights which have been given, as happens in other parts of the Bill, are in danger of being taken away or rendered virtually useless by a very general provision that there is no duty to grant the rights if there are:
"grounds for believing that to do so would prejudice the investigation".
I recognise that in some cases it would not be right to give someone access to a document. The most obvious case, for example, would be where a document was an official secret or where there were other documents of that kind. So I have not sought to amend the clause. But there must surely be some guidance given as to the circumstances in which this exceptional discretion should be exercised, because it may easily become absolutely standard for an officer to say to a solicitor, "I am not giving you access to these documents because it will prejudice the investigation".
I looked for help to the code of practice and found absolutely none at all. Paragraph 6.9 of the code of practice merely repeats verbatim the words of the Bill.
436
I would ask the Government to consider putting at any rate in the code of practice some guidance or some rules as to how the police should exercise the discretion which they have been given.
Lord Trefgarne: I hear what the noble Lord says. I am not exactly certain what additional guidance could be prepared that would meet the noble Lord's anxieties, but perhaps he would allow me to consider that point too and see whether we can come up with something to include in the code of practice.
Lord Gifford: Perhaps the noble Lord will even consider the giving of some general reasons. There are certainly a number of cases where access might be refused without reasons and it would be very difficult to challenge. If that could be considered, that would be one way of meeting my concern.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Retention of seized articles]:
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 20, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 and insert—
("An article which has been seized under section 19 above may be retained for as long as is necessary in all the circumstances—").
The noble Lord said: Clause 21 deals with the length of time during which, and the reasons for which, articles which have been seized can be retained. Once again, the complaint that I make is that a provision of such elasticity has been inserted that it gives very few rights to the person who owns the documents which have been seized. Subsection (1) of Clause 21 says:
"an article which has been seized … may be retained so long as is necessary in all the circumstances".
I suggest that that provision is too wide.
In moving this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79.
Amendment No. 78: Page 20, line 6, leave out ("an article may be retained").
Amendment No. 79: Page 20, line 11, leave out ("an article may be retained").
These amendments would enable the clause to read as follows:
"An article which has been seized under section 19 above may be retained so long as is necessary in all the circumstances",
and then we continue: for the purposes which are now set out in subsection (2); that is to say, either for evidence or for forensic examination or if there is a need to establish its lawful owner.
I am not too sure what other purposes are envisaged in Clause 21. It seems to me that the purposes set out in subsection (2) are quite comprehensive enough, and it is in the spirit of trying to get some kind of certainty as to the reasons why the police can hang on to documents that I move this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: Subsection (1) of this clause permits the retention of seized articles for as long as is necesary in all the circumstances. Subsection (2) then refers in particular to articles which might be needed for the purposes of evidence at a trial for an offence or for forensic or other investigation or, if they are reasonably believed to have been obtained as a result

437
of an offence, in order to establish the lawful owner. By running these two subsections together, these amendments would prevent the police from retaining articles seized under Clause 19 for any other purpose.
We believe that it would be unsafe to circumscribe the generality of subsection (1) in this way. For example, an article might be retained for use as evidence at a trial, and still be needed for the purpose of appeal proceedings. If these amendments were accepted, however, the police would be obliged to return it as soon as the trial was over.
Another example of the need to retain subsection (1) in its present form is provided in the case not where a person is convicted and appeals, but where he is acquitted or indeed not prosecuted at all. Suppose, for example, that a person is acquitted on a charge of dealing in a controlled drug, which the police originally seized under Clause 19. None of the conditions in subsection (2) would apply, but it would clearly be contrary to public policy for the police to be obliged to return the drugs to him. Such a situation might also arise where a person who was to be charged with murder was found to have a small quantity of cannabis in his possession. It might be decided in the circumstances that no useful purpose would be served by a prosecution for this offence; but again clearly the police should be empowered in law to retain the cannabis pending its destruction.
These examples show that there is a wide range of possible circumstances which subsection (2) does not cover, and that it would accordingly be dangerous to treat subsection (2) as exhaustive rather than merely illustrative of subsection (1). I therefore cannot advise your Lordships to agree to these amendments.
Lord Gifford: As regards controlled drugs, I accept the position, although I am concerned that the rights of the police are left so vague. Certainly so far as drugs and appeals are concerned, I should have thought that it would be possible to include those purposes in the Bill. However, I shall read what the noble Lord has said, and I hope that he too will seek to bring some certainty into these purposes at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Arrest without warrant for arrestable offences]:
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 79A:
Page 21, line 2, leave out from ("1980)") to the end of line 4.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 79B and 80A, as they really deal with the same point.
Amendment No. 79B: Page 21, line 5. leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 80A: Page 21, line 23, leave out subection (3).
As I understand it, under Clause 23 of the Bill five categories of arrestable offence are created. The first category contains offences for which the sentence is
438
fixed by law. The second category, which is the general category, is the category of offences which carry a penalty of five years or more of imprisonment. Thirdly, under Clause 23(2) there are listed five other groups of offences. Fourthly, subsection (3) refers to conspiracy to commit any of the offences in those five groups or any attempt to commit any of those offences or inciting, aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring any such offence.
The last group is the group referred to in subsection (8) of Clause 23 which refers to
"any power of arrest conferred apart from this section".
I apprehend that there is a pot pourri of various statutory powers which constitute the subject matter of that subsection.
As regards the five groups which are listed in subection (2) and as regards the offences of conspiracy, attempting to commit an offence, inciting, aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring in relation to them, which is contained in subsection (3), we on these Benches venture to suggest that it would not essentially weaken this provision for those to be excluded. On the face of it, it may well seem that that is a bold assertion to make, bearing in mind the subject matter of the various provisions.
Perhaps I may deal very quickly with them. Subsection (2)(a) refers to offences under Section 1(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. I understand that those include many minor offences, and by and large they are offences which could be said to be minor in character. Subsection (2)(b) refers to offences under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1920 which are not arrestable offences. Again, there is a wide range of offences, some of them fairly trivial.
Subsection (2)(c) refers to offences under Sections 14, 22 and 23 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, Section 14 being particularly concerned with indecent assault on a woman, which I believe I am correct in saying carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. Many noble Lords have taken the view for a long time that that is an offence which should carry seven or 10 years' imprisonment, so that the cure to that provision is to up the penalty rather than to include it in subsection (2).
In relation to paragraph (d)—that is the offence of taking motor vehicles or other conveyances without authority, or going equipped for stealing—the same might be said, that the maximum penalties in respect of both those offences could carry five years' imprisonment and upwards. Paragraph (e) reads:
"Offences under section 1 of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 (corruption in office) or section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 (corrupt transactions with agents)"—
which I believe carry a maximum of two years' imprisonment.
In relation to those matters in the fifth category I venture to suggest that those are cases where there will be weeks or often months of patient research and investigation by police forces. In those circumstances arrest under warrant, as opposed to arrest without warrant, might be a perfectly practicable course.
Therefore on that basis, and with the purpose in mind of seeking to make the clause a much more simple instrument than it is at the moment, it is our

439
contention that subsections (2) and (3) could be excised from the provision without weakening it in any way, provided that the upping of the penalties to which I have referred takes place at a fairly early future date. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: Clause 23 defines what is meant by an "arrestable offence" and delineates the powers of arrest that attach to such offences. However, the fact that arrestable offences carry with them certain arrest powers is only one of the distinguishing features of this category of offences.
Your Lordships have already agreed that Clause 10 should stand part of the Bill and Clause 10(9) defines "arrestable offence". Certain of the more important investigative powers with which the Bill deals may only be exercised if a suspected offence is a serious arrestable offence. For example, the power to authorise road checks, to obtain a search warrant under Clause 8, to detain a suspect without charge for more than 24 hours or to take a body sample for forensic examination may only be exercised if the offence is a serious arrestable offence. Your Lordships will recall that to qualify as a serious arrestable offence the offence must clearly be, first of all, an arrestable offence. The question whether the offence is arrestable is, so to speak, the first hurdle which must be cleared before questions concerning the consequences of the offence are concerned. I hope that this introduction has helped to show the importance of the concept of "arrestable offence".
I turn to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord which seek to remove from this category those offences described in subsections (2) and (3). As is explained in the note on this clause, we have not followed the Royal Commission's recommendations regarding arrestable offences. The Royal Commission proposed that all offences which should be punished by imprisonment on first conviction should be arrestable. In our view this would be far too wide and would catch a large number of offences for which neither the arrest nor other powers belonging to this category are really needed. Instead we have proposed that offences which may be punished by more than five years' imprisonment should be arrestable—broadly speaking, this follows the present law—together with certain offences punishable by a smaller term of imprisonment and the corresponding inchoate offences. The latter offences are set out in subsection (2) and subsection (3) ensures that the inchoate versions of these offences are covered. It is this class of offences which the amendments proposed by the noble Lord seek to delete. As I have explained, the consequences of accepting these amendments would be that the investigative powers reserved to arrestable, and therefore serious arrestable, offences would not be available to help solve such crimes.
I have in front of me a detailed analysis of all the different categories of offence to which the noble Lord referred in his opening remarks, but I hope that I have said enough to make it clear why the offences described should be arrestable and that on reflection the noble Lord will not want to press his amendments.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: We certainly do not intend to press this matter to a Division. I am again
440
disappointed by the rather negative attitude taken by the Minister. I am sure it is my own fault that my efforts have failed to touch that stream of pure charity that we know lies somewhere within the character of the noble Lord the Minister.
Lord Trefgarne: I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to make one intervention before he withdraws his amendment, as I think he intends to? I apologise, for I omitted to make one important observation when I was speaking just now.
Owing to an oversight in the drafting of the Bill as introduced, attempts and conspiracies to commit the offences listed in subsection (2) were not ipso facto arrestable in the same way, though they clearly should be. This oversight was corrected during Report in another place when subsection (3) was added. This must be right. The offences of attempting or conspiring to commit an indecent assault on a woman or to procure a girl under 21 for example, need the same enforcement powers as the substantive offence and this subsection shows that the inchoate offences associated with the offences designated as arrestable are themselves arrestable. I apologise for omitting that important point.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I thought that my amendment had touched that stream of pure charity, but such was not to be the case on this occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 79B not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): I have to tell the Committee that there is an error in the printing and that Amendments Nos. 80 and 80A are printed in the wrong order, so I now have to call Amendment No. 80A, but I understand that that is not being moved.
[Amendment No. 80A not moved.]
5.38 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 21, line 23, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to section 2 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981,").
The noble Lord said: Most of the offences in Clause 23(2) are indictable. Accordingly, attempts to commit them are arrestable by virtue of Section 2(2) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. Because some customs and excise offences are purely summary, that provision will not bite on them. Hence the need for Clause 23(3)(b). But we do not wish to cast doubt on the Criminal Attempts Act, and so this saving is desirable. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elywn-Jones Lord Elywn-Jones moved Amendment No. 80B:
Page 21, line 36, at end insert—
("and shall in the event of such an arrest ensure that the arrested person is given into the custody of a constable as soon as possible.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 23(4) provides that:
"Any person may arrest without a warrant—

(a) anyone who is in the act of committing an arrestable offence;

(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing such an offence.".

The amendment I move adds at the end:
"and shall in the event of such an arrest ensure that the arrested person is given into the custody of a constable as soon as possible.".
As your Lordships will have heard and seen, that subsection specifically preserves, rightly in our view, the power of an ordinary citizen to make an arrest without a warrant. In the case of an arrest made by a police officer, the Bill and the draft code of practice make the subsequent procedure quite clear. As yet, at any rate, the Bill does not appear to lay down the procedure to be adopted following a citizen's arrest.
It is our view that it would be sensible to fill that gap and, for the sake of completeness, to state the general obligation on the citizen who has carried out an arrest—not an event which is likely to happen in the daily lives of many of us. He should be required to hand over the suspect to a constable as soon as possible. These arrests, in the main, are carried out by store detectives and they form quite an important part of the total number of arrests, especially in such courts as the Marlborough Street Magistrates' Court, where many of those present have earned an honest guinea before now in the consideration of these cases. I move this as what I submit to be a sensible and necessary amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising this point. I agree with him that there does appear to be a case for placing the existing common law regarding what should happen following a citizen's arrest, on a statutory basis. Given all the protections that we have provided in the case of police powers, it does seem strange to rely upon the common law in the case of a citizen's power. But we must be careful. There may be very good reasons why a person arrested in this way should not be handed over to the police. It may be an instance of an officious store detective whose decision to arrest would be immediately countermanded by a more senior member of staff. It may be a case of simple mistake, either of identity or about the supposed criminal act, where all concerned realise within a very few minutes that they have arrested in error, and so on.
Clause 29(2) recognises that a constable who has arrested a person may subsequently realise that the grounds for arrest no longer exist. It would be a pity if we denied similar flexibility in the case of a citizen's arrest. I undertake to look at the point raised by the noble and learned Lord's amendment and to seek to meet it at a later stage, if we can do so without undermining the possible and proper use of sensible discretion. I do not promise that we shall be successful but I hope that, in the light of the undertaking that I have given, the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: May I ask my noble friend whether the statement that he has just made is a reflection of existing—indeed of well-established—practice; because if that is so it does not seem necessary that we should legislate to cover the point?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I respectfully agree with the Minister on this. I think that we ought not to
442
rely on the common law to deal with the duty of handing over the arrested person to the police. This ought to be included in the Bill. I am bound to say that in the hypothetical case of a more senior person in the store countermanding the arrest by a junior person, I should have thought that the shop could regulate that and either let the man go or let the senior official in the case take the responsibility of handing over the subject to the police. But, as the noble Lord has undertaken to examine this and recognises the need to fill this gap, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan Moved Amendment 80C:
Page 22, line 7, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. It is stimulated by a feeling of doubt as to exactly what might be encompassed by subsection (8) of Clause 23. As I said in relation to an earlier group of amendments, that is the fifth category of offences which are arrestable under Clause 23. It would appear from a perusal of the part of the Royal Commission's Report on the Investigation of Prosecution of Criminal Offences in England and Wales dealing with procedure that there is a very formidable list. The reason for raising the matter by way of amendment is this. One of the main objectives of this legislation, and a very laudable objective, was to seek to codify and to bring greater simplification into the law. We well appreciate that total simplicity cannot be accomplished and achieved in legislation of this sort. But it appears that the net result, if Clause 23 becomes law, will be to leave the situation in a far more untidy state than it is at present.
It is, therefore, in the hope that the Minister can, first, give the Committee some indication of the scope of the offences involved—I do not ask for the most minute detail and I am sure that the Committee would not thank me were Ito do so—and, secondly, consider whether it is necessary to have this provision at all. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: May I say a word on this? In common law, there was a power of arrest in regard to felonies but not in regard to misdemeanours, and that difference was almost impossible to disentangle. You could arrest for stealing more than 40 shillings, you could arrest for stealing a sheep or be hanged for it, but you could not be arrested for a misdemeanour such as obtaining money by false pretences, fraudulent conversion and the like. If you went further into the differences between felonies and misdemeanours, you would remember the Tolpuddle Martyrs. All they did was to administer an unlawful oath, and they were guilty of a felony and not only arrested but sent off to Botany Bay, transported for seven years. That is the difference between felonies and misdemeanours and no one could ever tell the difference except by looking up the books at the time to know whether there was a power of arrest or not. We have got almost to the same stage now.
It ought to be fairly easy to know for what offences you can arrest and for what you cannot. What we have got is a new phrase in our English law, "an arrestable offence". We had all that discussed some time ago. All we know about an arrestable offence is that it is

443
something for which you may be sentenced to more than five years. Then we also have all the attempts and the conspiracies, one can be arrested for that. And then, not only that, but we have those which are in (2)(b). But the most comprehensive list of all is in subsection (8):
"This section shall not prejudice any power of arrest conferred apart from this section".
If you want to know what those are, the best place you can try—but I do not know if it is complete—is 15½ pages of this report of the Royal Commission, with about ten offences on every page. You can count them up—goodness knows how many there are. No one knows or can know really what is a power of arrest or not unless he searches through all of these things.
I do not say that there is anything wrong with subsection (8). All these powers of arrest have been granted by Parliament no doubt in its wisdom. I should not like any of them to be taken away, and these added new ones are all perfectly good.
But why cannot something be done—perhaps a handbook, perhaps a code, something—so as to have a list of the offences which are arrestable offences—it is an awful definition. Why cannot we have a book, a schedule, or whatever it may be, just setting out in one list what are arrestable offences? Then we can pick out the serious ones and put a tick against those. At all events, we should have something to go by. I only suggest there should be some clarification like this on the statute book.
Lord Foot: I am tempted to follow the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken. He was rightly complaining of the enormous complexity of the law upon arrest and detention. I would only seek to remind him that four years ago we discussed all these matters in connection with Scottish law. If I may say so, we made a very much better job of it than has been made by this Government in this Bill. If one cares to look at the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, one will see that the whole matter of arrest and detention which is dealt with in this Bill in—I have not counted them—about 18 clauses, or two parts of the Bill, are dealt with in the Scottish Act in two clauses only.
There is one clause which deals with what the Scots call detention and we call arrest. That is Clause 3. There is one clause, Clause 3, which deals not only with arrest but with detention in a police station. Clause 3 deals with the right to have someone informed when arrested or detained, as we have in this Bill. The whole matter of arrest and when a policeman is entitled to make an arrest was dealt with in the Scottish Act in one sentence. It is in the first lines of Clause 2, which says:
"Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed or is committing an offence punishable by imprisonment, the constable may, for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out of investigations—(a) into the offence; and (b) as to whether criminal proceedings should be instigated against the person,"
detain him and so on, and take him to a police station. Those few lines set out the matter perfectly clearly. Every constable knows precisely when he is entitled to make an arrest and when he cannot make an arrest. All the verbiage which we have in this particular clause
444
that we are discussing is dismissed and got rid of. The law is set out in the plainest and simplest terms.
I cannot help thinking that it was a very great pity that when the Government were framing this Bill they did not pay closer regard to what had been done for Scotland in 1980. I think that the opportunity will come during the course of these discussions to point out some other features of the Scottish Act which provide an interesting contrast with the terms of this Bill; in particular, of course, the fact that in Scotland you cannot hold anybody as a suspect in a police station, without charging him, for more than six hours. Under this Bill, as we know, you can in extreme cases hold a person in detention without charge for a period of 96 hours. But I should be out of order in discussing that at this stage.
It seems to me a great pity that the opportunity has not been taken on this occasion to codify the law—I agree it is most important that we should set out what the law of arrest and detention is: I think that is a most valuable contribution—and it is a great pity that we were not able to devise simpler language in which to express these very important matters.
Lord Renton: The assimilation with Scottish law to which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has referred could be to a very great extent achieved by deleting the words in the last line on page 20, namely, "for a term of five years" and by deleting subsection (2) on page 21. It does not seem as though it would be very difficult.
I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and Lord Foot have drawn attention to something which really would be desirable, namely, a simplification of the English law with regard to the power of arrest. So that, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, those who have the duty to arrest—and even upon the citizen there may be a duty to arrest—will find it easier to know whether they have the power or not. I hope that the words of the noble and learned Lord and of Lord Foot will be heeded.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: I believe I can go a little way to reassuring the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and perhaps also my noble friend Lord Renton. The 15 pages full of powers of arrest in the red book which the noble and learned Lord showed to us are all in fact repealed by Clause 25 of this Bill, in favour of a general arrest power in Clause 24.
On the question of the similarity between our arrangements and those that apply in Scotland, raised by the noble Lord. Lord Foot, the law on arrest in Scotland is, I am told, still somewhat obscure and, indeed, the subject of great argument among Scottish lawyers. The position under Scots law seems to be that there is a common law power to arrest for almost any statutory offence. I am not entirely certain that we want anything quite so sweeping South of the Border. Having said that, the thin trickle of the milk of human kindness from this side of the Committee is about to become a torrent. I am happy to accept the amendment.
A noble Lord: A Daniel has come to judgment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [General grounds for arrest]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 22, line 10, after ("offence") insert ("which is not an arrestable offence").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Elton, I beg to move this drafting amendment.
Lord Renton: Although this is a drafting amendment and we are told that that is so, it does once more point to the need for the kind of simplification in the law to which reference was made on the previous amendment. I think that we should bear that in mind when considering this purely drafting amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: I apologise if I skated rather lightly over this amendment, in the interests of speed, when I moved it. a moment ago. But the purpose of the amendment is to make it clear that Clause 24 is only concerned with non-arrestable offences. Clause 23 bestows adequate powers of arrest to deal with arrestable offences, and this clause need not apply to them. It is for that reason that I ask your Lordships to agree to it.
Lord Hooson: Should we not discuss Amendments Nos. 81 and 81A together?
Amendment No. 81A: Page 22, line 10, after ("offence") insert ("punishable by imprisonment").
If we accept Amendments No. 81 and 81A the provision would read:
"which is not an arrestable offence punishable by imprisonment".
Therefore, the words are really alternative words and it would seem to me that as a matter of procedure we should consider both amendments together.
Lord Trefgarne: I am happy to discuss these amendments together if that would be the wish of your Lordships.
Lord Elton: As I understand it, my noble friend moved Amendment No 81 and that has been put to your Lordships for debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is perfectly in order to speak to his own Amendment No. 81A. If my noble friend has moved Amendment No. 81, the Chair has not put Amendment No. 81. If the Chair now puts Amendment No. 81, the noble Lord will be perfectly in order in speaking to both Amendments Nos. 81 and 81A and we shall all be back on the track.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): The Question is, That Amendment No. 81 be agreed to?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 81A. This, having regard to what has already been said about the powers of arrest, is another attempt to clarify the confusion which arises in this Bill over powers of arrest. The amendment
446
seeks to insert the words "punishable by imprisonment", so that the clause will read:
"Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any offence punishable by imprisonment has been committed".
The situation here is that, as we have seen already, the powers of arrest that have been dealt with in the previous clause are powers which are considerable. The Bill preserves and extends the powers, as we have seen, under the Criminal Law Act. It adds all the offences under Clause 23(2); it preserves the statutory powers of arrest under Schedule 2 and the common law powers of arrest; and it adds the powers of arrest under Clause 26 for the purpose of taking fingerprints, which we shall come to later. So your Lordships will see that already there are very substantial powers of arrest in this Bill. It is essential that your Lordships should appreciate that all the offences that really matter, so to speak—offences such as wounding, assaults, public order offences, thefts, receiving, taking and driving away cars, housebreaking implements, drugs, firearms, the Official Secrets Act, immigration, breaches of the peace and so on-are covered. Then suddenly, this clause provides a great extension of the powers of arrest because it is giving powers to arrest for any offence—any offence known to the law in certain ircumstances—whenever it appers to a constable that to serve a summons would be impracticable or inappropriate because of certain conditions which are set out in the clause.
Therefore we have here, in addition to all the powers of arrest that we have seen, this extra power of arrest in relation to any of 10,000 offences in the criminal law, which is a restricted power of arrest covering all offences—offences which are so trivial that they carry at the moment no penalty of imprisonment, such as, for instance, dropping litter in the street, or perhaps urinating in the street, or picking a wild flower which you are not allowed to pick, and trivial matters of that sort. I would suggest to your Lordships that this is a very important amendment because, I would submit, this power is far too extensive as it is.
What are the conditions? They are set out in Clause 24(3) (a), (b). (c), (d) and (e). I will not go through them all, but they are basically that the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name furnished by the person concerned is his real name and for doubting whether an address furnished by the person concerned is satisfactory for service. Then there are five different headings which could be called "preventive arrests". These are that the constable should have reasonable grounds for believing that the arrest is in the circumstances necessary to prevent various things happening: not that he sees an offence committed, but that he can predict that certain offences, he has reasonable cause to believe, may take place. Those are set out in (i) to (v), and they include causing injury to himself or to any other person, causing loss or damage to property, causing an offence against public decency and causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway. These are all matters we shall be looking at more closely in a moment.
One must say in passing that it is difficult to see what possible criteria there can be in an officer's mind for this extension of the powers of arrest. Take the perfectly simple case of having doubt as to whether the address given is in fact a genuine address or is a

447
reasonable address for the purpose of serving a summons. Take the case of a police officer who stops somebody for a trivial offence in the street and says, "Can I have your name and address?", and receives the reply. "My name is Robinson and I live at an address in Durham." The man may be asked whether he has a telephone number, and he says, "No, I don't have a telephone; I am living with some friends up there." How on earth is a police officer going to decide whether he has reasonable grounds for doubting the address or the name, in those circumstances, in relation to trivial offences?
Your Lordships will appreciate, for instance, that this power has never been given to the police before. There are thousands and thousands of trivial offences: one can give examples quite easily. The justification for this power is that people can snap their fingers at a police officer in the street if they are stopped for some trivial offence, and they can give a false name. That has been the situation in relation to trivial offences for hundreds of years. Your Lordships will appreciate, for instance, to take one offence which, in London, goes on day in and day out—travelling on the railway without having paid the proper fare—that people are stopped on the way out of railway stations day in and day out. Nobody dreams of arresting a person in those circumstances. What happens is that in fact the inspector or the police officer in the street do take measures to verify the name and address, if they can, on the spot, by asking for some relevant paper—a driving licence, or whatever it is they may have in their pocket.
I would suggest to your Lordships that this power of general arrest for any trivial offence that you like to name is a power (and we are looking, are we not at all the powers in this Bill: on the one hand, whether they are necessary to the powers of the police, and, on the other hand, whether they are powers which are open to abuse) which, if given to the police all over the country, is open to abuse because it would be the easiest thing in the world, once you are armed with this power, to go up to anybody in the street about whom you may have some information, or who may be a nuisance, and say, "I doubt whether this is a proper name or address; you had better come along to the police station while we verify it". Then you can arrest the person, take him to the police station and keep him in custody for periods while an inquiry is made. That is, I would suggest to the Committee, really an objectionable procedure, and one which is very much open to abuse.
May I say, finally, that the Royal Commission was split on this matter. There were those who were in favour of some power of this kind, but they were very careful about it. They said that if such a power was to be granted it should be granted only on the basis that it should be used only on very rare occasions; that the officer must in fact see the offence committed; and that there must be a specific refusal to give the name or the address. So careful were they that they added that they would expect that, in those circumstances, the person stopped would write in the officer's notebook the name and address that he was giving. So a minority of the Royal Commission were strongly against this power. Those who were for it, were for it only with these very
448
strict limitations. The second amendment is one which properly limits this power, whereas the first amendment leaves it far too extensive.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Hutchinson, but, looking at the procedure, surely Amendment No. 81A should precede Amendment No. 81, because the words "punishable by imprisonment" should precede the words "which is not an arrestable offence", since it is conceivable that the Committee may accept both amendments. It would therefore be logical for Amendment No. 81A to be taken first.
I want to speak very briefly on this point and remind your Lordships that in the famous case of Christie v. Leachinsky in 1947, Lord Simonds said:
"The liberty of the subject and the convenience of the police are not to be weighed in the scales against each other."
This must be right and I suspect that this power has been drafted so widely to deal with virtually anti-social behaviour or what is regarded as possible anti-social behaviour.
Let us consider for a moment what "arrest" means. Arrest is a deprivation of liberty and it is a very serious matter. Also, if this Bill is passed, someone can be detained without recourse to any senior officer for 24 hours and kept incommunicado, the finger prints of the person arrested can be taken and so on, and is that all to be allowed for any offence, however trivial? When one drops litter in the street, is that consequence to follow?
If one knows that an offence has been committed and one sees a dozen young men in the vicinity who are all rushing in the direction of a cricket match or a football match, and the officer regards them all as relevant persons, are they all to be subject to arrest for a relatively trivial matter? Surely the power under this clause is far too wide and we should limit it in some way. The most effective way of limiting it is surely to put in the words "punishable by imprisonment". It does not matter how short that sentence may be; there should, at least, be some level to the offence. This amendment moved by my noble friend would meet the bill.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: To clarify the situation, it seems to me that we have to vote against Amendment No. 81 before we can vote for Amendment No. 81A. Is that correct?
Baroness Phillips: I should like to follow what has just been said. We have been listening to two noble and learned Lords and I do not have that privilege, but I should like to suggest that it is unfortunate to keep referring to a trivial offence. It may be trivial to the person who is not concerned with the offence, but when I have been sitting as a magistrate I have found that offences which were described as trivial were certainly not trivial to the victim. If the noble Lord wants an example, I suggest we consider "causing loss of or damage to property". In the Central London courts, we used frequently to see that two or three young people, generally young men, were arrested, because they were hanging around Piccadilly Circus station, Oxford Street or Westminster Abbey in order

449
to rob people—and, indeed, they did rob people. I always thought that this was one of the best methods of preventing an offence and it seems to be covered by this clause. It may or may not be trivial to be robbed of your purse, your wallet or your handbag, but anybody who has experienced it would certainly not regard it as trivial—
Lord Hooson: Will the noble Baroness give way? She appreciates, does she not, that if one attempted to rob somebody it is punishable by imprisonment for a very long term?
Baroness Phillips: These people have not been seen to be attempting to rob. That is the whole point. I thought the noble Lord was referring to paragraph (d).
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: There is still a power of arrest, if there is an attempt to rob.
Lord Denning: May I speak in regard to Amendment No. 81A? I should like to take the illustration which my noble friend Lord Hutchinson took of travelling on a railway without having previously paid your fare and with intent to avoid payment of the fare. I have prosecuted in hundreds of those cases. Under that Act, there was a power of arrest if the man failed to give his name and address and a similar provision has been put in many statutes in regard to what might be called trivial offences. In other equally trivial cases there has not been such a power. I have met it in the course of my experience. In some cases, you have a power of arrest if someone does not give his name and address, and in other cases you have not. At all events, the law ought to be made uniform in regard to all these trivial offences.
I would not confine it to offences punishable by imprisonment. The case I took, of the man travelling on the railway without paying his fare, is not punishable by imprisonment. Obviously, the sensible course if someone has not paid his fare is for the inspector or the police constable to ask him, "Will you give me your name and address?" If he refuses to give them, it is his own fault. People give all sorts of names and addresses and there ought to be a remedy, rather than that a man, having committed an offence, should go scot-free with no one knowing where he is. I should like to suggest that the principle of this clause is right. It would limit the power much too much to confine it to offences punishable by imprisonment, so I suggest that this amendment be not accepted.
Lord Trefgarne: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his support for the line with which I hope to persuade your Lordships. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, would limit the power of arrest under this clause, as the noble Lord said, to offences which are punishable by imprisonment. It is perhaps ironic that it is precisely these offences which the Royal Commission recommended should be arrestable offences, and so subject to the greater arrest powers contained in Clause 23: that is in paragraph 383 of the report. I appreciate the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and I think the noble Lord, Lord
450
Hutchinson, too, that the powers of this clause should not be used in the case of trivial offences. However, I believe that the noble Lords are wrong, both on the question of principle and in the way they have attempted to define which offences are serious.
Two principles underlie this clause: first, that the police should be equipped with the powers necessary to enforce the law; and, secondly, that the citizen should not be deprived of his liberty, except when this is absolutely necessary. For the type of relatively minor offences which are the noble Lord's main concern, the usual way for the police to proceed should be, as at present, by way of a summons. Indeed, the Bill ensures that this is the expectation more often than at present. But in some circumstances this will be impracticable and inappropriate. If the law is to be enforced and society protected—and this, I think, was in the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips—the police must have the power of arrest in these circumstances. There is no sense in Parliament agreeing that something should be a criminal offence if there is no way that the police can enforce this decision. To this end, we have adopted the necessity principle proposed by the Royal Commission. An arrest may only take place if one or more of the conditions set out in subsection (3) apply.
I should emphasise that subsection (1) makes it quite clear that arrest must only be used if service of a summons is not feasible. Arrest is a corrective power which we hope will not be needed, but the power should be available if circumstances justify its exercise. Nor should we forget that the citizen will be further protected by the safeguards contained in Clauses 27 and 29 which we shall shortly be considering. These will ensure that a person is aware under which of the conditions set out in subsection (3) he has been arrested. If the fact of arrest leads him to decide to provide the information required under paragraphs (a) to (c) of the subsection, Clause 29(2) will ensure that he is released promptly. The clause will provide the police with the necessary power to see that the law is obeyed, but it also, for the first time in our law, lays down the principle that the police may arrest a person only where this is necessay.
Finally, I should point out that a wide range of offences which are not punishable by imprisonment are nevertheless far from trivial. For example, operating an unlicensed sex shop is not punishable by imprisonment. The power of arrest for such an offence on failure to give a name and address, which is bestowed by paragraph 24 of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous provisions) Act 1982, will be repealed by Clause 25. We believe that it should be replaced by Clause 24. Similarly, your Lordships will recall that the offences created by the Video Recordings Bill are not imprisonable. The power of arrest for these offences, which Clause 18 of that Bill bestows if a name and address are not given, will be repealed by Clause 25 of this Bill and we intend that it should be replaced by Clause 24.
Opinions will differ, but in my opinion these are definitely not trivial offences. The police should have the power to arrest for these offences, if service of a summons is inappropriate or not practicable. I therefore urge your Lordships to reject this amendment. I hope that your Lordships will at the

451
same time accept the earlier amendment which I put before the Committee.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Does the noble Lord—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that Amendment No. 81 be agreed to. We have to take Amendment No. 81 first.
Lord Trefgarne: If the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, wishes to put further points to your Lordships, I believe that it would be appropriate for him to do so before the Question is put.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: The noble Lord the Minister said that the Government had adopted the Royal Commission's necessity principle. May I ask him whether he agrees that the Royal Commission supported this power only with the very strict reservations which I have already enumerated: that the power should be given to a police officer only if he saw the offence being committed and if there was a refusal to give the name and address.
Lord Trefgarne: I cannot claim that we have adopted every word and syllable of the Royal Commission's proposals, but we have gone a little way along the line which they suggested, in the manner I mentioned earlier.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that Amendment No. 81 be agreed to, I have to point out that if Amendment No. 81 is agreed to, it will mean a slight modification of the wording of Amendment No. 81A. Amendment No. 81 reads:
"Page 22, line 10, after ("offence") insert ("which is not an arrestable offence")".
6.25 p.m.
On Question. Whether the said Amendment (No. 81) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents. 76.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cox, B.

Auckland, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Avon, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Beloff, L.

Daventry, V.

Belstead, L.

De La Warr, E.

Birdwood, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Denning, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Eccles, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Elton, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Faithfull, B.

Caithness, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Ferrier, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Cathcart, E.

Gainford, L.

Cockfield, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Coleraine, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gormanston, V.

Colwyn, L.

Gray, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gridley, L.

452

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Newall, L.

Halsbury, E.

Northchurch, B.

Hanson, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Orkney, E.

Hood, V.

Pender, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Portland, D.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Inglewood, L.

Reay, L.

Kilmany, L.

Reigate, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Renton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Renwick, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

St. Davids, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Saltoun, Ly.

Long, V.

Savile, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Somers, L.

McFadzean, L.

Stamp, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathspey, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swinfen, L.

Margadale, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Tranmire, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mersey, V.

Vickers, B.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Molson, L.

Westbury, L.

Montague of Beaulieu, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Mottistone, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Amherst, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Avebury, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Balogh, L.

Longford, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bernstein, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Beswick, L.

Mayhew, L.

Birk, B.

Meston, L.

Bottomley, L.

Milford, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brockway, L.

Molloy, L.

Caradon, L.

Monson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Plant, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Diamond, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Roberthall, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Scanlon, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Foot, L.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stedman, B.

Gifford, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Stone, L.

Grimond, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wade, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hooson, L.

Wigoder, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Hughes, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Jacques, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 81A:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: We took the view that this amendment and the previous amendment ought to have been on the Marshalled List in a different order—the other way around. But having regard to the vote that has just been taken, I propose not to move this amendment but to return at Report stage with a reasoned amendment which will take account of the new words which have been inserted.
[Amendment No. 81A not moved.]
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 81 B:
Page 22, line 20, after ("name") insert ("or address").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 82C, 82F, and 83D:
Amendment No. 82C: Page 22, leave out lines 26 to 27.
Amendment No. 82F: Page 22, line 30, leave out ("a satisfactory address for service") and insert ("his real address").
Amendment No. 83D: Page 23, line I, leave out subsection (4).
These amendments appear in different parts of the Marshalled List but they form a group of amendments which are designed to cover something of the same point as that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, but to present to the Committee a different solution for the grievance that he raised, and one which I hope will be more broadly acceptable to the Committee.
The amendments focus on the Bill's provisions concerning people who have committed a summary offence and who do not have, in the Bill's terms, "a satisfactory address". So far as the Bill is concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, pointed out, it provides that where someone not only refuses to give their address, or not only gives an address which the constable believes is a false one, but gives an address which the constable believes is not satisfactory, then the person may be arrested. A satisfactory address is defined at the top of page 3 of the Bill as one that it appears to the constable
"the relevant person will be at for a sufficiently long period for it to be possible to serve him with a summons".
The service of a summons can take months, and we are talking therefore about an address which has a permanence of something like six months or more.
It must immediately be obvious that there will be all kinds of people who will appear to constables not to have satisfactory addresses for service. To introduce one very broad category, there is the example of tourists. If someone's address is given as an hotel or as a camping site and they are foreign, it will be plain that they do not have an address at which they will be resident for a sufficiently long period of time to be served with a summons. As I understand it, the expectation under the Bill is that tourists who commit summary offences—which may be parking offences, litter offences, offences against by-laws in parks, and all kinds of other offences—will be arrested and kept overnight in custody, and then brought before a magistrates' court the next morning. All that is not possible at present unless the person concerned refuses to give his name and address.
Another large category is that of young people living on their own who may not have very permanent lodgings. They may have come to London or another big city and be unable to specify a person to accept
454
service of a summons on their behalf. They may not want to give the address of their parents; or they may have separated from their parents; or they may have no parents. They, too, are likely to be kept in custody overnight for any offence, however small it may be—such as parking on a double yellow line.
My amendments seek to remedy and limit that state of affairs by deleting all the references to
"a satisfactory address for service"
and by substituting in Clause 24(3)(c) a provision that the constable can arrest if he has
"reasonable grounds for doubting whether an address furnished by the relevant person is his real address".
If the constable believes that it is a false address, he can arrest. But if he is satisfied that it is a real address, even if only temporary, then he cannot arrest. That is in line with existing law.
I have read through the 15 pages of the report to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred a short while ago, where there are powers of arrest for a number of summary offences. They are set out in Table 9.3. In nearly every case the powers are given if the person fails to give his name and address, or refuses to give his name and address, or refuses to give them to the satisfaction of the constable. None of the existing powers of arrest include this new power to arrest if the address is temporary—if it is a genuine address but a temporary one. That is a new extension to the present law and I hope that the Committee will think long and hard before accepting that it should be introduced into the law.
They will. I hope, as will your Lordships when you think about this consider what was said about this point by the Royal Commission in its report at paragraph 3.86. It is of importance to know exactly how the Commission put this:
"Where there is no power of arrest without warrant for an offence, generally the police are able to proceed by way of summons, or by application for a warrant to arrest (the provisions for which we recommend should be retained). But where a person refuses to give his name and address and the police do not know it, that person can in effect prevent the law from being enforced because it is not possible to serve a summons upon him. Two of us take the view that this problem is not such as to justify making available the power of arrest, that is the power to deprive a person of his liberty, for offences which cannot carry a prison sentence. The majority accepts that this may be a very rare occurrence, but considers that the police should have some means available to them of dealing with the situation when it arises, since otherwise the law can be openly flouted".
Accordingly, it recommends that if a police officer actually sees an offence being committed for which he has no power of arrest without warrant, and if he does not know the offender and the offender positively refuses to give his name and address or an address where a summons may be served upon him, the officer should have the power to arrest for the offence concerned.
The recommendations of the Royal Commission were limited to a general power of arrest under certain conditions where there had been a refusal to give the name and address. The effect of my amendments is to take the matter a little wider than the Royal Commission in favour of the police. Their effect would be to allow the police to arrest if they did not know and could not ascertain either the name or the address of the person. That is the effect of Amendment No. 81 B.

455
And it would allow the police to arrest if the officer had reasonable grounds for doubting whether an address furnished by the relevant person was his real address; in other words, if the police officer thought it might be a false address. That would duplicate the existing provisions where there are powers of arrest for summary offences.
It would not introduce this very dramatic and very considerable extension of the law where a great number of people cannot show to a police officer that they have not only a real address but a real permanent address. It puts every tourist and every young person in transit or travelling in danger of being arrested for very minor offences which could and should be dealt with by way of summons. Therefore, I ask the Committee to recognise that they should accept these amendments and not allow this big extension in the way which the Bill provides. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: In view of our exchanges on the last piece of business, I just wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, is interested in speaking to his two amendments to Clause 24 which, I think, are Amendments 82A and 82D which strike in the same ground.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I do not intend to move them.
Lord Elton: Then I hope what I say is not unduly extended by the undue anticipation that the noble Lord was going to move his amendments.
Paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (3) set out the first three criteria which permit an arrest to take place under this clause. Fairly briefly, they are that the person concerned fails to provide his name and address where a summons may be served or if it is reasonably believed that the name and address given are false. If I can first deal with the case where it is reasonably believed that information provided is inadequate for the service of a summons, whether because the name is false or because the address will not do for the service of the summons, concerning Amendments 82A and 82D. which in fact I am now invited to pass by—and I shall endeavour to do so, but it does make it difficult not to avoid leaving out things your Lordships will want to hear but I will try to save time and leap straight to the point—there is nothing new in principle about the power provided. There are large numbers of offences which at present carry a power of arrest if a person reasonably suspected of committing that offence fails to satisfy a police officer as to his name and address. Noble Lords will see the full list in Table 9.3 of Appendix 9 to the Royal Commission's Law and Procedure volume.
All that the clause does is to apply to all offences a necessary and, in our view, sensible reserve power which is currently confined to a haphazard collection of offences. Furthermore, the test is an objective one. The clause provides that the police officer must have reasonable grounds to doubt the correctness of a name and address or the length of time for which a person will be staying at an address he had given before the arrest power became available. Groundless doubts will not be sufficient; so a person will not be required to prove his name and address to a police officer; the onus
456
will be on the police officer to show grounds for disbelief. There is, therefore, no question of people having to carry passports or other identifying documents.
Existing powers of arrest or a failure to give a name and address cause no particular problems in practice. Exactly the same point arises in relation to addresses. An offender should not be able to escape arrest by the simple device of nominating Fairyland or Queer Street as an address for the service of summons—unless, of course, he actually lives there.
This takes us on to the concept of "a satisfactory address for service" which is attacked in the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. But all his amendments appear to me to do is to widen considerably the power of arrest under the clause. As presently drafted, a person does not have to provide his own address, only one where service of a summons can be accepted on his behalf. This is the concept of "a satisfactory address" which the noble Lord's amendment would delete. The clause simply reflects the rules for serving a summons contained in the Magistrates' Rules. In place of this the noble Lord proposes that the suspect must give his own address to avoid arrest. By limiting the suspect's discretion, this must increase the possibility of an arrest taking place.
That is the abstract concern, but the concrete concern is this. The provision that is proposed would discriminate against homeless people, because a homeless offender under the noble Lord's amendment would have to be arrested. At present, of course, he could give the address of (say) his social worker, and this is a fairly normal procedure. I could continue at some length, but I think that that is at the nub of the noble Lord's concern and I will see how he responds to that.
Lord Gifford: I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for giving me the chance to ask one or two questions. I accept that if a person has no address at all, provision in the Bill may have to be made, but the noble Lord has not, I think, addressed himself to the other consequences of the Bill which the amendment does in fact seek to rectify. If someone has a real address at, let us say, a local inn where he is staying as a tourist, under the Bill he could be arrested because it was not a satisfactory address for service. First of all, am I right in saying that that is so, and that it is a new power given which does not exist at the moment? Under my amendment he could not be arrested because he gave his genuine address, which is good enough under the existing law. Is there not a very radical departure under the Bill, which the Royal Commission did not recommend? Will the noble Lord the Minister explain to the Committee whether or not I am right in saying that the Bill does extend the law very considerably?
Lord Elton: I hope I can satisfy the noble Lord. If we can take the case of a suspected offender, he does not have to give a conventional, permanent address. The address can be that of a hostel where the person is staying, for example, or even a hotel if the person is staying there for any substantial period. The constable will ask him how long he is going to be there. The Thames Valley police have even suggested that

457
Greenham Camp is a suitable address, although that seems to me to take what the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, might regard as a more optimistic view of the future than I do. The extension of the law promoted by the noble Lord is designed specifically to deal with the inability of the police to prosecute travellers such as gipsies for offences—particularly serious motoring offences—which they commit. I do not think it is designed to do that but it would have that effect.
The tourist can of course give his own home address. He does not have to give the address where he happens to be at the time if he does not want to. If he is only there for a couple of nights he can say to the constable, "How long ahead do you want to know where I will be?" The tourist can then tell the policeman. If in fact the man is moving house or going to be away for six weeks during the period when the summons may be delivered at another address, it seems reasonable that he should be able to give the address so that the summons can be served at the address where he will be and not at what one might call his registered postal address.
Lord Airedale: The Minister continues to say that the person must be at the address for a sufficient period, or words to that effect. But what about the well-to-do tourist who is accused of some summary offence and is spending that night in a hotel in Park Lane and leaving Heathrow at four o'clock the next day for Rome? The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is right. That person is liable to spend the night not in his hotel in Park Lane but in the police station. What is the sense of that?
Lord Elton: Your Lordships are making very heavy weather of what I regard as a fairly simple point. The person can perfectly well give his home address if he wants to do so. If there are forwarding arrangements, as long as the constable is satisfied that the person will get the summons, that is all this is for. It will enable the constable not to arrest somebody for giving an unsatisfactory address simply because it happens not to be his home address.
Lord Airedale: If his home is in the United States, is that all right?
Lord Elton: I understand not; but I imagine, equally, that one would have to exercise discretion as to how far one pursues a trivial offence in order to bring to book a foreign visitor who is about to return to a foreign country.
Lord Gifford: The point is that there is a danger that police officers will pursue tourists, particularly the not so well-to-do tourists, over offences of this kind —parking offences, driving offences, dropping litter, or whatever it may be. Tourists will find themselves spending nights in the cells. We deplore this happening in other countries where tourists are arrested for trivial offences concerning driving, and so on. It will happen here under this Bill. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate our concern and agree to look again at the clause. I am not saying that my amendment has it absolutely right—the noble Lord made a point about
458
homeless persons—but the position of tourists and transients is completely changed by this Bill in the way the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and I have said.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Is the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, therefore, that the tourist who commits, say, a serious offence should get away scot-free?
Lord Gifford: Not serious, because all serious offences would either be arrestable under Clause 23 or they would come under the various important provisions in Clause 24(3)(d). The noble Lord will see that for all kinds of offences which involve injury, damage to property, offences against public decency and obstructions of the highway a person can be arrested irrespective of the permanence of the address. There are a number of offences which the noble Lord may have in mind which will fall within those provisions. The present law is that for offences which are not relatively serious—for example, parking offences, dropping litter, picking wild flowers or breaching by-laws—a tourist can be booked and summoned only if it is possible, and it may be that the tourist will go free. The Minister has not told us of any great scandals taking place where tourists cannot be served with summonses. It may be that there are. This is a point of principle to which we are seeking to address ourselves in this amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Disregarding for a moment the degree of seriousness of the offence—and I agree that the more serious offences are covered—there are some offences which some of us might think were reprehensible. The noble Lord should face up to this. If he presses his amendment he is proposing, in the case of the other sort of offences, to give complete immunity to a tourist simply because he is a tourist. I am very much against that.
Lord Elton: My noble friend has put the point, very succinctly, which I was going to make myself at greater length.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry.
Lord Elton: No, I am much obliged to my noble friend for speeding up the business of the Committee and bringing us to a consensus. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, referred to the offence of obstructing the highway. I presume he is aware that it is now an arrestable offence and that a foreigner can now be arrested for it. The other point I should have made to the noble Lord, and which he may be aware of, is that one cannot serve a summons abroad anywhere. Therefore, my noble friend is right. Either the foreigner who gives a foreign address has to remain in this country to receive the summons, and thus be brought to justice, or he must be let go. The noble Lord's amendment would mean that he would always have to be let go.
Lord Gifford: That is the present position. With great respect, the noble Lord is misleading the Committee when talking about obstructing the highway. Obstruction of the highway is a ground for arrest under paragraph (d) of the general arrest

459
conditions. I am not seeking to interfere with that. All kinds of other serious offences are arrestable, whether or not it is a foreigner or a tourist who commits them. The point I am asking the noble Lord to look at again is whether it is necessary to put tourists under the possibility, or probability, of being arrested for offences which all noble Lords would regard as trivial because there is not a satisfactory address for service. That is a matter which is totally new.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I can briefly assist the Committee in this way. The noble Lord the Minister will I think understand that there is concern about this matter and the treatment of tourists and less well-off people. In the circumstances, will he consider between now and Report not just the amendments but the possibility—I do not say that this will commend itself to everyone—of an insertion in the code of practice that the power of arrest in regard to these matters will be exercised only with due discretion and would not cover trivial offences of the nature that my noble friend has very properly brought before the Committee? If the Minister will give that assurance I have an idea that my noble friend Lord Gifford, in view of what he has said, will take a certain course.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is always anxious to help, and I am grateful to him for it; but, with the greatest respect. I think that the boot is on the other foot. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has put forward an amendment which would have the effect of protecting the wealthy foreigner or tourist and imperilling the homeless and the vagrants. This seems to be so out of tune with his own position in politics and with what the Bill seeks to achieve that it is for him to reconsider rather than the Government.
Lord Gifford: I am upset that the noble Lord does not seek at all to meet the point made by myself and by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. We shall have to return to it at a later stage, when I hope the noble Lord the Minister will look at it. I accept the suggestion that there may be an improved way of meeting the point that I seek to make, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: I think it would be convenient if I announced to the Committee that before resuming the House we shall not return to the Committee stage of this Bill until a quarter to eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Mental Health (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
6.59 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill 126 as first printed for the Commons.]
1 Clause 79, page 63, line 18, leave out "section 26 of the County Courts Act 1959" and insert "section 12 of the County Courts Act 1984".
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment. It might be convenient, if your Lordships agree, if I deal with both the amendments together and explain them.
Commons Amendment No. 2: Schedule 3, page 105, line 13, at end insert—
"Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 (c. 52)
46A. In section 1(10)(o) for the words "section 89 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960" there shall be substituted the words "section 90 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984."."
They both arise out of legislation which was passing through Parliament at the same time as this Bill. As your Lordships will see, Amendment No. 1 replaces a reference to a section of the County Courts Act 1959 with a reference to Section 12 of the County Courts Act 1984, which was a consolidation Bill which has now passed through both Houses.
Amendment No. 2 is in similar vein. It does the same for the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Act 1984, which was going through the House at the same time as the present Bill.
I should say that these amendments do not alter the law in any way. I should also inform your Lordships that they have been seen and, I understand, approved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who is chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I believe that the House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for explaining the necessity for these amendments. It is also perhaps grateful for the fact that the timing was such that it was possible to include the amendments in the consolidation measure, which will make the legislation more understandable, at least in these two minor respects, and there will not need to be quite as much digging hack in the records. I am quite happy to support the Lord Advocate on both amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 [Printed above.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rent (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, it is my understanding that no amendments have been set down to this Bill, and, further, that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Foster Children (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1984
7.3 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th May be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Trumpington I shall speak to this order, and I shall he brief. Most of your Lordships, if not all, will he familiar with this hardy annual which will not become a perennial. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered the draft order and has made no comment. The purpose of the draft order is to extend the Pool Competitions Act 1971—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. The purpose of the draft order is to extend the Pool Competitions Act 1971 for a further year. This Act came into force on 27th July 1971 and had effect for five years, but included a provision for its extension by order for up to a year at a time. It has been extended each year since 1976. Naturally, I am only too willing to answer any questions that your Lordships may put to me about it.
I ask the House to agree to the Motion before it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th May be approved.—.(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until a quarter to eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.5 until 7.45 p.m.]

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 24.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 22, line 21, after ("be") insert ("readily").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 82. This refers once more to the question of the address. As drafted, the Bill would require the police constable to go to very great lengths to discover whether or not the address was the correct address. He would have to search the electorial roll and so on. Plainly that is not what we intend in the Bill. So instead of saying, on page 22, line 21, that the address "cannot be ascertained by, the constable", we want to say "cannot be readily ascertained by the constable". It is very nearly a drafting amendment but not quite.
Lord Mishcon: I am not quite sure that it is just a drafting amendment. It really is an amendment that carries this matter much further, in the sense that it is not covering a situation where the name and address are not available. The qualification about not being readily available means that the police officer presumably need not take very much trouble to try to find out what the name and address is or to check it. The noble Lord the Minister knows the views expressed on this side of the House about the general tenor of this part of the Bill, but I think the Bill was much more acceptable in its original state without the insertion of the word "readily". I think that can cause a lot of trouble, with a police officer saying, "Well, it was not readily available and I interpreted "readily" as being the very second that I asked for it". I do not want to carry the argument to a facetious end and reduce it to an absurdity but at this moment I am wondering what would happen if the poor man stuttered.
Lord Elton: If the poor man stuttered I should hope the constable would treat him and his affliction with the respect that they deserved. The point is that paragraph (a) of subsection (3) as drafted will permit an arrest to take place if an offender's name cannot be ascertained by the constable concerned. We believe that this is too vague and is open to abuse on the part of offenders. I understand the noble Lord is anxious that there shall be no abuse on the part of the police. However, if an offender refused point blank to give his name on the spot, the officer would, in principle, as the Bill is now drafted, by a wholly unreasonable expenditure of time and effort, be able to establish it. He could discover if there was anybody in the district who knew him or—
Lord Mishcon: I apologise to the noble Lord for intervening. It is only because we are so anxious to get on. I suppose none of us wants to argue about semantics, but the noble Lord the Minister so appositely mentioned the word "reasonable" in his answer. If he had said that it was not "reasonably" instead of "readily", I would have thought that it might be more acceptable. If he would say that, having heard the brief discussion that has taken place before an attenuated Committee, there could possibly be consideration of the use of the word "readily" and other alternatives, or leaving the Bill where it stood,

463
my noble friends and I would certainly not wish to waste further time.
Lord Elton: I shall, of course, look at this before the next stage if something like "reasonably readily" is what is in the noble Lord's mind. I never wish to encourage your Lordships to too much optimism when I take something away, but it would be unreasonable of me not to look at this again.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): If Amendment No. 82A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 82B.
[Amendment No. 82A not moved.]
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 82B:
Page 22, line 22, leave out from ("for") to the end of line 24 and insert ("believing that the name furnished by the relevant person is not his real name;).
The noble Lord said: I wonder whether Amendment No. 82E could be taken with this amendment since the same principle is involved.
Page 22, line 28, leave out from ("for") to the end of line 30 and insert ("believing that the address furnished by the relevant person is not a satisfactory address for service;").
The first amendment relates to name, the second refers to address. The situation under Clause 24 at the moment is that the respective grounds for arrest in relation to name are
"that the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name furnished by the relevant person as his name is his real name";
and in relation to address,
"for doubting whether an address furnished by the relevant person is a satisfactory address for service".
The Royal Commission report, dealing with this matter, at Chapter 3.86, set a rather different threshold. It stated that, for the arrest to be lawful, the officer must actually see the person committing the offence, and there then follow these words:
"and the person must positively refuse to give his name and address".
That is a different stratum to that which appears in the Bill. The amendments, dealing with both situations in the same way, would state positively that the officer has to be in the state that he is believing that the name furnished by the relevant person is not his real name and believing that the address furnished by the relevant person is not a satisfactory address for service. That is a higher level of dubiety than that which appears at present in Clause 24. It is a lower level of dubiety than that recommended by the Royal Commission. It is, I think, about as readily poised between the two as one can get. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will accept it as a perfectly laudable compromise. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Clause 24 as drafted permits the arrest of an offender if inter alia the police officer concerned has reasonable grounds for doubting whether the name he furnishes is his real name. The first amendment will allow him to make an arrest if he had reasonable grounds for believing that the person's name is not his real name. There is no difference
464
between the effect of these different formulations of the same test that I can see in the relatively short time that I have been able to look at the amendment. They appear to mean the same. We prefer our drafting. I think that that is probably right. The noble Lord will, however, understand that this is at first blush.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I wonder if I may put the matter in this way to the noble Lord the Minister. I would be highly embarrassed if I had to try to define this in mathematical terms as I have not even a caveman's understanding of mathematics. However, will the Minister accept that, on the Government's present wording, a 20 per cent. doubt would presumably mean that there was within the wording of the Act reasonable ground for doubting. But, before one can qualify for the situation that is described in the amendments, there has to be a state where the officer is believing that the name furnished by the relevant person is not his real name; in other words, that he says to himself, "It is something higher than 50 per cent." It is the difference between those two conditions that make the substantial and fundamental difference between the Government's wording and that of the two amendments. I would be grateful if the Minister would mull over this in the days between now and Report stage.
Lord Elton: Had the noble Lord asked me to come to a decision now I would have firmly said, No. I may well say the same at Report stage, but I will look at it between now and then.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 82C, 82D, 82E and 82F not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 82G:
Page 22, line 32, after ("person") insert ("from committing or attempting to commit the offence and thereby—").
The noble Lord said: If I can epitomise this amendment, it would be an attempt to make the arrest fit the crime, to copy Gilbert and Sullivan for one moment. I say that for this reason. The amendment would forge a link between the offence that is suspected and the action which the power of arrest is proposed to prevent. Without that, there would be created, in my submission, a new power of preventive arrest in relation to conduct that may in itself not be unlawful and which may have no relationship to the offence in question.
I should like to give a quick example. A man is taking part in a demonstration. It is a perfectly peaceful demonstration but nevertheless rather a bother to the police, possibly because of traffic considerations. The man drops some litter. The officer decides that this is a very good thing and that he will at least be picking up one of those in the demonstration. That will mean one less, and it will stop him causing him an unlawful obstruction of the highway. I do not wish to exaggerate by my example. But it is this sort of circumstance which makes it necessary, I repeat, to link the offence, as this amendment does,

465
with the offence that is going to be committed and which the officer is stopping by the arrest. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: Subsection (3)(d) is concerned with the prevention, for example, of injury or damage to property. It authorises the arrest of a person who is committing or who has committed or who is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence if the constable reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent one of these consequences. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord seeks to relate these consequences back to the offence committed by the person concerned. I believe that this attempt to circumscribe the power of arrest more closely is neither necessary nor helpful. While, obviously, I would not wish to dwell on the point, there is an oddity in the amendment as drafted. By referring to the prevention of an offence, it implies that the offence has not yet been committed. But subsection(2) makes it abundantly clear that the power to arrest conferred by the clause arises only if an offence is already taking place or has already been completed. I would not want to rest my, argument on a point of drafting, particularly in these circumstances.
The point of substance underlying the amendment, which I suggest to your Lordships is mistaken, is that the consequences of an offence should not be regarded, as it were, free-standing of it. The power to arrest should be related to the harmful nature of the offence. In general, this would be so. In the case of a person committing the offence of being drunk and disorderly, it is in the nature of an offence that a risk arises of injury to other persons or damage to property which an arrest may be necessary to prevent. Similarly, in the case of the offence of vehicle interference, the continuation or repetition of the offence, if not prevented, would in all probability result in loss of property whether in the form of something in the car or the car itself.
I could offer other examples where everyone would agree that arrest was the sensible and practical course for an officer to take in the circumstances facing him at the time, but where the casual chain between the harm to be prevented and the offence committed previously is longer and more oblique than the amendment envisages. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press it.
Lord Mishcon: I feel that this deserves some further consideration. Certainly, I shall read very carefully what the noble Lord the Minister has said; but we have always to weigh the balance between the extreme examples that he can give and the fact that injustices of a grave nature can be committed. We cannot do it at this moment; I appreciate that. We cannot do it until we have considered what each of us has said. In the circumstances, I ask the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that the Minister will look as carefully as I will at the things which have been said in the discussion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 82H:
Page 22, line 35, leave out paragraph (ii).
The noble and learned Lord said: We are dealing here with grounds on which a person may be arrested. In Clause 24, on page 22, your Lordships will see the words:
"that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to prevent the relevant person—
(ii) suffering physical injury".
It seems a very odd circumstance on which to justify arresting him. Does it mean suffering physical injury by, or in the circumstances of, the arrest, or by self-maiming or some activity of that kind? Clearly, suffering physical injury is not an offence, and I submit that it should not and does not form reasonable ground for an arrest. Perhaps we could have an explanation of what, to me at any rate, seems at the moment wrapped in the inexplicable and the mysterious. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Although paragraph (i) refers to a person,
"causing physical injury to himself',
we think that a separate consequence of suffering physical injury is necessary. Let us consider the case of a person who is found committing an offence, not necessarily a very serious offence. An angry crowd gathers, and it is clear that the person is at risk of physical injury unless he is arrested and seen to be taken away to be dealt with under the law. We have also seen rather unpleasant television pictures—have we not?—of crowds outside police stations jeering at suspects and banging on the roof of the car as they are driven in or out of the station.
Such situations do arise on the street—not often, but from time to time—when a person is found committing an offence which inherently may not be very grave. If the offence is arrestable, then the officer can arrest the person under Clause 32, but, if it is not, then we believe that the power of arrest should be available in the offender's own interests if he is at risk of attack from the outraged local citizenry.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: A rescue operation giving rise to the possibility of arrest rather than protection creates a very interesting and somewhat difficult situation. I shall give further thought to this. I can well conceive that a drunk lying in the middle of the road, with traffic roaring round him, might be a circumstance. But, so far, I am not very impressed with the illustration that the noble Lord has given. I shall give thought to it, and in the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The next two amendments are printed the wrong way round. Amendment No. 83 should have been numbered 83A, and 83A should have been 83; so I call Amendment No. 83A.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 83A:
Page 22, line 37, leave out paragraph (iv).
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a provision which creates as a reasonable ground for a constable to arrest a person the need,
"to prevent the relevant person—
(iv) causing an offence against public decency".
The old language used to be, an affront to public decency; I think that was the old phrase.
In my submission,
"an offence against public decency",
is not a concept known in our criminal law. It is in very broad and very general terms, and I am afraid that at a time when allegations of entrapment are made, particularly on the homosexual scene, the use of the broad expression,
"causing an offence against public decency",
as the description of a ground on which a person can be arrested goes far too wide and creates, as I say, a concept which previously has never been part of the criminal law. We should like further elaboration of that, because at the moment it seems to us to be a wide and excessive extension of the grounds for arrest for which a great deal of justification is required before we can introduce it as a new element in the criminal law. I beg to move.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I should like to support this amendment. It seems to me that we are here entering a real disaster area, because, if I may say so, police officers are notorious—almost as notorious as judges—for not keeping in touch with what are called public mores, and they are very liable to be totally out of date as to what is indecency and what is not indecency. We are not talking here about an offence: we are talking about a police officer, not who has seen an offence but who is predicting that an offence of indecency is going to take place.
From all one's experience, what you are going to be faced with is couples in the park going rather too far, in the view of the police officer; you are going to have people in motor cars behaving in some sort of sexual way, which may offend one police officer and not another; you are going to have people relieving themselves in alleys off Piccadilly, which some police officers will consider indecent; you are going to have two ladies on a park seat being affectionate towards each other, which will be considered by some police officers to be appalling; you are going to have people outside lavatories behaving, because police officers think they are homosexuals, in some way which is indecent; you are going to have nudity; and so on.
On one occasion I appeared for a Member of the other place whose whole life was totally destroyed because it was alleged that he was up to no good behind some laurel bush in St. James's Park. In spite of the officer being discovered to have completely falsified his notebook, the man was nevertheless convicted of some minor offence of indecency, which many people would have thought was hardly indecent at all.
I have also, in my time, appeared for a distinguished professor who, on the beach, quite alone, was quietly camping and making his breakfast on his primus
468
stove. He was absolutely undressed—nothing on at all. Unfortunately, there were two ladies from Darlington who were also having a holiday on the same part of the beach. They were so horrified that they went to a telephone box and rang up the Dorset police, who immediately arrested this unfortunate professor. I am afraid that those are the kind of circumstances within one's own experience where people's lives are absolutely ruined because some officer, some person in the executive, has taken the view that their behaviour is indecent. Indecency is something about which we all have different views and I ask the Minister to delete this part of the clause.
Lord Auckland: I hesitate to intervene among so many legal experts, but I can see one aspect that leads me to think that the clause in the Bill is sound. As your Lordships know, in the precincts of London Bridge Station and other stations, one finds hawkers who are peddling video tapes and other things. Let us suppose that there are tapes of an indecent nature being peddled and a crowd gathers around the person selling them. There is surely likely to be an obstruction, particularly during the rush-hour with people getting to the station. Therefore, the clause in the Bill would, as I see it, enable the police to make an arrest where something which is indecent is being sold—be it video tapes or any other object. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister can comment on this. I realise that this is a very legalistic aspect of the Bill, but I can see some validity here.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: There is a distinction between indecency and obstruction. The noble Lord has said that somebody, by selling something, whether it is indecent or not—even if it is cigarettes—is causing an obstruction. That is already some kind of offence, but there is nothing indecent about it.
Lord Mishcon: I was about to say that the noble Lord the Minister and I share many interests and one of them was in the Video Recordings Bill. I can assure the noble Lord that this would be an offence under that Bill when it becomes an enactment, and therefore there will be no difficulty in regard to it.
Lord Elton: The amendment which has been put forward by the noble Lord is addressed to the criterion of preventing an offence against public decency. Before dealing with that amendment, I should like to speak briefly to my own amendment to sub-paragraph (iv) which is Amendment No. 83, so that we can sweep them up together.
Amendment No. 83: Page 22, line 37, leave out ("causing") and insert ("committing").
That amendment simply corrects an error. On Report in another place subsection (3)(d)(iv) was amended to replace the words "affront to" by "offence against". While one may cause an affront, one commits an offence. My amendment simply corrects that verbal slip.
I return to the noble and learned Lord's amendment and it may be of help if I go back briefly to first principles. The power of arrest has two grounds: first, to ensure that the offender is brought before the courts,

469
which includes the gathering together of sufficient evidence for this purpose; and, secondly, to prevent further harm being done. Paragraph (d) is concerned with the second of these grounds. What this part of the clause does is to give the police powers to act in circumstances where they would be expected to act by the public and to employ basic concepts which both police and public can readily understand.
The amendment aims specifically to remove the power to arrest a person reasonably suspected of an offence where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an arrest is necessary to prevent an offence against public decency. There can he no question that this power is necessary. Supposing a man was "flashing" women shoppers in a local street. We would all expect the police to prevent this behaviour. Certainly if there were a police officer there I would expect him to ensure that more women were not upset in this way. Fears have of course been expressed that this gives the police a licence to arrest any person whose behaviour is unconventional. That is a fear which I think that your Lordships have voiced.
We amended the Bill on Report in another place to meet that point in response to helpful suggestions made by the Opposition. I think that these fears are groundless. First, the phrase, "an offence against public decency" means exactly what it says. It does not mean any behaviour which is merely disapproved of by the majority of the community; the behaviour must constitute a valid offence. Secondly, let me emphasise, at the risk of restating the obvious, that the arrest powers should come into play if the person is already reasonably suspected of an offence. Thirdly, powers of arrest already exist for most of the offences concerned. What the Bill does is to replace a haphazard collection of powers with a single, readily understandable power, and one, furthermore, which unlike the present powers can be exercised only in relation to future harm and not simply by virtue of the fact that an offence has already been committed. I would draw attention to subsection (5) which provides that this offence must be in circumstances in which members of the public:
"cannot reasonably be expected to avoid",
the person concerned, for this power to become exercisable.
Lord Wigoder: Am I not right in thinking that paragraph (d) is intended where an offence has not yet been committed, and it is giving the police powers to arrest somebody before the offence has been committed? So if somebody is seen "flashing"—as the noble Lord has put it so vividly—at ladies in the street, that is committing an offence. What this clause says is that if somebody puts his hand on the top of his zip, a police officer is entitled to say, "I think that he is going to lower his zip and I then think that he is going to commit the offence" to which the noble Lord the Minister referred. Have I got this right or not?
Lord Elton: I think not. If the noble Lord looks at subsection (1) he will see that the first requirement is that the:
"constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any offence has been committed".—
Lord Wigoder: "or attempted".
Lord Elton: Yes. In other words it is not in anticipation of a first attempt. I see the man wrestling with cold fingers with his zip. That seems to me to be what the noble Lord calls up before us. There has to be some precursor to his expectation that an offence is going to be committed.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: With regard to the expression "flashing", which presumably means indecent exposure, that of course is already an existing established criminal offence and would be caught as such. But to deal with that and other situations under the umbrella—if that is not too delicate and kindly a word in the circumstances—of causing an offence against public decency, seems in my submission to be somewhat far-fetched.
I submit that the real mischief of this provision is that it imposes upon the constable a pure value judgment, and that in the circumstances of which we are speaking runs the risk of problems. I do not share the extreme language of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, who in one fell swoop abused constables and judges with the same impartiality which of course is characteristic of his detachment in these matters. I do not share that view. But I submit that this provision attempts to establish a category of offence not known to the criminal law and it ought not to be introduced as a ground for effecting an arrest.
However fascinating and important this is—and I do not want to be flippant about it—it may well be that we can consider this matter perhaps at greater length at the next stage of our consideration of the Bill. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 83:
[Printed earlier: col. 468.]
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 83B:
Page 22, line 38, leave out paragraph (v).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to delete the fifth category in Clause 24(3)(d), which reads:
"clausing an unlawful obstruction of the highway".
As the Committee will be aware, the constable is entitled to arrest if he has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to prevent a person from doing what is in subparagraph (v); in other words, the constable is entitled to act in anticipation of an obstruction of the highway. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, in relation to the preceding category of causing an offence against public decency, said that there was a danger that this would become very much a value judgment of the police officer concerned. I would pray in aid the same argument in relation to an anticipated unlawful obstruction of the highway.
We can think of dozens of occasions—can we not—when persons in a particularly innocent way will be obstructing a highway: for example, a queue outside a shop; a crowd waiting to go into a football ground; a smaller crowd of people listening to a parliamentary candidate when he has come along with his sound truck hoping to address one or two people who have gathered together. Indeed, the example that comes very readily to mind is that of half a dozen people lawfully picketing. Their picketing may be utterly unobjectionable but at the same time, if one wanted to be technical, one could say that they were obstructing the highway.
Without giving any more examples (and I can think of dozens), the point I seek to make is that there is conduct which, because of the good common sense of police officers, is tolerated day in and day out. and thank goodness for that. Were it not so, society would not be able to go about its lawful and normal business, but such conduct, which may be perfectly acceptable to one police officer, may, under this Bill, by the very whim and caprice of another police officer, be regarded as an arrestable condition.
My noble friends on these Benches take the view that this situation if too delicate to be included within the arrest provisions and that it would be wiser, more politic and less likely to lead to embarrassing situations in the future if this fifth condition in paragraph (d) were to be deleted. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I wish to oppose this amendment and as I have not previously spoken on subsection (3) and in particular on paragragh (d), I should like to congratulate the Government on introducing a merciful provision which, admittedly, according to the judgment of the police, will enable them to save people the opprobrium of committing offences and having to be brought before the court for doing so.
Perhaps I may take the example that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, gave of pickets. We all know, and the police know, that if six pickets, and no more—or not many more—desire to picket, they are perfectly lawful in standing on the pavement in order to do their picketing. But if it appears abundantly clear to a police officer that they are about to try to supplement their picketing by obstructing the highway, by putting large objects there which would prevent the movement of traffic, then they should be encouraged to desist, and if they refuse to desist, the police are still left with the obligation to keep the highway clear.
If somebody refuses to co-operate in keeping the highway clear, surely the merciful preventive provisions of this paragraph of subsection (3) should come into operation. Therefore, I think that it would be wrong to delete subparagraph (v) of paragraph (d).
Lord Elton: The power to arrest, with which we are dealing here, is the power to arrest where there are reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to prevent an unlawful obstruction of the highway. There is, of course, nothing new about such a power. The offence of wilfully obstructing the highway has always carried a power of arrest.
472
This power, which is currently contained in Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980, is to be repealed by Clause 25(1) of this Bill. This provision, therefore, simply reserves the existing position, except to the extent that the power in the Bill may be exercised only where arrest is necessary to prevent a continuing obstruction. Of course, the present power is not limited in this way, so the power in the Bill is narrower than that which we now have. Plainly the police need a reserve power of arrest. Obstruction of the highway can disrupt a great number of people as they go about their business. If the police cannot persuade a person to move along voluntarily, they have no option but to arrest that person.
I would emphasise that the paragraph refers to an "unlawful" obstruction. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, quoted several forms of obstruction which appear to me to be perfectly lawful. Therefore, the paragraph incorporates the test contained in the 1980 Act itself. Originally, we had not thought it necessary to do so because the arrest power in the Bill, which replaces the existing one in the 1980 Act, only comes into play when a person is already suspected of an offence, and a person cannot be reasonably suspected of obstruction under the 1980 Act if he has a lawful authority or a lawful excuse. I believe that those words will particularly reassure the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan.
However, it is clearly right that a person who has committed an offence under the 1980 Act should not be liable to arrest if the obstruction that he is about to cause is on this occasion lawful. In response to criticisms made by Her Majesty's Opposition in Committee in another place, we amended the Bill to refer to unlawful obstructions. Therefore, I hope that what pleased the Opposition in another place may eventually please the noble Lord in this Committee.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said and I shall certainly give the matter further thought between now and Report. Therefore, on that basis, I seek the kind leave of the Committee to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 83C:
Page 22, line 42, at end insert—
("() for the purposes of subsection (3) above the constable shall inform the relevant person that he may nominate another person to accept service of a summons for him and may give that other person's addrss.").
The noble Lord said: If my analysis of the law of averages is right, the Government are able to concede one in about 70 amendments, and I believe that I have reached the stage now where my analysis of the law of averages has made me optimistic. The noble Lord made much of the fact, and rightly so, that anyone would escape arrest who was able to give a proper address where acceptance of service of a summons could be effected. The officer may know that, your Lordships may know that, but the poor person who is confronted with the questions about his name and address and how service can be effected will not know unless the policeman tells him. Therefore, this

473
amendment simply says—and I hope that the Minister can accept it—that the constable concerned will:
"inform the relevant person that he may nominate another person to accept service of a summons for him and may give that other person's address".
That is the simple amendment, simply moved, and I hope simply accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: So that I may understand this amendment, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would envisage these circumstances? Supposing I were the relevant person and I decided to nominate him as a person to accept service of a summons on my behalf, without ever having been in touch with the noble Lord and without knowing whether or not he would accept service. Would that be, in his opinion, a valid compliance with his amendment?
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord puts a very proper question, but it should be addressed to the Government and not to Her Majesty's Opposition. The reason I say that is because the Bill provides that somebody can give an address for acceptance of service. I am merely saying that if that is a right given under the Bill the person concerned should, at least, be informed of it.
Lord Elton: Lord Mishcon's noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, may not have the understanding of mathematics of a caveman but it is quite clear that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, understands averages to some extent. We accept that there is a point of substance identified in Amendment No. 83C which requires the constable to explain to the person concerned the fact that the address of some other person may be adequate for the service of a summons, even when he has no suitable address of his own. It could perhaps happen that the arrested person did not realise that an alternative address would do. Though I have no doubt that in practice police officers would draw attention to the acceptability of an alternative, I accept that there is nothing to require them to do so in the Bill as drafted. I am not quite sure how we should meet that point. The noble Lord will recognise that we have had little time to consider that and we shall need to be careful of inhibiting police action in the sort of situation where the suspect makes off, or makes ready to do so, and there is no time to engage in any sort of explanation.
I remind my noble friend that the constable has to be satisfied that it is an address at which he can expect to be able to serve a summons. How he establishes whether the suspect is a life-long friend of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, or only a passing acquaintance or distant relation, I do not know. But the law should provide that where the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is happy to be in receipt of the summons—and who more appropriate?—then the person should have that possibility drawn to his attention. To that extent it looks as if there will be another very large number of amendments before we can accept anything else.
Lord Renton: I wonder whether my noble friend will be so kind as to explain. Is it for the constable to decide
474
whether a person nominated to accept the summons will be willing and able to do so or must he be given some kind of assurance to that effect by the relevant person? This seems to me to be the relevant point.
Lord Mishcon: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will take it from me as in no way belittling the point he has made, but this matter should have been taken when we were dealing with the question of the ability to give such an address for service. That point has now passed. I am merely dealing with the fact that the Bill has now spoken in relation to that right and the person concerned should know of it. If I may be presumptuous enough to say so, no doubt the noble Lord will now raise this at Report stage when we may get clarification.
If the two Front Benches cannot agree on politics or philosophy and other matters, it is awfully nice to know that they can agree on mathematics and the analysis of averages. I am delighted that I was right in thinking that the turn has now been reached for an amendment to be accepted in principle, if not in the words used. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord just allow me to reassure my noble frend to save a future debate? The requirement rests in Clause 24(3)(c)(ii), which says,
"the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether an address furnished by the relevant person is a satisfactory address for service".
So it does depend on the constable and the constable will require training in what he should accept.
Lord Renton: If that interpretation is correct, one wonders why the amendment is necessary. However, I will not pursue the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 83D not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 24, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Denning: May I raise one point on clause stand part, which concerns subsection (6), which says:
"This section shall not prejudice any power of arrest conferred apart from this section".
When we discussed the corresponding subsection (8) of Clause 23 that had gone out. I wonder whether subsection (6) remains of any effect in view of Clause 25, which says that any power of arrest and so forth,
"shall cease to have effect".
In other words, I am wondering whether subsection (6) ought not to go out in the same way as subsection (8) has gone from the other clause.
Lord Elton: I think that I would be wise, given the experience of those who drafted and the experience of he who criticises, to take leave to consider that point between now and Report.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Repeal of statutory powers of arrest without warrant or order]:
On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: This is another rather strange provision. It is a case of, in effect, a repealing method. It is an indirect and rather obscure repealing method. It is a non-textual repealing amendment of a great many previous provisions.
When we were discussing Clause 7 the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, drew attention to Clause 7(2) which had a somewhat similar effect. I rose to support him in the plea that he made and we obtained a quick assurance from the Government that the point that we made would be considered between now and Report. I make the same plea in relation to this clause.
The concluding words are:
"shall cease to have effect".
That is a well-established draftsman's euphemism for the expression "repeal".
As I have pointed out, there will be many previous repeals, including those in local Acts, which will take place as a result of this clause. It is tempting to say that the draftsman has contrived a short, simple method of enabling everybody concerned to disregard a large number of previous statutory provisions. But without turning to them—and they are very numerous—we do not know which they are; until individually they come to be considered in particular cases nobody is likely to list them or to turn them up. Therefore, I suggest that even though it means adding several pages to the repealing schedule of the Bill, it might be better to achieve this purpose in that way instead of in the way that is attempted in Clause 25.
Lord Mishcon: If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will allow me to do so, I support everything that he says.
Lord Denning: I should like to support it, too. When in all these volumes we have statutes repealed, the people who compile the statutes can strike them out. That cannot be done simply. Someone has to go through it. It is what I said earlier on Clause 25. We have 15½ pages concerning powers of arrest. Are they to be repealed or not? I assume that they are to be repealed. If so, that ought to be carried out expressly so that all the people who compile statutes can strike those out of their books and have this simple clause instead.
Lord Elton: I can see the attraction of what my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord says. There are two approaches, are there not? One would be to do what we have done in the Bill which is to say that everything of this nature shall be struck out except that which is reserved in Schedule 2. Schedule 2 is a relatively short schedule and is easier for us to discuss. Or we could say that everything will be preserved except what is listed in Schedule 2 and we would have a very long schedule to discuss. The list, which has been referred to already in debate, is in fact printed in Appendix 9 to the Royal Commission's report.
476
The problem is less than one might have thought because the public general Acts affected are listed for repeal in Schedule 7, so the Acts that your Lordships are concerned about are the lesser Acts that are not public general Acts, and I see that there is force in the argument that the local Acts and the particular Act should be listed somewhere. As I have already said, we will take this on board before Report. I cannot, without advice, and I think without fairly considerable reflection, say whether there will be much that I can do, but what I want to leave in your Lordships' minds is the fact that, by reason of Schedule 7, the list of repeals which are not specifically referred to on the face of the Bill is not as long as otherwise would be the case.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Preserved powers of arrest]:
8.42 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 102, line 22, at end insert—
("1984 c. 00. Section 5(5) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984.").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, I rise to move this amendment, which will preserve the power of arrest conferred by Clause 5(5) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Bill, now being considered in Committee in another place. Your Lordships will recall that this gives a constable power to arrest without warrant an escaped prisoner. It is therefore similar in nature to the power of arrest conferred by Section 49 of the Prison Act 1952, which is already listed in the schedule. Powers to arrest escaped prisoners will not necessarily be covered by the general conditions for arrest contained in Clause 24, but it is plain that the police need power to arrest without warrant and without more ado persons unlawfully at large. If as we anticipate, the Repatriation of Prisoners Bill receives Royal Assent before this Bill, the power to arrest contained in it will be repealed by Clause 25(1) unless it is added to Schedule 2. This is the effect of the amendment.
I should like to take this opportunity also to give your Lordships some notice that Schedule 2 may require a small further expansion at Report. In particular, we have been looking again at preserving in their present form the powers of arrest for soliciting by prostitutes, since the general arrest conditions (and Clause 24(3)(d) is relevant) may not be wholly adequate to meet the enforcement needs of that particular offence. We may, therefore, propose their preservation subject to the views of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which is now reviewing this whole area of the law. I ought also to mention the reference to the Prevention of Terrorism Act at the end of the schedule. I am afraid that the saving here will require a technical amendment, as will a number of later references to the terrorist provisions later in the Bill. These, too, will be brought forward on Report. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Arrest without warrant for fingerprinting):
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 84A:
Page 23, line 26, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below,").
The noble Lord said: I apologise for being slow to rise. As I understand it, this amendment is to be taken with Amendment No. 85D.
Amendment No. 85D: Page 23, line 36, at end insert—
("(1A) The power of arrest conferred by this section shall not be exercisable unless the court by which the person was convicted has made an order authorising the taking of his fingerprints.").
Your Lordships will see that in the first amendment there is a reference to subsection (1A), which is Amendment No. 85D, to which the first amendment makes the clause subject. It is the view of, I hope, many of us that it would be quite wrong to exercise the power here unless the court by which that person was convicted has made such an order. I beg to move.
Lord Gifford: I should like to support this amendment. As I understand it, Clause 26 introduces a new power to have the fingerprints taken of anybody who has been convicted of certain offences which are described as "recordable"; and no doubt the noble Lord the Minister will tell us what "recordable offence" is going to mean, because under the Bill it means only an offence to which regulations under this clause apply. What worries me is the concept that the mere fact of being convicted for an offence is sufficient not only to allow the police to take your fingerprints but to allow them to arrest you if you refuse to go along and have your fingerprints taken.
Surely the taking of fingerprints is not in order to feed the voluminous police computer and to make sure that everybody is included upon it, but in order to prevent crime and to detect criminals. If someone has been convicted of an offence who, in the view of the court. is not in the least likely to commit another offence and who should not have his fingerprints taken, then why should they be taken? In other words, the protection of a court order should be inserted in this clause.
Lord Trefgarne: I imagined that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewan-Biggs, might want to intervene on this point because it occurs to me that we might group together rather more amendments than did the noble Lord at the outset.
Lord Mishcon: I think it would be convenient to the Committee, this being a separate principle, for us to deal with this separate principle of the court order; and then we can go on to the other amendments and deal with rather different principles.
Lord Trefgarne: I am happy to proceed in that way if I may first extract my notes from the single speech that I had prepared for this occasion. Before I deal, on a later occasion, with the amendments of the noble Baroness, let me say a word about the fingerprinting amendments, which I think were uppermost in the minds of noble Lords. National police records of convictions are maintained on behalf of all police forces by the National Identification Bureau at New
478
Scotland Yard, incorporating the National Criminal Record Office, as a common police service under Section 41 of the Police Act 1964. NIB records comprise records of convictions and the national fingerprint collection. The collection has two purposes. First, fingerprints found at scenes of crimes may be chacked against it; and, secondly, the record of convictions are distinguished one from another by fingerprints. This is so because fingerprints identify uniquely, and attempting to identify records by name and date of birth would lead to error and uncertainty, particularly since it is not uncommon for criminals to acquire aliases.
It is accordingly by means of fingerprints that the police are able to establish whether a person charged with a recordable offence has previous convictions for recordable offences, and, if so, what they are. They can establish whether or not the person concerned is wanted, perhaps under another name, or in a different force area, in connection with other offences; for example, if there is an outstandng arrest warrant against him. May I say in parenthesis, as to the phrase "recordable offence", about which the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, asked me, that the current list of recordable offences is contained in a Home Office circular, a copy of which, I understand, is in the Library.
It is also very important for sentencing purposes that the police are able, when they provide the court which has convicted an offender with information about the criminal record, to ensure that the information that they supply is accurate and relates to the right person. So not only is fingerprinting (which is not painful or, indeed, unpleasant) a key investigative aid, but a comprehensive fingerprint collection is an integral part of the whole sentencing process. It is essential from both points of view that the fingerprints of all those convicted of recordable offences are recorded. If not, the accuracy of the national criminal record system will inevitably suffer.
Turning to the amendments—and I hope I am now speaking to the right ones—Nos. 84B and 85E would limit the power of arrest conferred by Clause 26 to persons over the age of 16.
Lord Mishcon: I hope I am not confusing the noble Lord, but I must at once admit that if we did not want to take all these together we should have said so before. I do apologise, but it has occurred to us that it would he only proper to deal with them separately because there are amendments here which deal with the question of time and there are amendments which deal with the question of the principle in regard to an order of the court having to be obtained. It is solely that principle that I dealt with in very quickly moving Amendments Nos. 84A and 85D. That is purely the one dealing with an order of the court.
Lord Elton: I wonder whether I might clear the air on this matter before my noble friend returns with his unequalled ability to the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has directed his attention. The list of amendments, as the noble Lord has freely admitted, was circulated and was agreed; there was an alteration made to accommodate the feelings of his noble friends. There has been a very considerable

479
number of amendments going down in the last 48 hours—indeed in the last 24 hours—which puts us under fairly considerable pressure, If a grouping is agreed, the speaking notes are arranged to fit the grouping and the Minister at the Box then has the job of unscrambling and unknitting what he has done in order to assist your Lordships in dealing with particular points. So when the noble Lords seek to make it easier and clearer by separating the issues, the result is more like a plate of spaghetti than it was to start with. So if noble Lords would bear with my noble friend, if we can generally stick to the groupings it would be very helpful.
Lord Mishcon: We not only bear with him, we sympathise with him and we apologise to him. At the moment I am covered in sackcloth and ashes, if I may mix the metaphor which the noble Lord the Minister used.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord looks particularly handsome in them.
Lord Trefgarne: If I may just return to what I think is the amendment to which the noble Lord has drawn my attention, that is Amendment No. 85D, page 23, line 36, at end insert—
Lord Mischon: That is taken with Amendment No. 84A.
Lord Trefgarne: To be frank, I am afraid I am not able to unscramble my remarks in the way the noble Lord requests, but the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that although I am not for the moment able to provide him with the most cogent arguments, the fact is that the Government are not able to accept the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether I can help the noble Lord. My noble friends and I repeat our expression of regret. We think that what we ought to do is to allow all the amendments to be spoken to together. Then the speech which the noble Lord, I am sure, was going to abridge in any event, will nevertheless cover all the points that are going to be made. I think that is the best way for dealing with it, and I am sorry if we have held up the Committee.
8.54 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: If my noble friend Lord Mishcon is covered with sackcloth and ashes, I am even more so and I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the discussion on this group of amendments. I was attending to a maternal duty, perhaps your Lordships will forgive me doing that.
I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 84B and 85E.
Amendment No. 84B: Page 23, line 26, at end insert ("over the age of 17").
Amendment No. 85E: Page 23, line 36, at end insert—
("() If, in the case of a young person, the requirements of subsection (1)(a) and (b) above are satisfied and that person and/or his parent or guardian withholds consent to the taking of his fingerprints, a summons may be issued requiring the young
480
person to appear before a magistrates' court and the said court shall be empowered to order that the fingerprints of the said young person shall be taken.").
I promise you that I shall not make the long speech I had planned because I think the purpose of these amendments is very clear. It is to exempt young people from the police power of arrest without a warrant for fingerprinting and, instead, to substitute power to issue a summons to these young people requiring them to appear before a magistrates' court for fingerprinting instead.
This amendment also reflects the code of practice's definition of the appropriate consents which are needed for fingerprinting young people; namely not only a young person's consent but in addition that of the parent or guardian. This is included in these amendments and I think there is no doubt that the powers under this clause would encourage the attention to people with criminal records. It has already been acknowledged that it would be young people who would be more likely to be subjected to any kind of police harassment, especially if they had been known to the police beforehand. So it seems entirely desirable to keep young people and children out of police stations, as this amendment tries to do, and also to ensure that these young people retain the support and supportive presence of a parent or guardian.
The importance of this amendment is made even greater—and I am certainly not going to do anything but touch on this aspect—through the fact that later in this Bill the age of fingerprinting has been lowered from 14 to 10 years. This change is opposed by the probation services, and the members of the Royal Commission were divided on this particular issue of lowering the age for fingerprinting from 14 to 10. I think this adds great weight to the amendment, and I should like to do no more than commend these two amendments.
Lord Trefgarne: In the hope that I have now the right words to put before your Lordships, may I confirm that these amendments would limit the power of arrest conferred by Clause 26 to persons over the age of 15. But as I have explained, it is necessary for the records maintained by the National Identification Bureau to contain the fingerprints of all people with convictions for recordable offences, whatever their age. It follows that it is therefore necesary that the reserve powers of arrest conferred by the clause should apply to all such persons.
In an ideal world where juveniles did not commit offences, there would be no need for Clause 26 to apply to them. But unhappily juveniles, even where children and not young persons are concerned, commit offences, and sometimes very serious offences indeed. The proportion of those found guilty of or cautioned for indictable offences who are aged between 10 and 14 has run for some time at about 10 per cent. Such a high proportion is alarming and I believe it underlines the continuing need for the power recommended by the Royal Commission.
The great majority of the indictable offences concerned are offences of burglary, theft or handling—the very offences where fingerprint evidence may be directly relevant and useful. If we

481
want the police to be able to detect re-offending by youngsters involved in such crime and to put them before the courts in their own interests, as well as those of society at large, it is essential that anyone who is convicted of a recordable offence has his fingerprints on record.
I am sure we all wish to see the proportion of young offenders drop and where possible children kept out of the criminal justice system; but it is important to bear in mind that children do no acquire criminal records by having their fingerprints taken. They acquire records and are to have their fingerprints taken because they commit offences. Even if fingerprints were not taken, criminal records would still have to be kept by the police for various purposes. Fingerprinting simply ensures that these records are accurate, and indeed the knowledge that his fingerprints are on record may help to discourage a juvenile from committing a further crime. This I believe is an important point.
We are of course aware, as the noble Baroness has explained, that Amendment No. 85E is intended to provide an alternative to the arrest procedure applied to the over-15s in which a child under this age could be required to attend court following conviction, so that the court could consider making a fingerprinting order. Leaving aside the technical point that the power of magistrates to order fingerprints to be taken under Section 49 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 is repealed in Schedule 7, we are firmly of the view that the procedure envisaged by the noble Baroness would not serve any useful purpose. It would only do so if we wanted to confer a discretion which the magistrates could exercise or decline to exercise.
However, the fact is that it is the Government's view that there is no scope for the exercise of discretion in these circumstances. If someone, whether a juvenile or not, is convicted of a recordable offence, then a record must be made and his fingerprints taken for this purpose. This should be an automatic procedure, as otherwise the criminal records system of this country will remain incomplete and inaccurate. To ensure that he is not arrested, all a convicted person has to do is to co-operate in providing his fingerprints. The need for compulsion only arises if co-operation fails. I have dwelt on the considerations that apply to adults and I will not therefore consider them further, but I would ask your Lordships not to proceed with these amendments.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: May I intervene briefly to say that I agree entirely with what my noble friend has said? With my perhaps limited experience over 30 years of trying to judge juvenile crime, such crime, as my noble friend has said, is increasing enormously. Juveniles are led by the adults; they are pushed through windows by adults. These are young people whom we have to arrest. We have to bring them before the courts in their own interests and in the interests of the country. If we do not stop them from committing crimes and we do not try to deter them perhaps by some suitable punishment, we shall be laying ourselves open to more and more adult crime. So I entirely agree with my noble friend.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: There was one point that I wanted to raise. I thought our amendment used the words, "over the age of 17", and not, "over the age of 15".
Lord Trefgarne: I am aware that two ages have been mentioned. I believe there has been some confusion over that point in the printing of this particular amendment. If it is 17 that the noble Baroness has in mind, I am happy to be corrected.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Perhaps there was an error in the printing, but the final age was certainly meant to be over the age of 17. Of course I do agree that there is a lot of crime among young people. Of course we have to accept this; the statistics show it; the courts know it; and there is no doubt about it. But many of us worry a great deal about the way in which young people can be alienated totally from the police and the fact that this can actually create a criminal instinct in them. I think that if you take a young person to a police station and take his fingerprints he may feel part of a television series and it may actually bring him further into that area of crime than might happen if he were taken with his parents to a magistrates' court to be dealt with in that way. That is why we have put down this amendment. Many organisations are involved with young people—the probation service, the Children's Legal Centre and others—are very anxious that these young people should be kept somehow with a supportive person such as their parent, guardian or whatever, and away from the police court environment. I am disappointed that the Minister has treated this without any kind of understanding of this amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I only wanted to add just a very few remarks indeed. I am not quite following the noble Lord the Minister, unless we are saying in this Bill that the police are right and we are right and we know about every conceivable case of young people who come before the courts and who have committed offences and that the juvenile magistrates who are dealing with the offence are secondary to our consideration and the police consideration and our legislative powers. All that my amendment and that which my noble friend has moved asked for is this: that there should be no power of arrest in regard to the taking of fingerprints unless the court that convicted the young person, which would know all about the offence and all about the background of that person, made the order. It may very well be that the order will be made in 99 per cent. of cases: so be it. I am thinking of the 1 per cent., and that 1 per cent. might indeed stop—because the court would want to do it—that young person from thinking that he or she was now in the gallery of convicts (I am not trying to be dramatic) having had his or her fingerprints taken and been arrested. All I am asking for is the sanction of the court that knew all about the case from start to finish. That must be right.
Lord Trefgarne: I hear what the noble Lord says, but I do have to say that I think we are dealing here not only with the 99 per cent. to which the noble Lord referred but, as effectively as we can, with the 1 per cent. too, not only in the interests of maintaining

483
police records, to which I have referred, and not only in the interests of ensuring that we get a better conviction rate, or whatever, but in the interests, too, of those who are convicted in these matters.
I am persuaded, I must say, that a complete, accurate and up-to-date record of the kind I have referred to, which is provided for by the fingerprinting arrangements which appear in this Bill, is better not only in the interests, as I said earlier, of a better detection rate and of keeping down the very sharp rise, to which my noble friend Lady Macleod referred, in juvenile crime and in other crime too, but also in the interests particularly of the young people concerned who are so much in the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I am persuaded, therefore, that these amendments would not be effective in that particular way and I do hope that your Lordships will not wish to persist with them.
Lord Mishcon: I will detain the Committee no longer, but we are really saying that we know better than the courts we set up which try these young people. I think that is a very sorry state of affairs.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 84A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 84B not moved.]
9.8 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—"(aa) has not at any time been in police detention for the offence;").
The noble Lord said: This clause empowers the police to arrest a person within one month of conviction for a recordable offence defined in the clause, if he refuses a request to go to the police station in order that his fingerprints may be taken. As is explained in the notes on this clause, our intention is that where prosecution has been by way of summons and no custodial sentence is given, the police should nevertheless be able to obtain fingerprints. These are needed for future investigations and to prove convictions in any future court proceedings.
On Report in another place, it was pointed out that the clause would, in fact, permit an arrest to take place even if the person had previously been in police custody in connection with the offence. If he has indeed been charged with the offence, the police will already have had an opportunity to take his fingerprints by virtue of Clause 58(3). If, through oversight on the part of the police, this opportunity to take his fingerprints has been missed, we do not believe that the person should be put to the inconvenience of attending a police station at a later date. It was not his fault that fingerprints were not taken at the right time, and we accept that he should not be liable to arrest for this purpose. This amendment prevents the Clause 26 power from being used by the police to remedy their own failures. If your Lordships agree to it, it will only be possible to arrest a person if he has not previously been in police detention for the offence in question. I beg to move.
Lord Gifford: One can only welcome this amendment. It introduces a flexibility into the procedure which was singularly lacking when the Minister replied to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs. Besides welcoming it, I rise only to ask one question about this procedure and it may be that the noble Lord will not be able to answer it immediately.
When a person goes to court, will some arrangement be made so that, if he is liable to have a police officer call at his house some time later within the next month to arrest him if he does not go to the police station, some effort is made to notify him that this is going to happen? I can see all sorts of confusion and conflict arising if people have no idea that this power exists, but a month after the whole case is opened find someone knocking at their door and saying, "Come down to the police station on pain of arrest". Surely, since the person is appearing in court, some arrangement can be made whereby he can be notified at court that this is likely to be happening to him. I wonder whether now or at a later stage some thought can be given to this point.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord has made a good point. Perhaps I can consider whether the prisoner should be notified at the stage of the court hearing, or in some other way, and come back to the noble Lord at a later stage.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Perhaps I may raise a point now, instead of addressing the Committee on clause stand part, which I intended to do. What we cannot understand is why the fingerprints are not taken at the time when the offence is dealt with. What we find so offensive is that, in any period during the next four weeks after an appearance in court, anybody—including children from 10 years of age—can be approached by the police, arrested, taken to the police station and forcibly fingerprinted. That may arise in a situation where the penalty imposed was nothing at all to do with custody. Everybody is concentrating on children, and quite rightly so, but it will apply to anybody. Someone will attend court, will be convicted, will be put on probation, will be given an absolute discharge, or will be fined £5. He will then go home and three weeks later there will be a bang on the door by two police officers, who will take that person off to the police station to have him fingerprinted.
The noble Lord the Minister said that to have your fingerprints taken is not unpleasant. Once again, there is a curious lack of reality—I say so with the greatest respect—in so many replies that come from the Government Front Bench. Of course, to have your fingerprints taken does not hurt physically, but it is the most appallingly undignified situation which you have to go through. You are taken into the police station, you are sat down, the equipment comes in, you place your thumb and so on; to the ordinary person who has not had a custodial sentence it is an appalling trauma and an exceedingly undignified situation. The Government have got into this mess because they have removed the Section 49 provision, which made it incumbent upon magistrates to decide whether a person should have his fingerprints taken. In my opinion, it was a perfectly straightforward and

485
excellent system whereby the magistrate said, "You will have your fingerprints taken, but not until I say so. I shall decide". The police are now going to decide.
Surely this clause is an administrative convenience for the police. If they fail to take fingerprints at the right time, they are empowered to go and arrest people so that their fingerprints can be taken later. Therefore, I ask the Minister to explain to the Committee why arrangements cannot be made for fingerprints to be taken at the time of conviction. If they are not taken at that time, that should be the end of it. People should not be harassed afterwards.
Lord Trefgarne: I believe that, generally speaking, fingerprints will be taken at the time that the noble Lord suggests, but we have to make provision for the situation in which an offender may disappear from the court before the police can speak to him. Once he has left the dock, I am told that the police have no power to detain him unless a specific power is provided which enables them to do so. We are talking about a situation in which a man has left the court and has declined to accept the invitation to have his fingerprints taken. Therefore, the power to arrest him is provided. I do not believe that having one's fingerprints taken is quite so awful as the noble Lord suggests. I have had my fingerprints taken, and I am told that my noble friend Lord Elton has had his fingerprints taken, too. It is neither painful nor inconvenient.
In my case and that of my noble friend, it was done because there had been a robbery in our homes and our own fingerprints had to be dissociated from those of the light-fingered burglar. This happens a great deal on a routine basis, and there is nothing to fear from it. It is very much in the interests not only of law enforcement but also of the prisoners themselves, in order to avoid confusion for them at a later stage, that their fingerprints should be taken. I hope your Lordships will agree that this special power, to be exercised only in the particular and narrow circumstances to which I have referred, is appropriate, and that therefore the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am not satisfied with that explanation. I do not think it matters in the least that one should have one's fingerprints taken. It is not nearly so traumatic as my noble friend has suggested. If it is, they have earned it. But the police have got to do it at the right time. What is very damaging is when the police come back three weeks later and ask for a trial in public. That is what we ought to stop, and I am absolutely opposed to it being allowed to happen. I do not mind if, after conviction by the magistrate, the police say, "Before you go, come down and have your fingerprints taken". What is monstrous, however, is the knock on the door. This is easily avoided. If the police know that they have got to do it, they will do it; so we must insist upon it.
Lord Auckland: As this is a very important part of the Bill, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could answer two brief questions. First, if a child has his or her fingerprints taken, can the parents or the guardians insist upon being present at that time? Secondly, I wonder whether my noble friend can say
486
what happens to the fingerprints after they have been taken, assuming that there is no case to answer. Presumably the fingerprints are destroyed. I wonder whether my noble friend can confirm that that is the position.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Fingerprints are taken only on conviction.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has provided my noble friend with the answer to his second question. We are referring to the taking of fingerprints after a conviction has been achieved. As I said just now, the moment that a case has been disposed of the police have no further powers of detention so far as the prisoner is concerned. He can then leave the dock, and if he is not given a custodial sentence then away he goes. He might choose to leave very quickly, and I should not blame him. In general, the police will try to ensure that the fingerprints are taken before a prisoner leaves the precincts of the court, but on the few occasions where that is not possible because the man has left too quickly, the police should be entitled to ask him to come back and have his fingerprints taken. If he refuses to do that, he should be able to be arrested, as I have already said.
Your Lordships earlier agreed to an amendment, at my suggestion, to provide that in certain cases the police are not entitled to go and arrest for this purpose. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that this improved clause should now stand part of the Bill.
Lord Hooson: I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister could deal with this question, since clearly we are all troubled by this provision. Have magistrates the right to say, on a conviction, "You will have your fingerprints taken and then you will be released"? In fact, they can postpone sentence by saying, "If an application is made, the fingerprints will be taken immediately". They can postpone sentence until the fingerprints are taken.
Lord Trefgarne: I do not believe that magistrates have the power to do that, but perhaps I can make further inquiries and, if I am wrong, let the noble Lord know.
Lord Hooson: I am sorry to prolong this, but Clause 58(6) reads:
"Any person's fingerprints may be taken without the appropriate consent if he has been convicted of a recordable offence".
Why does that not cover the situation? If there is that power under Clause 58(6) to obtain the fingerprints of anyone who has been convicted of a recordable offence, then why is this other power required?
Lord Trefgarne: Taking fingerprints is one thing but one has actually got to get hold of the chap first, and that is what we are talking about.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: But he is in court. He has been tried. It is not a question of his disappearing. Once he has been convicted, Clause 58(6) immediately comes into effect. There is no need for Clause 26. This is a matter of some importance.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may comment from my practical experience of what used to happen when I was working in court. The accused was informed of what would happen (a) if he was found innocent, and, (b), if he was found guilty. If he was found guilty then, with his solicitor present, he was told that he would be required to have his fingerprints taken.
I remember only one occasion when the person left without having his fingerprints taken, and that was a misunderstanding. There was really no difficulty. I think that we are making a tremenous haroosh over something that in practice is quite easy to administer. It is much more a case of the administration than the principles involved. What is important is that the person is told his rights before the case is heard. He must be told that if he is found guilty, he will be required to have his fingerprints taken. If the fingerprints are not taken directly afterwards, then he must be told that the police will have to call at his house later. In fact, that never happened in my experience because practically all of those concerned remain to have their fingerprints taken.
Lord Trefgarne: In order to assist the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and myself for that matter, perhaps I may add that Clause 58(6) applies only at a police station and not at a magistrates' court. We are therefore left with the position where someone convicted of an offence may seek to leave a magistrates' court, quite legitimately, immediately following the conclusion of the proceedings in his case. It is that kind of circumstance which we seek to encompass by this measure.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: There is no difficulty whatsoever in following what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, but we are speaking of children, after all, and if the police want the child's fingerprints then they can ask the magistrates to say to the young person concerned, "Before you go, you will go downstairs with the police and have your fingerprints taken". What is the difficulty there? The difficulty arises through inefficiency. I do not see why the really damaging business of having a policeman knocking on the door at the home of a child's family should be excused by police inefficiency.
Lord Trefgarne: Knocking on the door is of course avoided if the person concerned responds to the invitation to return to have his fingerprints taken.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: On the other hand, surely it is almost impossible, I would have thought—perhaps those words are too strong—to convict anybody, for instance of robbery or of taking a car, without the fingerprints matching. One must take the fingerprints first.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: But it does not say that.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The noble Lord opposite says, "It doesn't say so"—but if he will read Clause 58(3), he will see mention of,
"The fingerprints of a person detained at a police station".
Lord Wigoder: Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will kindly explain so that I may follow his argument why he says that Clause 58(6) applies only to a police station.
Lord Trefgarne: My reading of Clause 58 relating to the taking of fingerprints at a police station is where it says in subsection (3):
"The fingerprints of a person detained at a police station may be taken without the appropriate consent"—
and it then goes on with the other paragraphs. I do not want to pretend to be the world's greatest interpreter of these matters but that is my reading of it. If I am mistaken then I will happily withdraw.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: If the Minister is mistaken then there is no need for the clause about which we are concerned, and so this is therefore of crucial importance. There is no need for this clause if Clause 58(6) means what it says. I see nothing about a police station in it although I have read it through three or four times.
Lord Gifford: The noble Lord has been good enough to say that I pointed out one matter in this long rigmarole which might be capable of improvement. In view of everything which has been said, I wonder whether the noble Lord will not recognise that the whole thing is capable of improvement and needs looking at again, and that the points raised should be returned to on Report, when the Minister can tell us what his further views are.
Lord Trefgarne: I have to confess that my interpretation of Clause 58 has been less crisp than it should have been, and perhaps I could therefore be permitted to consider this matter further and come back to it at another stage.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is, That Amendment No. 85 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"? … To the contrary, "Not-Content"? … The "Contents" have it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton: I think we are under a—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: No; the amendment in front of the Committee is Amendment No. 85. If the noble Lord will recall, the Committee went off at a tangent to discuss whether the clause should stand part.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 85A:
Page 23, line 32, at beginning insert ("unreasonably").
The noble and learned Lord said: We are here dealing, as we have been dealing for a little while, with fingerprinting after conviction. The Bill provides for the arrest of a person at his home, or wherever he may be, and for him to be carted back to the police station for the mere purpose, not of further investigation of a crime or of an offence, but for bringing national police records up to date. Those are undoubtedly important, but I should have thought that they were not matters of urgency. Time is not of the essence of the matter, and it ought to be possible to make reasonable

489
arrangements that the fingerprinting should be done by appointment to the mutual convenience of all concerned.
Since the first Bill the Government have agreed that the request should be made at a reasonable hour. What I submit is needed is a provision which excludes the possibility of arrest for someone who is willing to be co-operative but cannot drop everything suddenly to go to a police station when the police may arrive totally unannounced. It may be, for example, that the person concerned is attending a dangerously ill member of the household, or is involved with a child or a baby in circumstances where the child cannot be left unattended.
These amendments which I move—and it is convenient to deal with 85A and 85B together—will go towards preventing this power being used thoughtlessly or as a form of harassment to drag someone to the police station at what may be a particularly difficult time when there is no urgency for crime prevention or detection, or anything of the kind. I would expect most police forces to do just what is being asked of them, but this is to ensure that at any rate that will be the practice. It establishes a standard of how this matter of keeping the records should be dealt with, and I hope that these amendments will now be agreed by the noble Lord the Minister.
Lord Airedale: May I—
Lord Trefgarne: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, would allow me to reply, because I am actually proposing to say that I very much accept the spirit of these amendments, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for drawing this matter to our attention. We agree that a person should not be liable to summary arrest if he refuses perhaps for a very good reason such as a prior appointment, to go to police station at once, provided that he attends within a reasonable period thereafter. In practice, I am confident that the police would not apply the clause so inflexibly and would be able to come to a reasonable agreement with reasonably reliable people.
I accept that, even though some people can prove very difficult to get hold of once, let alone twice, if they are wanted for something, the matter of arrest should not be left entirely to the discretion of the police officer concerned. Therefore, I undertake to bring forward a Government amendment at a later stage to introduce a greater degree of flexibility into the clause so as to protect from immediate arrest the person who might
490
not be able to comply immediately with the police request—something more akin to a period of grace as in the production of a driving licence might be preferable. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I thank the noble Lord for that most understanding—
Noble Lords: Order‡
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am so sorry.
Lord Airedale: If the Minister is to look at this paragraph again, will he please consider my humble submission that it does not describe what the Government actually have in mind? The "reasonable hour" is attached to the constable's request and is not attached to the going to the police station.
If the constable rings up at two o'clock in the morning and says, "Will you please come round to the police station at ten o'clock this morning and have your fingerprints taken", he is making a request at an unreasonable hour. However, do not the Government have in mind that it is the going to the police station that must not happen at an unreasonably hour? Do they not have in mind the situation where the constable arrives at two o'clock in the morning and knocks up the chap concerned to tell him he must go round at once and have his fingerprints taken? I am suggesting that the "reasonable hour" is wrongly attached to the making of the request and ought to be attached to the going to the police station.
Lord Trefgarne: I shall certainly see that the noble Lord's point is taken into account.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am most grateful for that addition to my submission. Clearly one wants this to be done by amicable arrangement. It is a post-conviction state and I am quite sure that the Minister can come up with a sensible and amicable arrangement and not exasperate what is already a potentially difficult situation. In those circumstances, subject to the undertakings given by the Minister, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 85B not moved.]
9.33 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 85C:
Page 23, line 36, at end insert—
("() A person arrested under this section shall be taken to the police station nearest to the premises where he was arrested and shall have his fingerprints taken immediately upon his arrival at the police station and shall be released immediately thereafter.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is, I think, self-explanatory. It calls for a person arrested under these provisions to be taken to the nearest police station to the premises where he was arrested and shall have his fingerprints taken immediately upon his arrival at the police station and released immediately thereafter.
This is another easing of the situation to provide the maximum of agreement and the minimum of discord. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I do not dissent at all from the spirit of this amendment, which is that if a convicted person has to be arrested to have his fingerprints taken, this interference with his liberty should be kept to the absolute minimum. I hope to persuade your Lordships, however, both that no amendment to the Bill is necessary and that this particular amendment might on occasion simply prove impracticable.
Let us suppose that a person has been convicted of a recordable offence and escapes with a non-custodial penalty. The police ask him, at a reasonable hour, to provide his fingerprints. He refuses, and is arrested. The power of arrest conferred by Clause 26 is limited to the power to take him to a police station and there take his fingerprints. Neither the clause itself nor other provisions of the Bill, whether in Part III or Part IV, allow the police to detain him for any other purpose. It follows that, if the power of arrest is exercised—and, of course, it is worth stressing again that we would hope and expect persons to co-operate with police requests—it will be the arresting officer's duty to secure the fingerprints as soon as is reasonably practicable. This, I suggest, is already the clear meaning of the clause.
Turning to the amendment, your Lordships will readily see that it takes no account of what may or may not be reasonably practicable. It directs the officer to take the person to the nearest police station. But that police station may be closed, or fully stretched because it is dealing with the aftermath of an affray, or it may be not the best place to go to in the circumstances for any of a dozen reasons. It may be sensible for the person to be taken to some other station instead. This is, of course, not a licence to the police to take a person arrested under Clause 26 to any police station in the country: the provisions of Clause 29(1) will apply so that an "as soon as practicable" requirement will exist.
Again, with the best will in the world, there can be no guarantee that the arrested person can have his fingerprints taken immediately on arrival at the police station. The fingerprint equipment may, for example, be in use for some other person, and a certain limited wait may be inevitable. The amendment is cast in terms which I suggest are too inflexible. I hope that in
492
the light of those difficulties, the noble and learned Lord will not seek to press the amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I venture to submit that the discussions that we have had in the past hour point to the need to review completely Clause 26 and the provisions regarding arrest without warrant for fingerprinting. I hope when that review takes place—and I think it is implicit in what the Minister said that the matter will be reviewed—the whole scope of this part of the Bill will be considered with the object of limiting discord and the difficulty between police and subject, and what is more important perhaps even the difficulty for the families of those who will be disturbed and affected by the knock at the door at night, very often for a post trial fingerprinting process. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 85D and 85E not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 26, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Airedale: May I just make a short point about the definition of "recordable offence" in subsection (4) at the top of page 24? It says:
"In this Act 'recordable offence' means any offence to which regulations under this section apply".
It is the word "apply" which I do not understand. The power to make the regulations is in subsection (2), and it uses the expression:
"such offences as are specified in the regulations".
I do not understand why the definition does not follow the word "specified" and say:
"In this Act 'recordable offence' means any offence specified by the regulations under this section".
I do not know why the word "apply" comes in. I do not really know what it means.
Lord Hooson: Together with my noble friends, I gave notice that we would oppose the Question, That the clause shall stand part of the Bill? But in the light of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, at the Dispatch Box in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, it is clear that the Government are going to look at this provision in its entirety again—do I understand that to be correct?—and will be coming back at the Report stage having reconsidered the clause.
Lord Trefgarne: I have not gone so far as the noble Lord suggests. I gave certain assurances to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, which did not encompass the whole provision. They were specific assurances. But I can say that we are willing to have another look at the clause, particularly to see whether we can make more explicit the principle that an arrested person must be fingerprinted and released as quickly as is practicable. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Information to be given on arrest]:
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 85F:
Page 24, line 15, at end insert—
("() As soon as practicable after an arrest the person arrested shall be provided with a written statement of the date and time of his arrest and the ground for the arrest.").
The noble Lord said: As the Committee will be well aware, very often the lapse of time between the date of a person's arrest and the date of trial will be very long indeed—perhaps six months, nine months or 12 months, and sometimes beyond that. At the trial exactly what was said as to the reason for arrest, and exactly what point in time the person's stay at the police station ceased to be voluntary and he was actually arrested, may be crucial issues. As it is part of good police practice to keep the closest documentary record of these details, it seems to us on these Benches that it would not be adding in any way to the burden of the police to make the provision that is suggested in this Amendment No. 85F part and parcel of Clause 27. The provision has this effect, as it says:
("() As soon as practicable after an arrest the person arrested shall be provided with a written statement of the date and time of his arrest and the ground for the arrest.").
The amount of labour added to police duties is in our submission very small indeed. The amount of time saved in the courts by way of argument, counter-argument and disputation as to exactly what happened in relation to those crucial facts can be very considerable. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, will forgive me if I say that underlying this amendment I think there is a danger of assuming that more paperwork automatically means more or better safeguards. I do not accept that there is very little work involved in what he suggests. Certainly recording is a device which is resorted to frequently in the course of this Bill as a means of ensuring that the police are accountable for their actions and that there are clear avenues for the citizen to challenge those actions where powers have been inappropriately used. However, in the case of the present proposal, I have to tell the Committee that it would be unnecessary as well as impracticable.
Let us first take the normal situation in which an arrested person is taken to a police station. If he is then detained there, Clause 35(4) of the Bill and paragraph 3.9 of the code already require the custody officer to make a record of the grounds for detention in the custody record. Paragraph 2.6 requires all entries into the custody record to be timed. Under paragraph 2.4 of the code a copy of this record must be provided if requested within 12 months. The person will of course already have been informed of the grounds for arrest in accordance with Clause 27(3). These safeguards are wholly adequate. Quite frankly I see no reason why an additional written statement of the grounds for arrest is needed. This would really create additional, unnecessary work for the busy police.
494
There are then the cases in which a person is released before his arrival at the police station under Clause 29(2), or the custody officer decides that there are insufficient grounds on which to detain him. In these cases there will be no custody record. However, the person will have been informed orally of the grounds for arrest under Clause 27 and the arresting officer will have to make an entry in his pocket book of the circumstances of the arrest and record the release under Clause 29(3). If the person subsequently wishes to make a complaint or institute proceedings, then the notebook will be available to the investigating officer or subject to production in court if needed—it is these last two words that are the key.
There is no need at all to require officers to duplicate their pocket book entries at the time, just on the off chance that they might subsequently be wanted. I therefore hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I am mildly disappointed that the noble Baroness has not, with her usual charming good sense and balance, been able to accept the content of this amendment. In my submission, it seems abundantly clear from what the noble Baroness has said that there will be occasion, in each case, for the information that is referred to in the amendment, that is a statement of the grounds for arrest, a statement of the date of arrest and the time of arrest, to be entered in some document or another. It seems to me utterly unbelievable that those entries would not be made somewhere. All that it necessitates, surely, is that a carbon copy be given to the defendant. Such a copy having been given to the defendant and a copy thereof retained by the police officer, how can there be an argument when the matter is raised in issue at the trial, perhaps over a year later, as to exactly what happened in relation to those three matters?
I hope very much that in the coming days the Government will think again about this matter. It really is a plea for a very simple entry that will not substantially add to the very considerable amount of documentation that this Bill makes incumbent upon police officers. At the same time, it would make the administration of justice very much simpler so far as those issues are concerned. In the circumstances, since the hour is late and the population of the Committee not that considerable, we do not seek to press the matter to a Division. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Plant Lord Plant moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 24, line 16, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) The above subsections shall not have effect where the person to be arrested or some other person by his conduct makes it impossible for the constable to so inform him.").
The noble Lord said: This clause appears to be a statement of the principles laid down by the courts in the Christie v. Leachinsky case, previously mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. In my view, the Bill is in error in attempting to transpose a lengthy judgment into such a brief clause. I am aware of the considerable anxiety about this clause expressed to me by experienced police officers. Very often, arrests can be interrupted by the violent behaviour of the person

495
being arrested. It is a common occurrence in some areas for arrests by the police to be interfered with by other people in the vicinity.
Clause 27 appears to me to have been based on the assumption that all arrests are conducted in an atmosphere of calm enabling the due legal procedures to be complied with, without hindrance from anyone. This clause extends the law as it is now and appears to be saying that an arrest is not a lawful arrest until the person has been told the reason for it. The current law empowers the police to rearrest persons who have escaped from lawful custody and also places upon bystanders both responsibilities to assist the police and prohibitions against interference with an arrest. A police officer needs to be sure that an arrest is lawful from the time that he decides to use his legal powers of arrest and simply tells a person that he is being arrested. If, for example, an officer tells a person that he is being arrested and is then immediately assaulted, resulting in the escape of the prisoner, the question arises, "Has the officer been assaulted in the execution of his duty or not?" Apparently, if the officer was assaulted and the prisoner escaped before the officer had the opportunity to inform him of the reasons for his arrest, the arrest is not lawful.
I appreciate that Clause 27(1) uses the words,
"as soon as practicable after his arrest".
My concern is that this could be rendered ineffective by subsection (3). I believe that the clause should be redrafted in order to cover the question of escape from lawful custody before the arresting officer has had the opportunity to inform the prisoner of the grounds for arrest and also the question of an assault on a police officer acting in the execution of his duty in such circumstances. An important provision of Christie v. Leachinsky has been omitted from the clause. This could be remedied by a new subsection (5).
In another place, the Government acknowledged the strength of the argument and amended the clause then under consideration by inserting the present subsection (5). This has only half closed the door. The High Court recognised many years ago the scope of the problem by clearly stating the words in this amendment in its judgment. The clause as it now stands is a recipe for delicate and protracted legal argument. The police service finds this disappointing. The primary purpose of the Bill is to clarify and simplify police powers. In this instance it palpably fails to do so.
I recognise the necessity for safeguards for the public, but I seek equal safeguards for police officers; and that can be understood readily. Because of High Court cases where people have been discharged on a technicality, it is better that subsection (5) be redrawn in the words of my amendment, which says:
"The above subsections shall not have effect where the person to be arrested or some other person by his conduct makes it impossible for the constable to so inform him".
I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My noble friend Lord Plant is quite right. Under the case of Christie v. Leachinsky, no arrest is lawful unless the accused is told as soon as practicable of the grounds for the arrest, so that he can, if need be, take steps to get himself released. That was
496
said in 1943, in an appeal case. I should have thought that the clause as it stands sufficiently states the legal requirements, and that really there is no need for my noble friend's amendment. If his conduct made it impossible for the constable to inform him, the court would hold that it was not practicable. Although I agree with the whole sentiment of what my noble friend has said, I think it is unnecessary to have this amendment to make it clearer.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: With great deference to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I feel that so much of this Bill has not been terribly helpful to the police that, when they want something which is as clearly right as is this amendment, we should support it. I am very happy to do so.
9.52 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: This clause requires an arrested person to be informed of the fact of, and grounds for, arrest as soon as practicable after the arrest. The only exception to this rule is covered by subsection (5), which states that this information need not be given if it is not possible because the prisoner escapes before this can be done. If this rather odd subsection were not in the Bill, the police officer could be accused of a breach of conduct for not having fulfilled his duty. This amendment would replace the subsection by a more general reference to the conduct of the arrested person or others making impossible the giving of the information.
I do not see the need for such a provision. One can envisage situations where the giving of this information has, in the circumstances, to be delayed. As the noble Lord, Lord Plant, has already mentioned, an obvious example concerns a person who violently resists arrest. The police officer cannot be expected to give him information at the same time as he is struggling with him. But the clause already allows for this. Subsections (1) and (3) state quite clearly that the information only has to be given as soon as is practicable after arrest. In the circumstances I have described, it would not be practicable to give the information at the time of arrest.
However, I see no reason why it should not be given later, when the man has been subdued or has quietened down; that is, when it is practicable. But the effect of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, would be to remove this right entirely if the information cannot be given immediately following arrest. That cannot be right. The only circumstances which should relieve the constable entirely of the obligation to provide this information is when the person is no longer available to receive the information; that is, when he has escaped. That is what subsection (5) provides, and I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Plant, will withdraw his amendment. At the same time, may I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for dealing with the case of Christie v. Leachinsky, which I should not have had a clue how to answer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Voluntary attendance at police station etc.]:
[Amendment No. 87A not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart): In calling Amendment No. 88, I should inform your Lordships that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 89, 89A or 89B.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 24, line 27, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—("he shall be informed at once that he is—

(a) entitled to leave at will unless he is placed under arrest;

(b) under no obligation to answer any questions other than to give his name and address;

(c) entitled, if he so requests, to have one friend or relative or other person who is known to him or who is likely to take an interest in his welfare told that he is at the said police station or other place;

(d) entitled, if he so requests, to consult a solicitor privately at any time;

(e) under arrest if a decision is taken by a constable to prevent him leaving at will;

and in the case of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) above he shall be so informed both orally and in the form of a written notice signed by the constable and endorsed with the date and time when it is given to him.").
The noble Lord said: Some amendments are more important than others, and I submit to the Committee that this is an important amendment. Your Lordships will see that the amendment is to Clause 28. The moment at which it is suggested that this information should be given to the person concerned is the moment when a person for the first time gets into the police station.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord give way? I wonder whether the noble Lord could help your Lordships and me. As I understand it, the agreed list of groupings ran from Amendment No. 87A to Amendment Nos. 88, 88A, 89, 89A, 89B, 89C, and 89E. The first of those was not moved. It would be helpful if we knew whether the other amendments are going to be spoken to, which is what we are at present expecting.
Lord Mishcon: Can I help by saying that so far as I am concerned I shall be speaking to Amendment No. 89A. I shall not be moving Amendment No. 89B. I shall be speaking to Amendment No. 89C and I will also be speaking to 89E.
Amendment No. 89A: Page 24, line 29, at end insert ("and shall be so informed in writing").
Amendment No. 89C: Page 24, line 32, at end insert—
("and he shall be treated not less favourably than a person detained pursuant to Part IV of this Act.").
Amendment No. 89E: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—
("Detention in police building.
. Where a person is present in a part of a police building not open to the public, he shall be deemed to have been arrested and kept in police detention after a period of 6 hours from his arrival at the police station and the provisions of Part IV of this Act shall apply accordingly.").
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I was saying that the very first moment when a member of the public enters a police station is a crucial moment. He may enter the police station as a result of an arrest which comes earlier (and that is dealt with under Amendment No. 87A) or he may enter a police station because he
498
is there—to use the hackneyed phrase—to assist the police with their inquiries. But at that stage he goes from outside into the precincts of a police station. I would suggest that that moment is the most crucial moment. At that moment it is vital that a person should be told of his rights.
Once he is in the police station—and this is pointed out in the Bill—if the police officer in the police station decides that he is not going to be allowed to leave the station, then he is under an obligation to tell that person that that is the situation and at that moment he then becomes under detention and his freedom is at an end. But up to that moment he is in the police station voluntarily and he is, on the face of it, assisting the police with their inquiries.
The code at the moment deals with this situation at page 2 paragraph 1(b) where it says:
"Although certain sections of this code apply specifically to persons detained at police stations, those there voluntarily to assist with an investigation should be treated with no less consideration and enjoy an absolute right to obtain legal advice or communicate with anyone outside the police station".
So that is dealt with in the code of practice. It is also dealt with in the code of practice at page 18, where it says at paragraph 11.4:
"If a person is not under arrest when a caution is given, the officer concerned should say so. If he is at a police station, the officer should also tell him that he is free to leave if he wishes and remind him that he may obtain legal advice if he wishes".
So at the moment those matters are in the code of practice.
However, the most crucial principle which there is in relation to the freedom of the individual, and the principle on which the whole of our criminal law is based, is the right of silence. This was looked at by the Royal Commission yet again and the Royal Commission decided that it was right and proper that the right of silence should be respected and that previous suggestions—particularly in the Eleventh Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee —that in certain circumstances it should in some way be curtailed, should not be followed. So the right of silence is still enshrined in our criminal law.
When a person enters a police station in this country he has only one right because we have no written constitution and we have no fifth or fourth amendments, or whatever they may be, and that right is the right to silence—the right to be protected from self-incrimination.
In my submission, it is absolutely crucial that on entering a police station one should be told of this fundamental right. The curious thing is that, although under this particular Bill one may be told of other rights when one enters a police station—for instance, under Clause 27(3) one is told that the person arrested is to be informed of the ground for the arrest (we have just dealt with this) at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest—no provision is made in the Bill for informing the person in the police station of a far more important right, the right to silence.
Therefore, we suggest in the amendment that immediately a person enters a police station he shall be informed at once of those matters to which I have already referred as being in the code. I suggest that they should not be in the code; they should be enshrined in the statute, because there is no more important right.

499
Therefore, a person should be informed that he is entitled to leave at will unless he is placed under arrest; that he is under no obligation to answer any questions other than to give him his name and address; that he is entitled to have a friend or relative informed if he wishes; that he is entitled to consult a solicitor privately if he wishes. He is also entitled to be told that he is under arrest if a decision is taken by a constable to prevent him leaving at will. If your Lordships think it right and proper that this amendment should be passed, all those matters would be enshrined in the Bill.
I would suggest that there can be no reason for not telling a person what are his rights if he has them. As I ventured to point out at Second Reading, for some reason, although there is this absolutely basic and fundamental right, nowhere in the Bill is that right spelt out. I suggest that this is the time to spell it out. I beg to move this amendment on that basis.
Lord Mishcon: It may be for the convenience of the Committee and, I very much trust, for the convenience of the noble Lord the Minister, if at this stage I speak to Amendments Nos. 89A, 89C and 89E. I have already said that the rest of the amendments in this group, which have my name and those of my noble friends attached to them, will not be separately moved.
I am so glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is in his place at this moment. It would from my point of view be very reassuring to hear him confirm, if he wishes to do so, my own reference to the law as it now stands and the law as it will be if this Bill is passed and if Clause 28 stands part of the Bill without amendment.
I say at once that I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has said. We shall not be moving our own separate amendments, but supporting his.
There is a phrase which has grown up in police bulletins and news items which is unknown to the law. That phrase is, "Mr. X is helping the police with their inquiries". There is no right of detention known to the law at present for the purposes of inquiries being made. Indeed in the case of R. v. Lemsatef, a 1977 case, Lord Justice Lawton stressed that it must be clearly understood that neither customs officers nor police officers have any right to detain somebody for the purposes of getting help with their inquiries.
The draft code of practice, which has been referred to, deals with the treatment and questioning of suspects. It sets out the rules which apply to these persons and envisages that some of them will be cautioned. That means that, presumably, there will be three categories of suspects, as I call them. There will be the person who is detained; there will be the volunteer and there will be the cautioned volunteer. It is at this stage that I say—I am authorised to do so—that the Law Society is extremely apprehensive about the clause as it at present stands. The Law Society is behind the amendment to which I am speaking.
The situation is that the Law Society and those who think similarly as criminal practitioners in law would like to see the end of the category of those who "help
500
the police with their inquiries". But it looks as though this Bill will, in the end, contain a right of detention so that inquiries may be made. I am looking at the position on that basis. I am saying to the Committee that upon that basis—bearing in mind the present state of the law as it has been for a very long time—if we are introducing this right into our law, we have to do so with the utmost care.
There are three provisions which in our view ought to be inserted. The first is—this has been spoken to already—that those who attend voluntarily at a police station to help the police with their inquiries should be informed immediately upon arrival and in writing of their right to leave at will unless they are placed under arrest. That must be a right that is clearly spelt out.
There is not the slightest doubt that people who find themselves in this position find themselves in a position, very often, not only of acute embarrassment (which we should not be so concerned about) but, where they think that they have to say that they are properly deprived of their right to leave, they have to put up with conditions where their family at home may be extremely worried; and the result of that is that very often it is not the truth that comes out but the fearful reaction of people who want to get out of this atmosphere as fast as they possibly can. That is what we have to be careful about if we are giving this right.
So I turn to the second provision which must be inserted. The declaration must be there in the statute, and not just in a draft code, that a person who attends voluntarily, whether cautioned or not, shall be treated "not less favourably"—and that is what the draft code says—than a detained person. And when we get to Clause 56 of the Bill—I am not going to anticipate it, but it is relevant to say it now—it should be clearly said in that clause that they are entitled to legal advice.
The third and last thing to which I need to refer your Lordships by way of a provision is this. A time limit must be set on the presence of these people without their being arrested. If they are still helping the police with their inquiries six hours after arrival at the police station, they are in need of the protection of the detention provisions. They should be deemed to have been arrested and detained after that period of time.
To distinguish those who are, in fact, suspected of crime from those who attend police stations for other purposes, we would propose that a person present for six hours in a part of the police station not open to the public shall be deemed to have been arrested and taken to the police station. That should be clearly put into this Bill; and the detention provisions will then apply accordingly. I hope that your Lordships will have seen that I have spoken now to Amendment No. 89A, and given my reasons for it; to 89C, and given my reasons for it; and, lastly, I have just spoken to 89E and given my reasons for that.
Lord Hooson: I speak to Amendment No. 88, and I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, that this is one of the most important amendments to this Bill. In our criminal law we are concerned with the eventual aim of convicting the guilty and protecting the innocent. We are all agreed about that aim. But we do it in a civilised way in a civilised society. It seems to me that Amendment

501
No. 88A contains four rights which everybody would agree are the rights of any person who is asked to attend at a police station. That is, he is entitled to leave at will unless he is placed under arrest; he has no obligation to answer any questions; he is entitled to have somebody know where he is; and he is entitled, if he so requests, to consult a solicitor privately at any time. We are all agreed that these are the rights of a person who is asked to go to a police station. Why on earth are we afraid that he should be informed of those rights? This question seems to me to be elemental.
On Second Reading I related the story of what happened to a friend of mine a man of totally good character against whom nothing could be said. He was taken to a police station and interrogated on the suspicion that an offence had been committed—an offence which had never been committed at all, and of which he was completely cleared the following day. When he related his experiences, I said to him, "Did you know what your rights were?" He said, "It is all very well for you lawyers to say this, but when you are in that kind of atmosphere—and I thought that my dearest had died, as she actually had—your reactions are very different".
Also, as anybody who has any practical experience knows, whether through sitting on the bench or as an advocate in our criminal trials, so much of the argybargy in trials is concerned with what happened in the interviews before the actual arrest was made and the charge was brought. That is, there is so much argument about the verbals—whether the man was cautioned or not, whether he was told what his rights were—in this amendment there is a provision for the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), which are the fundamental rights that are referred to; he shall be informed both orally and in the form of a written notice signed by the constable and endorsed with the date and time when it is given to him. That would mean there would be certainty as to what had happened in the police station.
If a man is a sophisticated criminal or an habitual criminal, he knows what his rights are, he does not have to be told, it is surplusage to go through them with him. But what is important is that the innocent person knows, that the person who is not accustomed to going into a police station knows, what his or her rights are.
Now it is agreed, as I understand it, that many of these matters should be included in the code but why should they not be enshrined in an Act of Parliament? We have always prided ourselves in this country on the basic rights of silence, that a man should not incriminate himself. Many criticisms have been made from time to time, but every investigation has resulted in the end in people coming down in favour of the maintenance of that right.
Let me remind your Lordships of the importance of this matter. When a person is, to use the euphemism, "helping the police with inquiries" and he is in the police station, that does not count. The time that he spends there may be two or three days until he is actually arrested, and it is only then, of course, that the time begins to run against him for detention. That is when the 24 hours begins. So that the practical effect
502
of this amendment is very, very important. I hope that your Lordships will give all possible support to this amendment.
Lord Denning: I should like to support these amendments in one or other form. We all know the phrase, "he or she is helping the police with their inquiries". We all jump to the conclusion at once, "Oh, the police have found the man", or "They've got him". That is the inference which we draw from the statement that A or B is helping the police with their inquiries.
The right way to make inquiries, if it is to be really a voluntary statement, is to see the man in his house or his private room or something of that kind and make the inquiries of him there. Then it is voluntary enough. But to say to him, "Are you willing to come along to the police station?" or "Will you come along to the police station?", is halfway to making an arrest. When he has got to the police station, the ordinary person can half feel he is under arrest, even though the police are said to be making inquiries. Then is the time to make it quite clear to him that he is there voluntarily and that he can leave at that moment if he likes. This virtually means in many cases that he is under suspicion. In those circumstances he ought to be told, "Well, you can have a solicitor, if you like; you need not say anything", and so forth. In other words, give him all the protection which should surround a man who is under suspicion, because that is why he is there.
A clause like this put into the statute will ensure the protection of the individual. When he is there for making inquiries, he really ought not to be treated as a suspected person. I would support these amendments in one or other form.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Elton: It will not be possible for me to answer the speeches as briefly as I might have wished, because noble Lords attach great importance to them and they have spoken to them in some detail. As it is now drafted, Clause 28 makes it clear that anybody voluntarily attending a police station is free to leave at any time unless he is placed under arrest. To this extent it is simply declaratory of the present law; but the clause goes further than that by requiring the police to inform the person that he is under arrest, not just if he tries to leave and is prevented from doing so, but as soon as it is decided that he would be prevented if he did try. So there is no chance of his being in detention in ignorance, as it were.
All these amendments seek to expand the simple provisions of the clause by requiring the police to provide persons voluntarily attending a police station with certain information. No. 88 would require such a person to be informed both orally and in writing, of his right to leave at will unless placed under arrest, that he is not obliged to answer any questions other than to give his name and address, and that he is entitled to have a friend informed of his whereabouts and that he is entitled to consult a solicitor privately at any time.
In addition, No. 88 would impose an enormous administrative burden on the police. The first half of the starred amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, repeat ideas put

503
forward by the non-starred amendments I have mentioned. A great many people attend police stations voluntarily for all kinds of reasons. They include, for example, victims of burglary attending to identify property and victims of assault attending to identify a suspect or to provide a statement. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has picked up the point that I have referred to two amendments he did not speak to, but it was only en passant.
As I say, people of many sorts attend police stations voluntarily for many reasons. If these amendments are accepted, the first thing that must happen would be that a policeman would inform them, orally and in writing, that they were entitled to leave at will unless placed under arrest. Is that the way to treat a shaken victim or a hesitating and irresolute witness to a crime? Such people need encouragement to come to the police, and this is particularly likely to be so in the case of victims of rape and sexual assault. It is easy to see how a statement of the right to leave as soon as they arrived could produce entirely the wrong impression.
Similarly, the large volume of paper that would be produced by the voluntary attendance forms would be entirely disproportionate to any good it could achieve. Such a procedure would be rather affronting, I think, and extremely upsetting to victims of crime who actually come to assist the police, to be told at once: "Very well, my dear; of course you can go away again if you like. We will not stop you. You have a right to see your solicitor and get advice. You are not under arrest, but if we do arrest you then you cannot leave".
I agree it is very important indeed that any person who is at a police station voluntarily as a suspect should be fully aware of his position and of his right to leave. There we are on closer ground. That is to ensure that he is there voluntarily and not under a disguised compulsion. We have now amended the draft detention code of practice to strengthen precisely this safeguard, and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, drew attention to Section 11 of the draft. I will not repeat what it requires: all those requirements in paragraph 11.4 and all those in 3.8.
However, I should emphasise that the code requires the caution to be given as soon as there are grounds to believe that a person has committed an offence. You do not even have to wait for them to be reasonable grounds. If there are any grounds for thinking that the person has committed an offence, then he must be told so and the person must be cautioned and must also be told—exactly what the noble Lords want in their amendment—that he is free to leave the police station if he wishes as soon as he is a suspect in the eyes of the police. The right to leave is a most fundamental right. As I have explained already, it is fully dealt with in the code of practice, and I do not really see the need for the person to be handed a little card stating this right, together with the date, the time, and the name of the constable concerned, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was going to suggest.
I am in a difficulty in that I do not want to refer to the amendments that were not moved, but I do want to be certain of referring to the amendments that were moved. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has proposed paragraphs (c) and (d) and I just wonder
504
whether that is the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, spoke. Indeed it is, but it appeared under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. So I am speaking to one that has been moved. May I comment, therefore, on the other provisions contained in that amendment?
Under the proposed paragraphs (c) and (d), the person would be informed of his right to have someone informed of his whereabouts and to consult privately with a solicitor. Section 11 of the draft codes requires a person voluntarily attending a police station to be reminded that he may obtain legal advice if he is cautioned. The same point is made in paragraph 3.8 of the code and paragraph 6.1 states,
"Any person at a police station"—
that means whether he is detained or is attending voluntarily—
"may consult and communicate privately, whether in person, in writing or on the telephone, with a solicitor of his own choice".
Paragraph 6.2 makes it clear that this right may only be suspended in the cases set out in Annex B on page 31 of the booklet. Your Lordships will note that it does not permit suspension unless the person is in detention in connection with a serious arrestable offence. Finally, the note for guidance at the bottom of page 2 states that those voluntarily attending a police station enjoy an absolute right to obtain legal advice or to communicate with anyone outside the police station.
Paragraph (b) surprised me somewhat. It implies that a person who is not under arrest is under an obligation to provide his name and address to the police. I appreciate that the clause refers to persons voluntarily attending a police station who might be expected to have no objection to providing their name and address. However, they are certainly under no obligation to provide a name and address if they do not wish to do so. We object to the use of the phrase "not obliged to answer questions".
It seems to me that the draft code and the Bill together provide the reassurances that your Lordships want, and that your Lordships have not distinguished between those people who really must not be greeted either with a large amount of bureaucratic paperwork, or with the suggestion that they must feel quite free to leave because they have not yet been arrested, and those seem to me to be the central considerations regarding these amendments.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: On the last point, it is worth noting that Clause 28 begins,
"Where for the purposes of assisting with an investigation".
Those are the people that we are talking about. We are not talking about people who are coming to say that they have had an accident or have been raped. We are talking about people who are there to assist in investigations, which does not go the whole way to meet the noble Lord but goes some way.
Lord Elton: I entirely accept that. It applies to the people about whom we are most concerned, who are the victims, and to the witnesses who may be rather frightened at turning up at a police station. To be greeted with the reassurance that they have not yet been arrested, so they will not be kept there, is not the best way to treat them.
Lord Mishcon: May I ask the noble Lord the Minister why he concentrates repeatedly on the draft code of practice in regard to matters that are essential to the liberty of the subject, instead of having them in an Act of Parliament? Why is the draft code of practice the holy place in which this should be writ, instead of what should be the Bible itself, which is the Act of Parliament?
While I am on my feet, may I ask the noble Lord—not that I want to extend these proceedings at all—why, especially as they are amendments approved by the Law Society, he has not dealt with Amendments Nos. 89A, 89C and 89E? I am sure that he will do it very briefly, but I know that he will want in courtesy to answer them.
Lord Elton: As to the noble Lord's first supplementary question, it seems to us that the Act of Parliament should state the law and that it should be explained and its implementation should be regulated by the code of conduct, which I suspect may be more freely available and much easier to understand for people interested than the Act of Parliament itself.
As to the other matter, I regret that I stopped speaking at the point where I thought your Lordships would be more interested in hearing somebody else's voice without realising that I had not picked up the noble Lord's point regarding the Law Society. The noble Lord drew attention to the Law Society's concern that the Bill and the code together distinguished three categories of person in police stations: the detained person, the cautioned volunteer and the plain volunteer. This, he suggests, is a return to the concept of persons detained to help the police with their inquiries, which the court criticised in the case of Lemsatef and which your Lordships and the papers have echoed ever since. No such concept is entailed. The Bill recognises only one category of detention: those who have been arrested on suspicion of an offence, to whom the Bill attaches a network of safeguards. These the code underpins. Persons are either detained in the right of arrest and so informed at the police station or they are not so informed because they are not so detained.
Lord Wigoder: May I ask the Minister to be kind enough to summarise his argument by a simple answer to two questions which I want to put to him. Let us leave entirely on one side for the moment the question of whether these matters should be contained in the code of practice or in the statute, because that is a separate argument. May I ask the Minister to look at the rights set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Amendment No. 88 and to say whether, with the possible exception of the words "other than to give his name and address" in paragraph (b), he agrees that those are the rights which a person possesses if he is voluntarily at a police station.
Lord Elton: Yes.
Lord Wigoder: Secondly, will the Minister be kind enough to tell me which of those rights he agrees that, in one form or another, a person voluntarily at a police station should be informed of and which he says that person should not be informed of?
Lord Elton: The noble Lord asks a shrewd question. It is clearly right that a person detained in a police station should be aware of his rights. The noble Lord will be aware, as he has been prompted by noble friends or noble allies, of the extent to which the police are required both to protect those rights and to inform the person in the police station of those rights.
It is difficult to summarise what I have already said. It seems to me that the noble Lord's amendments do not distinguish between those people who are in a police station helping the police with their inquiries because they are victims and those who are helping the police with their inquiries because they may become suspects. But since they immediately trigger the information he wants as soon as they become suspects, the noble Lord is concerned only with those who are not victims and who are helping the police with their inquiries as suspects. The answer to the noble Lord's question, therefore, rests in Hansard.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I think all noble Lords who know the noble Lord the Minister will surely agree that in response to this amendment he has been at his most disappointing. I say that with the greatest possible respect. We have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, with all his experience over all these years, say in terms that these amendments enshrine the protection of the individual in this country when that person enters a police station. That is the situation. The noble Lord the Minister has been saying that this procedure would embarrass people, and that it would frighten people who are in the police station and not under caution but there simply to help the police. But in the Minister's own code, at page 2, it states in paragraph 1(b):
"Those who are there voluntarily to assist with an investigation should be treated with no less consideration and enjoy an absolute right to obtain legal advice or communicate with anyone outside the police station".
It says that in the code of practice. There is nothing there about how frightened or upset people would be to be told that they have these rights.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord give way? The difference between the code of practice and the Bill—and he has brought it to the forefront of the argument—is surely this: if it is in the Bill that somebody must be told then—willy-nilly—they must be told. But if it is in the code of practice that they have these rights, then it is up to the perceptive police constable or the station sergeant to decide whether the old lady who has just been "mugged" ought to be told upon reception that she has a right to leave the police station if she has not been arrested. It is a matter of discretion. The amendment on the Marshalled List does not give that discretion, and I think it is mistaken.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: The simple fact is that people should have these rights—and one can see no reason whatsoever for not enshrining them, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has suggested, in this Bill. This is one of the most crucial points in the whole Bill and having regard to the observations which have been made by noble Lords, I will test the views of the Committee.
10.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 88) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 35.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Beloff, L.

Mishcon, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Denning, L.

Plant, L.

Diamond, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Renton, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Foot, L.

Tordoff, L.

Gifford, L.

Underhill, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Hooson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Avon, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gray, L.

Belstead, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mottistone, L.

Coleraine, L.

Portland, D.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Crathorne, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Eccles, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Elton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Ferrier, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 88A, 89, 89A, 89B, 89C not moved.]
10.44 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 89D:
Page 24, line 32, at end insert—
(" (2)(a) where a child or young person voluntarily attends any such place as mentioned in subsection (1) above for the purpose of assisting with an investigation, such persons as are required to be informed under section 55 of this Act, shall be informed of his whereabouts together with the reason for his attendance at that place, without delay.
(b) any procedure involving the participation of a child or young person, whether as a suspect or witness, shall take place only in the presence of the appropriate adult mentioned in paragraph (a) above.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is particularly in the interests of young people and their parents. Everything that has been said on previous amendments applies even more, but I should like briefly to remind your Lordships that the code of practice includes the safegard that, save in certain circumstances, children and young people under the
508
age of 17, whether suspected of a crime or not, shall be interviewed only in the presence of a parent or guardian. In the case of a child or young person in the care of local authorities a representative of that authority should be present, or, in their absence, some other responsible adult who is not a police officer. Clearly this requirement is shown by the words,
"whether suspected of a crime or not".
and should include circumstancss in which a child or young person is being questioned while assisting with an investigation.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the duty of the police to inform the parent or guardian, and so on, is immediate, and, secondly, that the safeguard referred to in the code of practice is brought into the Bill itself—a request which was made in the previous amendments. The amendment is also to ensure that the child or young person's attendance is truly voluntary and that anything the child or young person says, any statement that they make, should be in the presence of an appropriate adult.
I believe that the amendment will find favour with the Government because surely it is part of this growing ethos that parents should be involved and responsible for their children and that they have a right to know where their children are. I think the Minister will agree that a considerable length of time can be spent helping police with their inquiries. During that time a parent might undergo very great anxiety. Therefore, this amendment is very much in the line of trying to keep parents involved with their children and to feel responsible for their children.
There is no doubt that parents do worry a lot. I know that the Children's Legal Centre receives innumerable calls from parents who are anxious as to where their children are. The amendment would ensure that the children should be safeguarded and that their parents should be absolved of that worry. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: From these Benches we fully support the amendment. I can see no possible reason why it should not be accepted. I think I need say no more.
Lord Elton: I must start by thanking the noble Baroness for putting her finger on a gap that has crept unintentionally into the protection which the Bill and its associated codes of practice provide. When my right honourable friend the Minister of State replied to a similar amendment in Committee in another place he was able to draw attention to the codes of practice on the detention, treatment and questioning of suspects by the police. He pointed to provisions ensuring that the questioning of juveniles should not take place in the absence of an adult except in an emergency, whether or not the youngster is suspected of a crime.
I fear that in the revision of the code which has taken place since the Bill was considered in another place, and which has been generally welcomed, this extension of the safeguard to juveniles not suspected of crime has been left out. That was not intended and I can assure the Committee that it will be put back in the next revision.

509
In the case of the draft identification code our revising zeal has not had that result. Paragraph 1.8 provides for the presence of parents in the case of a juvenile who attends a police station either to identify a suspect on a parade or to be identified himself, which meets the second part of the amendment. In either case the parent must obviously have been informed in order to be there.
The noble Baroness has argued for the inclusion of those provisions in the Bill rather than the codes of practice. But the point is that the codes are able to take account of the fact that there may be some instances in which the parents are not available to attend, or, indeed, to take an extreme example, in which their presence could even be undesirable. Take, for example, a case in which a child complained to the police about sexual assaults on him by a parent; the police would under the amendment at once have to inform the parents, although it might be vital for the interview with the child to remain confidential. The codes are capable of taking account of such circumstances, whereas the amendment would fetter the police too tightly to allow for such contingencies, however rare.
I hope therefore that the noble Baroness, subject to my undertaking on the first leg of her amendment, will be content to withdraw it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am very grateful to the Minister for being so responsive to the first part of the amendment, but I am rather disappointed about his response to the second part. As I say, we should like to see that provision enshrined in the statute. It would make one feel very much safer about the matter.
I do not really agree with the Minister when he says that sometimes a parent is not available. It is not only the presence of a parent that we are asking for. We are asking for the presence of any appropriate grown-up who is not a police officer. The Minister also said that there are occasions when it is better that a parent should not be there. That is really condoning a parent not being a responsible parent. Our whole outlook is that the law is there to support parents so that they can be more responsible.
I am disappointed that the Minister will not accept the second part of the amendment, but perhaps it would be right for us to think about the matter and consider whether it is something that we should bring back later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 89E not moved.]
Clause 29 [Arrest elsewhere than at police station]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 24, line 34, after ("person") insert (" (a)")
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend I speak to this amendment, and it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendment No. 91.
Amendment No. 91. Page 24, line 34, after ("constable") insert—
("; or
(b) is taken into custody by a constable after being arrested by a person other than a constable;")
Subsection (1) provides that, subject to the other provisions of the clause, a person who has been arrested by a constable must be taken to a police station as soon as is practicable after the arrest. This will ensure that the rights and safeguards set out in Parts IV and V of the Bill come into play as soon as is practicable.
While subsection (1) is satisfactory for the normal run of arrests where the arrest is made by a police officer, it does not cater for the case where the arrest is made by a member of the public, whether a householder who arrests a burglar in this living room or a professional store detective. Clause 23 preserves the existing power of a citizen to arrest for an arrestable offence. I think it is clear that the duty imposed on the police by subsection (1) should apply just as much in the case where an arrested person is given into their custody as in the case where they made the arrest in the first place. The amendment will ensure that that is so. I beg to move.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: We on these Benches accept that these two amendments are very useful in that they deal with small lacunae. We therefore welcome them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 91:
[Printed above.]
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Denham: I think I rather seek the guidance of the Committee here. The next amendment on the Marshalled List is Government Amendment No. 92, but I think it is probable that other amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Plant, will be discussed at the same time. As we are very nearly at 11 o'clock this might be a convenient place at which to break. If that has the general agreement of the Committee, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.

Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes before eleven o'clock.

  STRAW AND STUBBLE BURNING CODE
  STRAW AND STUBBLE BURNING CODE
  HALVERGATE MARSHES
  HALVERGATE MARSHES