Sitting of 23 July 1984

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

    Energy Conservation (Public Buildings)
    Mr. Hanleyasked the Secretary of State for Energy what initiatives have been taken by his Department to encourage the conservation of energy in public buildings.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): A major objective of the energy efficiency campaign is to promote the better use of fuel in industrial, commercial and public buildings. The public sector, along with industry and commerce, has been encouraged to take advantage of the new energy efficiency survey scheme, the demonstration project scheme and the information and advice provided by the Energy Efficiency Office.
    Mr. Hanley: I am encouraged by that reply. How are industrial users of energy comparing with public sector users, particularly as there is now a need to conserve energy throughout the country?
    Mr. Buchan-Smith: The main energy efficiency campaign was launched only at the end of last year. I am glad to say that the response at the breakfasts publicising the campaign throughout the country was extremely encouraging. All the evidence from the follow-up programme indicates a high take-up.
    Mr. Freud: Why does the Minister think that people who work in public buildings should worry about energy conservation when MPs, as a result of Friday's payroll vote, are being given cash incentives to use energy-inefficient vehicles? Does he agree that it is now self-financing to sell a second-hand Mini and to buy a second-hand Rolls-
    Royce?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question relates to public buildings.
    Mr. Forman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative. Will he look again at the terms of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 to see whether it is possible to reduce both the maximum and minimum temperatures stipulated in that Act?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I shall examine it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has responsibility for these matters.

    Coal Industry Dispute
    Mr. Lofthouseasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to meet the president of the National Union of Mineworkers.
    Sir William van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the current dispute in the coal industry.
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the present position concerning the industrial dispute in the mining industry.
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the current situation in the coal industry.
    Mr. Tim Smithasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the miners' dispute.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the coal strike.
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the dispute in the coal industry.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): When I first met the leaders of the three mining unions in June 1983 I made it clear to them that if they and the National Coal Board wished to come to me with joint proposals on the future of the industry I would always be willing to meet them.
    In prolonged talks last week, I regret that the National Union of Mineworkers was unwilling to accept the proposals of the National Coal Board, under which every miner who wished to remain in the industry would be able to do so, and any pit which was safe would remain open, so long as its operation was beneficial to the industry. At the same time, massive capital investment would continue.
    In most areas where miners have had the opportunity of a ballot, the men have continued to work. Stocks of coal at power stations remain at a very high level, and have reduced over past weeks by only 1·5 per cent. per week.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Secretary of State agree that his reply ducks the question on the Order Paper? Is it not now obvious that there will be no settlement between the two parties to the mining dispute? Does he further agree that he has an obligation, through his high office, to meet the president of the NUM just as he has been meeting the chairman of the National Coal Board, the second party to the dispute? If he is not prepared to do that, are we to take it that he is prepared to sit back and join the Prime Minister in a shoot-out?
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may not like to hear this, but they are going to hear it. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he does not intervene, history will record him as being as sadistic and callous as the witch of Downing street? Is he further aware that, even worse from his point of view, he will never be leader of the Tory party?
    Mr. Walker: I have repeated on many occasions that the Government have intervened on a massive scale to ensure that no single compulsory redundancy takes place, that massive investment will continue and that a decent wage will always be available. Mr. Scargill has publicly

    699
    made it clear on every occasion that he is interested only in every pit, no matter how uneconomic, remaining working. Everyone agrees that at the talks last week the NCB was understanding and did all sorts of things to make a settlement possible, but there was no move at all by the NUM.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: Following that answer and in view of the anxiety in some circles about the effect upon a mining community of closure, can my right hon. Friend tell the House anything about the operations of the enterprise company? Will he confirm that it is organised and sponsored by the NCB, designed to bring new business to the areas concerned and, if operative, would do much to remove the understandable anxieties of closely linked communities?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is aware that there have been many pit closures under all Governments in the past, and a whole range of regional aid policies have been applied. I am pleased to say that the NCB has announced the creation of a new enterprise company which will certainly provide funds to assist new businesses coming into the areas for accommodation and for professional advice. There is no doubt that that is an addition to all the services which have been provided, and which are so important for the mining communities.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the miners, who have been on strike for five months and have made enormous personal sacrifices, are supported by their wives and communities in trying to defend not only their jobs but future jobs for their sons and grandsons? Is he further aware that vulgar and obscene abuse by the right hon. Gentleman and other Ministers simply shows that they have no awareness of the deep commitment that leads the miners to continue their battle for the future of their communities?
    Mr. Walker: If the right hon. Gentleman were to tell the strikers and the families affected that this Government are paying the miners better than the Labour Government paid the miners and that this Government are investing twice as much cash as the Labour Government did, they might go back to work.
    Mr. Proctor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Basildon Labour party, which was collecting funds for striking miners in Billericay high street on Saturday, was using ballot boxes? Would it not be a better and more logical use of those boxes to take them to the mining communities and allow the miners to ballot on whether they want to be on strike?
    Mr. Walker: It is an interesting fact that the day that Mr. Scargill announced that he was changing the rules on balloting, the Leader of the Opposition urged that a ballot should take place. Since Mr. Scargill has not taken advantage of that, the Leader of the Opposition has remained silent.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the Secretary of State concede that the role in which he has cast himself, as a slick salesman of sleekit against the NUM leadership, ill befits the dignity of his office? Does not the Prime Minister's slanderous remarks about the enemy within show that the Government do not in any way understand the deep commitment of people in my community — from Oakley, High Valleyfield, Blairhall and other communities—to defend
    700
    their communities and jobs? Unless the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister understand that, there is no hope for conciliaton in this vexed dispute.
    Mr. Walker: One does not need to be much of a salesman to defend a position in which we have agreed to invest more than was envisaged in "Plan for Coal" and to ensure that there is not a single compulsory redundancy in the industry.
    Mr. Adley: Is it not clear that Mr. Scargill and his friends are engaged in a political battle of propaganda? Is it not true that even if, at the end of the strike, Mr. Scargill is chopped into 1,000 pieces and fed to Mr. MacGregor's dog, Mr. Scargill will claim it as a propaganda victory to poison Mr. MacGregor? Will my right hon. Friend use every opportunity to point out to the people of this country the real and serious underlying issues that are at stake in the dispute?
    Mr. Walker: The serious underlying issue is that the coal industry, with the investment envisaged, the potential for converting industries to coal and the potential for export markets, has a marvellous future. The tragedy is that this wholly unwarranted industrial action is jeopardising that future.
    Mr. Foot: Does the Secretary of State not understand that the worst way to try to settle this grievous dispute —grievous to everyone and to the country—is for the Government to say that the miners or their leaders are the enemy within and to compare them with Fascist dictators? Is the right hon. Gentleman not ashamed to be associated with such a campaign? Will he demand that the Prime Minister comes to the House tomorrow and apologises to the miners of Britain?
    Mr. Walker: No such remarks have been made about the miners—[Interruption.] In fact, the miners' interests are being undermined by political objectives which have nothing to do with the coal mining industry.
    Mr. Skeet: As the Government have an impeccable case in this dispute, and as the prime purpose is political, will my right hon. Friend endeavour to mitigate loss by taking tougher action? Will he also do his best to encourage firms affected by secondary picketing to take a tough line?
    Mr. Walker: The decision whether to take action on secondary picketing must be left to the people concerned in balancing the advantages and disadvantages of using the legal rights that they enjoy. The Government will do all that they can to ensure that the type of mob violence that has taken place throughout the dispute is effectively dealt with under the law. That is why, tragically and sadly, more than 4,000 arrests have had to be made.
    Mr. Dormand: Is the Secretary of State prepared to make representations on two matters for which he has no direct responsibility but for which he has a strong moral responsibility? First, will he seek to change the regulations by which PAYE refunds to miners are not being paid, remembering that there is great hardship and that it is the miners' own money? Are they not entitled to it? Secondly, is he aware that in my constituency some miners' children are now unable to get new shoes—[Interruption.] That interruption from Conservative Members shows their lack of sensitivity. Some miners' children are unable to get new shoes because of the strict interpretation that is being

    701
    placed on the regulations. Will he make strong and urgent representations to the Departments concerned on those matters for which he has responsibility?
    Mr. Walker: The laws governing PAYE and social security apply universally across the country. It would be absurd to change regulations as a result of an industrial action in which no ballot has taken place and when one third of the miners are working.
    Mr. Rost: When does my right hon. Friend expect to remove all restrictions on the import of coal, and when does he expect the NCB to start paying off miners who are anxious to leave the industry?
    Mr. Walker: The second matter which my hon. Friend raises is for the NCB to consider. It is a pity that the desire of a number of miners to take early retirement— and thereby make jobs available for others — has been delayed by this industrial action. The answer to his first question is that imports are continuing.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most outrageous features of this dispute so far is that there has been no ballot of those who have been involved in this action for the last five months and who have been suffering so much hardship as a result? As the NCB has put forward new proposals on closures, does he feel that the time has come—he would also resolve some of the arguments that are going backwards and forwards across the Floor of the House—to put that new package from the NCB to the mineworkers?
    Mr. Walker: I would very much welcome it if the NCB decided to put that package. It is difficult for employers to decide to put a package, particularly as, with the sort of victimisation that is going on at present in certain mining areas, I doubt whether such a ballot could be successfully conducted by the board. It is a matter of great regret that, certainly for the first time in our lifetime, a strike has been called without a ballot being held, and it is significant that one third of fields which have decided to hold ballots have been at work throughout the dispute.
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: As the factors which govern the viability of individual pits are, and always will be, infinitely varied, will my right hon. Friend tell the president of the NUM that many Conservative Members believe that the offer which is now available is too good to refuse and that, if refused by the NUM, should be withdrawn?
    Mr. Walker: The wording that was offered last week was acceptable to every reasonable observer, and there was not one criticism suggesting that the NCB's offer was a bad or unfair one. It is a pity that that wording was not immediately acceptable.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: At his next meeting with the chairman of the NCB, will the Secretary of State ask him about the number of pits that have already been closed, and the possible closures that may come after this dispute is over, not because of the inefficiency of the miners or their lack of productivity and effort, but because of bad management?
    Mr. Walker: I cannot comment about the allegations of bad management of pits, but the formula suggested by the NCB is that if there are reserves of coal in a pit which, after investment, could he sensibly and beneficially obtained, work at that pit would continue.
    Mr. Hickmet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Bill Sirs, chairman of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, said on Thursday that Mr. Arthur Scargill was prepared to bring about the collapse of the steel industry for his own political objectives, and that the support of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and of the National Union of Raliwaymen was based on similar political motives? Is that not a disgrace, and should not the Labour party dissociate itself from the leadership of the NUM?
    Mr. Walker: I agree with my hon. Friend; but I am pleased to say that, throughout the dispute, coal and iron ore have continued to be delivered to every steel plant in the country. I know that the House will be pleased to hear that the week before last steel production was at a higher level than it was before the dispute started.
    Mr. Orme: Is the Secretary of State aware that this dispute is about jobs and the preservation of jobs and communities? People find it extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman has not met senior officals of the NUM in the past 20 weeks. Instead of hurling personal abuse, will the Secretary of State use his office to call both sides together? The talks were adjourned only last Wednesday. Will he ensure that they are resumed at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Walker: No, not when the only point on which Mr. Scargill says that he is unwilling to yield is the principle that every pit in the country, provided that it has reserves of coal, should continue to be operated, irrespective of huge economic losses. He has said that he will not give way, and he has repeated that before and after every meeting. As the right hon. Gentleman knows. at last week's meeting the NUM did not move at all.
    The reality is that more and more miners, and the country as a whole, recognise that what is being offered by the NCB is in the interests of jobs. It is not in the interests of jobs by this industrial action to stop the capital investment programme, to lose markets, to stop the movement of coal conversion and to see the pits geologically deteriorate. If anybody is losing jobs, it is Mr. Scargill.

    Offshore Oil Production
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Secretary of State for Energy what change he expects in offshore oil production by 1 January 1987 as compared with 1 January 1984.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The rate of offshore crude oil production in January 1984 was 2·52 million barrels per day. By 1987 the average rate of production is expected to be in the range of 1·6 million to 2·3 million barrels per day.
    Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that we are all anxious to ensure that the level of offshore oil production continues at a reasonably high level because of the importance for onshore work of bringing new fields into production. Do the Government propose any changes with regard to future licensing to ensure a greater content of work being given to British firms than has been the case up to now?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What matters most of all, looking into the future and the kinds of fields that will be developed, is that the new technology that will be required

    703
    to work those fields is developed and generated in the United Kingdom. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the special new conditions that I have laid down in the ninth licensing round, which should make that possible.
    Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the level of North sea oil exploration is three times higher than it was in 1980, thanks to the measures introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year?
    Will my right hon. Friend further confirm reports that British industry, if it takes advantage of these measures, can have the best investment opportunity in the North sea that we have ever seen?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. Last year, a record number of wells were drilled in the North sea. In the first half of this year, even last year's good figure has been improved upon by 30 per cent. The outlook for the future is very encouraging.
    Mr. Hardy: Does not the Minister's answer suggest that, even by the ed of the present Parliament, we shall witness a decline in oil production? Does that not lead the right hon. Gentleman to the view that those of us who argue for a more moderate depletion rate have common sense on our side? Can we expect to see an end to self-sufficiency in oil during the early 1990s?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has ignored two things. First, all existing fields are performing better than expected. Secondly, if he had studied the estimates of new reserves he would have seen that they are at very much higher levels as a result of new work which has been done. We can look forward with optimism to future production.
    Mr. Kennedy: Further to the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetlands (Mr. Wallace), does he agree that his statement about the rundown of reserves will add to the anxiety of those who, like many in my constituency, depend heavily on the onshore construction business? The Minister is to meet a delegation from Ross and Cromarty district council later this week about the current dearth of orders there. Will he have anything to tell that delegation about additional steps to be taken by the Government as the rundown takes place?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I did not refer to a rundown in reserves. I referred to a rundown in production as a result of the size of the earlier fields. Reserves are at a higher level than at any time, but some of the fields have yet to be discovered or developed.
    At present there are potential orders worth about £150 million to £200 million, which will be available over the next 12 months for British industry to take advantage of. Provided that firms are competitive in price, quality and delivery, a large quantity of that work will come to British yards and companies.

    South Wales (Coal Industry)
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the problems of the coal industry in south Wales.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): The chairman of the NCB has sound plans for the
    704
    future development of the coal industry and its markets. The future of the south Wales coalfield will not be helped by miners damaging the steel industry and encouraging steel plants to look elsewhere for coal supplies.
    Mr. Powell: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has said, this is a fight for jobs. When the Minister meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, will he remind him that three collieries have been closed in the Ogmore constituency since 1979? Wyndham Western in Nantymoel was closed on 7 January this year. There has been a total loss of 1,500 jobs in the Ogmore constituency. Is the Minister aware that one of the collieries on the hit list is St. John's colliery in Maesteg, closure of which would mean a further loss of 842 jobs? Is he aware that at present unemployment in Maesteg stands at 24 per cent. and that, if the colliery is closed, male unemployment will shoot up to 45 per cent?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the jobs of miners depend upon the number of customers that can be found for the coal that they produce. I ask the hon. Gentleman to apply his mind to the effect on steel workers at Llanwern? If those workers are denied access to the raw materials for producing steel, that will in turn bring about a substantial reduction in jobs not only in the steel plants but in the coal industry. A total of £20 million was invested in south Wales in the past financial year. The prospects for investment this year would have been higher, but because of the dispute all the bets are off.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not true that the coal strike has been very damaging to jobs in the steel industry in south Wales and that that in turn threatens jobs within the coal industry supplying the steel works? In any discussions that he may have with the chairman of the NCB, will my hon. Friend remind the chairman of the vital importance of safeguarding the position of those miners who have carried on working throughout the strike, as at Point of Ayr in north Wales?
    Mr. Shaw: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those miners in north Wales who have continued to work. They recognise that the future of the industry vitally depends on producing coal from effective mines at prices that the market will accept.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Would it be too much to ask the Secretary of State to be a statesman for once, instead of perpetually attacking the NUM leadership? Is he aware that that is counter-productive? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that the dividing line between the two sides is marginal? If he would take a more sensible stance and intervene in the dispute, it could be resolved very quickly.
    Mr. Shaw: If that is the case, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that a mine that has no beneficial product for Wales is a mine that must have serious consideration for closure.
    Mr. Marlow: What hope can my hon. Friend offer to miners' wives in south Wales, such as the miner's wife who wrote to me —because she was ashamed of her constituency MP—saying that her husband had been on strike for 19 weeks and wants to go back to work? They have a nice house and she is frightened that the windows will be broken or smeared with paint. She is frightened that her husband will be injured by what she calls Scargill's bully boys.
    Mr. Shaw: It is well evident that there are intimidatory activities going on that bear no relationship to the average miner's view of his industry and certainly no relationship to the standards of behaviour in south Wales.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Secretary of State aware that the south Wales mining communities deeply resent and reject the squalid comparison made by the Prime Minister last week between the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands and the miners' strike? Is he aware how many youngsters from our mining communities fought in the Falklands for the rights of those islanders, 7,000 miles away, to remain in their community? Is he aware that miners are also fighting to remain in their communities? Will he at least dissociate himself from the worst remarks made by the Prime Minister last week?
    Mr. Shaw: The remarks of my right hon. Friend have already provoked a great deal of comment. She was referring to the danger of militant activities undermining the state. The hon. Gentleman's view of these matters is fair and I am sure that he agrees that the undermining of democratic institutions starts with those who refuse to accept the right in the rule book for members to be balloted before being called out on strike.

    Alternative Energy Sources
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to have discussions with the European Commission about alternative sources of energy.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have no plans for bilateral discussions with the European Commission. A Research Council is scheduled for October.
    Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient research into alternative sources of energy is being undertaken by the Community? Are the Government pressing it to increase the research programme?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If my hon. Friend looks at what has been done in the Community and at what national states have done to complement the Community programme, he will see that considerable worthwhile work is going on. I am sure he agrees that it is important that the work done by member states is co-ordinated so that the Community programme is effective.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the atmospheric pollution caused by the burning of coal should be assessed as a cost and be taken into account when we consider how to meet our future energy requirements?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That must be taken into account, but one must remember that some alternative forms of energy also have an impact on the environment in various ways. We cannot look at one energy source in isolation.

    Coal Industry (Retirements)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Energy how many persons employed by the National Coal Board retired from, or voluntarily left, coal mining in the last year.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I understand from the National Coal Board that 21,641 men voluntarily left coal mining in the financial year 1983–84.
    Mr. Chapman: Is not that figure in stark contrast to the fact that no mine worker has been forcibly made redundant in the past year? Bearing in mind that the Government have also vastly improved the redundant mine workers' payment scheme, are not those two facts evidence that the Government are adopting a sensible, sensitive and statesmanlike approach to a great industry, which offers our country a great future?
    Mr. Walker: There is no doubt that the early retirement and the voluntary redundancy provisions are more generous than those in any other industry in this country and more generous than those in any other coal industry in the world.
    Mr. Bell: As the right hon. Gentleman says that 21,641 men took voluntary redundancy last year, why on earth did he allow the NCB to put forward a provocative package that has resulted in a 19-week strike?
    Mr. Walker: The provocative package to which the hon. Gentleman refers was a package which contained a guarantee that there would not be a single compulsory redundancy.
    Mr. Eggar: How many coal faces have been irretrievably lost as a result of the present strike, and how many jobs are likely to be lost as a result of the general geological deterioration of pits?
    Mr. Walker: It is impossible to give an accurate figure. In reply to another question we mentioned the collieries that are now causing concern, but there is no doubt that serious geological damage is being done.
    Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State has given his interpretation of the negotiations that were adjourned last week, but, having spoken to both sides in the dispute—unlike the right hon. Gentleman— I can tell him that that is not my reading of the situation. Will he now meet Mr. Scargill and listen to his interpretation of the talks?
    Mr. Walker: I have informed all union leaders connected with my Department that if any of them at any time wishes to talk to us, we would be only too willing to respond. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the accurate interpretation of those talks. He knows that the Leader of the Opposition, presumably on somebody's advice, said that the leaders of the NUM had asked for talks to go on the next morning, but had been refused. However, I am pleased to say that the NCB has issued a statement saying that that was totally untrue.

    Electricity Sales
    Mr. Hayesasked the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of electricity sales in 1982 and 1983 was accounted for by industrial users and domestic consumers, respectively.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: The proportions of total electricity sales in England and Wales accounted for by the main groups of consumer were, domestic consumers in 1982, 37 per cent.; in 1983, 36 per cent.: industrial consumers 38 per cent. in both years, and commercial consumers 21 per cent. in both years.
    Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, and for all that he and his Department are doing to help the heavy users, but will he bear in mind that heavy users such as the glass industry have enough problems with

    707
    foreign I mports? Will he do all he can to review the situation and to give more help to heavy users, particularly the glass industry?
    Mr. Shaw: I respect my hon. Friend's interest in the glass industry, and no doubt it stems from the very large cullet plant established recently in his constituency. I can assure him that much has been done to bring United Kingdom prices well into line with those in the rest of the EC, and the CBI is now reasonably satisfied with that. There is, however, a small minority—roughly 2 per cent. — of firms for which there is some competitive disadvantage, and I very much hope that that problem can be gradually resolved in the intensive electricity sectors.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is it not true that industries which use electricity desperately need cheap electricity if they are to sell their goods abroad? Is that not another reason why we simply must have a modem and cost-effective coal mining industry? Is it not, in addition, another reason why we simply must find a solution to the mining dispute which enables us to have cheap coal and cheaper energy prices?
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At 86 per cent., coal remains the largest single component of electricity fuel generation costs, and the future price of coal is crucial to the future price of electricity.
    Mr. Hoyle: How does the Minister measure prices here against those in European countries? Time after time industries, and particularly the processing industry, have complained about unfair competition and have pointed, in particular, to countries such as France where electricity for bulk users is far cheaper. Why is something not done to assist industry, instead of just talking about it?
    Mr. Shaw: There are two answers to that question. First, the CBI and not the Government commissioned the report, and the CBI has all the evidence from its members and consumers. Secondly, the cheaper electricity in France is entirely due to a very substantial increase in nuclear power. I assume that the hon. Gentleman applauds that.

    Coal Industry Dispute
    Mr. Skeetasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the total cost of the coal dispute.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: The total cost of the dispute will depend on how long it lasts. To date, one thing is clear —the dispute has cost the miners themselves some £380 million in lost wages.
    Mr. Skeet: I agree that the cost will probably depend on the length of the dispute, but will my hon. Friend confirm the view that I have heard, that the total cost to date is in excess of, or perhaps approaching, £10 billion? Does he recognise that it is not the Government, but the public, who ultimately pay?
    Mr. Shaw: I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that many purely speculative figures are being bandied about in regard to the ultimate cost of the dispute. The fact remains that the public will eventually be at risk if our coal industry is not competitive in terms of price and therefore produces more expensive electricity.
    Mr. Woodall: Does the Minister agree that the dispute has cost far too much already? Will he have a word in the
    708
    Secretary of State's ear to ask him if he will meet the chairman of the NCB to do one thing—to tell him that he is sacked? Does he agree that the chairman has been an utter disaster and that it is time that he retired and took his old-age pension?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman, who should know better on these matters, should recognise that the chairman of the NCB has asked for further major capital investment in the industry and has gone ahead with the Asfordby project. It is the chairman of the NCB who wants improvements in the redundant mine workers' payments scheme to ensure that not one man is made redundant compulsorily and it is the chairman of the NCB who believes in the future, when coal can be produced at prices that will lead to an increased volume in the market.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the Minister aware that we saw a shudder go through the Government Front Bench when the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) suggested that the cost of the miners' dispute might be £10 billion? None of us has used that figure before. Does he agree that the dispute will be damaging and costly? In answer to a previous question, the Secretary of State denied that the NUM had asked that the talks that broke down should carry on into the morning. Is that not a classic illustration of why the Secretary of State has a responsibility to meet both sides to resolve this damaging and costly dispute?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there have been 35 hours of negotiation on proposals that were made at the NUM's request as far back as 6 March. He also knows that the negotiations have resulted in a close examination of the proposals and in some changes in how the NCB is presenting its case to the NUM. All that is required is some recognition of the fact that the NUM must accept that the closure of uneconomic pits is an essential ingredient in the restructuring of the industry.

    Sleipner Gas Field
    Mr. Favellasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current situation of the Sleipner gas field negotiations.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: A decision will be taken as soon as possible.
    Mr. Favell: I remind my right hon. Friend that there is already a large trade imbalance with Norway, whereby we take more than one third of its exports and Norway takes only 11·8 per cent. of our exports. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Department has very much in mind the great opportunity for British exporters to export to Norway if the contract is concluded, especially as it will bring approximately £20 billion to Norway—a country with only 4 million people?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to that aspect of trade with Norway. I assure him that I will bear his point in mind. I am sure he will would be the first to acknowledge that the Sleipner gas issue raises a number of matters of great importance.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister acknowledge that one of the possibilities that has been aired about the Sleipner field would extend the lifetime of the Flotta terminal in my constituency? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sooner the decision is made the better, because uncertainty has a damaging effect?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not believe in just reaching decisions. I believe in reaching the correct decisions.
    Mr. Rost: If the Government approve the deal, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the British offshore industry will have a fair chance of participating in the work?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is a matter to which the report of the Select Committee on Energy has rightly drawn attention. I assure my hon. Friend that that is a point that I will bear in mind during my discussions with my counterparts in Norway.
    Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister gives us an assurance that he will not link the decision on Sleipner with any decision on direct export of gas to Europe from the British North sea, because that will have serious and considerable consequences on depletion policy and prices? Will he make a statement to the House about the decision which raises, as he pointed out, many serious issues about which hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked repeatedly at Question Time?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One must look at all aspects of this matter, including exports. Any Government would be failing in their duty if they did no do so. I fully understand the interest of the House, which has been exemplified at Question Time for a long period. It is the intention of myself and my right hon. Friend to keep the House properly and fully informed once the decision is reached.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Services
    Mr. Adleyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied with the workings of the services of the House, in so far as they relate to his responsibility.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I am sure that improvement is always possible. If my hon. Friend has a specific issue to raise, I shall gladly draw it to the attention of the Services Committee.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Might I take him at his word and ask whether he will do something about the lift service in this building? Is he aware that it has deteriorated recently and that reports to that effect to the usual channels get nowhere? I am raising the matter on the Floor of the House in an attempt to get something done.
    Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that he will not be wholly reassured when I tell him that the lifts are essentially the responsibility of the Property Services Agency, which has an extensive lift improvement scheme. I shall therefore look forward all the more to hearing from my hon. Friend and taking up whatever point he has in mind.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House on radio? Does he agree that that broadcasting would be greatly improved if he were now to innovate and televise the House?
    Mr. Biffen: I think that my hon. Friend's question strays just a little far from the original one. I hope that he will excuse me if I do not drift into consideration of
    710
    televising the House. I should have thought that if there was anything wrong with the sound broadcasting of the House it was more to do with our contribution than the editing.

    Office Accommodation
    Mr. Dormandasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress being made in providing additional office accommodation for hon. Members.
    Mr. Biffen: The Services Committee has recently made a report to the House, including the design brief for phase 1 of the new parliamentary building. I hope that the report will be published shortly.
    Mr. Dormand: Is not it a fact that, after the great fanfare some months ago about improving office accommodation for hon. Members, the work that the right hon. Gentleman has just described is considerably behind schedule? What progress is being made on the principle that the Government adopted some time ago in regard to moving staff from the Palace: to make more accommodation in this building available to hon. Members?
    Mr. Biffen: I think that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of the charge of having issued any fanfare on anything, least of all on anything to do with my responsibilities. I do not believe that it is true that the schedule for this work has fallen behind. My answer today is precisely the same as my answer when the hon. Gentleman last questioned me on this matter — the premises should be available in 1990. The hon. Gentleman asked how much additional accommodation will be made available in the Palace of Westminster with the utilisation of the Bridge street building. The conventions of the House do not enable me to anticipate the report that will be made available in early August, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that about 100 desk spaces will be made available in the Palace of Westminster as a result of the new plans.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend refer to the appropriate authority or committee the idea of buying the Crown Agents building and moving some people who do not have to be here out of the Houses of Parliament so that people who need to be here can have accommodation?
    Mr. Biffen: I shall happily look into that matter in the context in which the question was put.
    Mr. Bell: Is the Leader of the House aware of the great disappointment among new Members of Parliament at the fact that they are unable to fulfil their parliamentary and constitutional duties because of the lack of available space? Will he bear that aspect in mind when looking at the programme for the future and ensure that that programme does not fall behind?
    Mr. Biffen: I expect that all those new Members will be seeking reselection, notwithstanding the hazards to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait and to note the tangible benefits of the development of the Bridge street site, because, frankly, nothing else of comparable value is available on the horizon.
    Mr. Budgen: Is there any evidence that hon. Members work better in the House or in their constituencies if they have larger or more comfortable offices?
    Mr. Biffen: I believe that there is no evidence whatsoever to support that idea, but that does not diminish the passion that attends these debates.

    Terrace (Access)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is satisfied with arrangements for access to the Terrace during the time of restoration of the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Biffen: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to all those who are concerned with the current restoration and cleaning of the face of the mother of Parliaments our congratulations on their superb job and the pleasure that they give to those who work here and see that work? How long will the rest of the job take? Will it include the Victoria tower? What will be the cost?
    Mr. Biffen: I readily acknowledge the warm tribute which the hon. and learned Gentleman paid to those concerned with the restoration work on the Palace of Westminster and the success that has attended that work hitherto. Work on the Terrace elevation, which will be commenced in September 1984, will last for two years. There will be four stages in the completion of that work, and every care will be taken to minimise inconvenience to Members and to the House generally. I shall look into the cost and inform the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Are the authorities confident that the Terrace is secure against terrorist access from the river?
    Mr. Biffen: Yes, they are.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Financial Management Initiative
    Mr. Eggarasked the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants are engaged in the implementation of the financial management initiative.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): As these changes take root in Departments there is increasingly no clear-cut distinction between staff working in connection with the financial management initiative and the line managers and others who plan and allocate resources. During 1983–84 some 300 staff were directly engaged in developing and implementing the plans published last year.
    Mr. Eggar: Is my hon. Friend aware that the progress made on FMI is extremely encouraging? When does he expect that his Department will publish the next White Paper? Is he satisfied that Departments are making sufficient information public about the implementation of FMI within their Department? Recently a number of Departments have refused to place the information in the Library.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his encouraging remarks. The White Paper which was promised for the end of July, will, I think, be published on Wednesday of this week. It will have a separate chapter covering each Department's contribution to the work. My hon. Friend will be aware that I favour the widest possible publication.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Will the Minister ensure that this FMI does not result in local managers following the example of the assistant group controller who is alleged to have told Inland Revenue staff that they should reduce their work load by tearing up letters from taxpayers and ignoring refunds for previous years to which taxpayers may be entitled?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I have seen press reports to that effect, but I have no idea of the truth of the matter. I shall certainly be looking into it and will write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Forman: Can my hon. Friend confirm that all Departments in Whitehall are now fully engaged in the FMI? What is his latest estimate of the financial savings expected to flow from it?
    Mr. Hayhoe: It is better for me not to pre-empt the White Paper that is coming later this week. I ask my hon. Friend to await its publication. I am sure that he will study it carefully and see that encouraging progress is being made.
    Mr. Dalyell: What instructions have been given to civil servants to draw up contingency plans for clawing back the £1,000 that has been given to many employees at Cheltenham should the judgment of Mr. Justice Glidewell be upheld by Lord Lane and his colleagues?
    Mr. Hayhoe: If such contingency plans were needed, and I do not comment upon that at all, they would be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
    Dr. McDonald: Should not the FMI be far more interested than it is with the quality of service? Is the Minister aware that in the Inland Revenue the count of unanswered post at the moment stands at over 3·5 million, much the same as it was last year? Future plans to reduce Inland Revenue staff by one in four—far more than is needed for computerisation—mean that the public can expect no better service in the future as a result of this initiative than they have now.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I repudiate the broad thrust of what the hon. Lady is saying, although I admire her ingenuity in bringing that aspect of Treasury affairs into Question Time today.

    Security (MPO)
    Mr. Dubsasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list the Management and Personnel Office's responsibilities for security in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Hayhoe: As shown in its management document 1984–85, which was published on 15 June 1984, the Management and Personnel Office's responsibilities for security in the Civil Service are to formulate and monitor personnel and physical security policy.
    Mr. Dubs: Is it unusual for persons appointed by the Civil Service Commission to be refused appointments by the Government Departments to which they have been allocated, presumably on the ground of their political views? I hasten to say that I am not talking about the Ministry of Defence, but about the Departments of the Environment and of Transport.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I think I can answer that, in general terms, yes, it is unusual. I would be prepared to draw the

    713
    attention of my appropriate right hon. Friend to any particular example that the hon. Gentleman cares to give to me.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: As the International Labour Organisation found that security was not an adequate ground upon which to exclude people from their rights to freedom of information, have the Government had any discussion with that organisation as to how they are to retain their membership of it while banning that right for the civil servants at GCHQ issue?
    Mr. Hayhoe: As I thought the hon. Gentleman was well aware, matters concerning GCHQ are primarily for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Matters concerning the International Labour Organisation are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. In any case, the GCHQ is now sub judice because it is before the Court of Appeal.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister able to tell the House how many employees of the Management and Personnel Office attended comprehensive schools?
    Mr. Hayhoe: With notice, I shall try to obtain that information from the Department's records.

    Social Equality
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he has completed the evaluation of the surveys of the ethnic origins of non-industrial civil servants in the north-west and the county of Avon; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hayhoe: A report on the surveys is being published today and copies are being placed in the Library.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Minister give the House the assurance that once the report is available and has been evaluated—which means now—the Government will cease their current scandalous practice of refusing in all their Departments to carry out the recommendations of the Commission for Racial Equality—which has had a code in force on the subject since 1 April this year—so that we may see the Government taking a lead in being fair to people instead of dragging behind those whom they are encouraging to go forward?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I believe that the Government have taken and will continue to take a lead in seeking to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in employment in the Civil Service. I hope that that view is supported in every quarter of the House.
    Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that affirmative action in any respect is not the answer to the problem, and that merit and qualification will always be the main criteria for appointments to positions of the sort that have been mentioned?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Yes of course merit must be a criterion, but it is also very important, as I hope my hon. Friend will agree, that racial discrimination does not occur anywhere in this country, and particularly in employment in the public service.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that only by monitoring to check whether racial discrimination is taking place can we feel assured that the Civil Service is
    714
    applying a true equal opportunities policy? If the results of the experiment are positive, will the Minister introduce a system throughout the Civil Service at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Hayhoe: A decision on future surveys will be made as soon as possible. Discussions are taking place with some of the unions, which have appeared to change their policy towards these matters recently.

  ENERGY

    Coal Industry Dispute
    Mr. John Huntasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the miners' dispute.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current situation in the mining industry.
    Mr. Barronasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current mining dispute.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement about the miners' strike.
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the miners' dispute.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I refer to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse).
    Mr. Hunt: As Mr. Scargill's forecasts of the level of coal stocks have repeatedly proved to be so wildly inaccurate, should it not now be clear to every miner in the land not only that Mr. Scargill is an isolated and discredited figure but that his words can no longer be trusted on this matter or anything else?
    Mr. Walker: It is true that before the beginning of the dispute it was said that there were only eight weeks' supply of coal at the power stations. That was repeated in March, April and May, and again more recently. As my hon. Friend said, the allegation has always been proved to be totally unjustified. There are at present many months of stocks at the power stations.
    Mr. Eadie: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must agree, from the exchanges across the Floor today, that he and the Government are the discredited people. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the strategy of the Government of which he is a Cabinet Member is to starve the miners into submission, and that that strategy will not succeed?
    Mr. Walker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, after a ballot, one third of the miners are working, and if he wishes to accuse anyone of endeavouring to starve people into submission, he has done so in respect of a Government who have invested more in coal than any other, and guaranteed that there will be no compulsory redundancies.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 23, which was tabled in my name, has been missed out.
    Mr. Speaker: Question No. 23 refers to lead in petrol. We have been dealing with the mining industry in Question No. 21. The hon. Gentleman's question was not included in that grouping.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 46 was tabled by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), a Liberal Member, asking how many hours the House has sat after midnight. Have you had any indication from the hon. Gentleman as to why he was not present to ask his question at 3.15 pm?
    Mr. Speaker: No, I have had no indication why the hon. Member was not here.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may have come to your attention that today's Order Paper contains 114 questions tabled by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on the subject of the Falkland Islands. That will cost the taxpayer a large sum of money. Would it not have been a better plan for the hon. Gentleman to write a letter instead of tabling so many questions?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member has the right to table questions, if he judges that he wishes to have the answers to them.

Black Report
3.31 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, those of us who represent coastal constituencies have been anxious for some time about the publication of the Black report dealing with the inquiry into the possible link between discharges from Sellafield and the incidence of leukemia. I understand from the press that the report has been published today, but there is to be no statement by the Minister responsible.
This is a matter of public concern and, by a strange coincidence, the Minister for Health is present and could have made a statement. As today's business is not onerous and a statement could have been fitted in easily—there were four statements the other day—perhaps you will be able to help us, Mr. Speaker.
Parliament is about to go into recess. Many of us feel that the DHSS hopes to get the report out and forgotten about without parliamentary scrutiny. Can you help us in any way to get a statement, or some kind of discussion or debate on the issue, before Parliament goes into recess until 22 October?
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I am not responsible for statements in the House. In any case, I notice that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has tabled a question for written answer on that very subject.
Mr. Foulkes: But that is my point.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Nothing further can arise. It is not a matter for me, so there is no point in the hon. Gentleman pursuing it.

Questions to Ministers
3.33 pm
Mr. Greville Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Another point of order?
Mr. Janner: Yes, Sir. You will recall that, in answer to Question No. 49, the Minister said that a document on ethnic surveys of non-industrial staff in the Civil Service in the north-west and Avon——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are reverting to Question Time. We have already dealt with the matter. I must say to the whole House that it is an abuse for hon. Members to rise on a point of order, to put a further question or to elucidate an answer that has already been given.
Mr. Janner indicated dissent
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no use the hon. and learned Member shaking his head. it is not a matter for me. I cannot deal with the matter, as it is for the Minister responsible.
Mr. Janner: I am not seeking to do that.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot do what the hon. and learned Gentleman asks. It is an abuse to raise, on a point of order, a matter that is not for the Chair but seeks a ministerial answer. If the hon. Gentleman does not like the answers that he has received, he must find another way of pursuing the matter.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to take further points of order on a matter on which I cannot rule.
Mr. Foulkes: I am sure that you can.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that I cannot take further points of order on this.

Adjournment Motions
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Wednesday 1 August, up to nine hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their choice. Applications should reach my Office by 10 pm on Wednesday next. A ballot will be held on Thursday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.
Orders of the Day
  Health and Social Security Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Health and Social Security Bill
    Clause 3

      USE OF TITLES
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 5, line 16, after first "the" insert "taking or"
      3.35 pm
      The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 10.
      Mr. Clarke: All the amendments relate to clause 3, which, as hon. Members will recall from our previous debates, is concerned with the so-called protection of certain titles. That means that we are ensuring that the titles of "optometrist" and "optician" can be used only by people with suitable qualifications when members of the general public expect to be able to know whether they have those qualifications.
      The general approach that the Government adopted on the matter met with approval in both Houses because we were moving to strengthen the existing law to some extent, but there was a disagreement in another place about the exact wording of the clause that the Government had chosen to give effect to our desired policy. Lord Mottistone and others in another place said that they would prefer it if the wording of clause 3 were somewhat closer to the wording of the Opticians Act 1958, which previously protected certain titles. The wording in that Act covers both taking as well as using those titles. It also covers them being used either alone or in combination with any other words.
      We have been persuaded that it is sensible to apply the formulation in connection with the protection that the Bill extends to the title "optician". It will help those who may be called upon to interpret the statute in future. I accept, upon reflection, that there was a possibility that otherwise the courts might try to look for substantive reasons behind the change in wording that was previously proposed when no substantive reasons and no substantial changes were envisaged.
      The only other change arises from amendments Nos. 4 and 9. In another place, their Lordships preferred to replace the negative expression, "not have been reasonable" with the positive one, "have been unreasonable". Upon reflection, we were persuaded that that makes the intention clearer.
      The result is that their Lordships have made certain drafting amendments to the Bill as it left the House that take us back more closely to the wording of the 1958 Act. The Government are content to accept that and trust that the House will agree to the amendments.
      Mr. Frank Dobson: I would not wish to argue that we did not agree with the Lords in the amendments. Having argued in Committee that some improvements were necessary to protect the title of
      720
      "optician" from pseudo-opticians and various other people taking advantage of the public, we welcome both the improvements that were made on Report, which we discussed on 2 May, and what we think are improvements in the wording, which were decided upon in the Lords. I understand, however, that those improvements were made without the entire approval of the Government Benches. I suppose that the Government are getting fairly used to having amendments passed in the Lords that were not promoted by the Government. It is an experience that Labour Governments have been accustomed to over the years. It appears that this Conservative Government are having a taste of their own medicine.
      In protecting the title of optician, it is intended to protect opticians and, indirectly, the public by not allowing unqualified people to claim to be opticians and to have technical knowledge that they do not possess. Ironically, that flies in the face of the whole intention of the Bill, the Government's basic intention being to downgrade the optical professions by allowing glasses to be sold by people who know nothing about the subject. It is ironic to seek in this way to protect those professions when the Bill will undermine all that they have stood for over the years, including the concept that only a qualified optician is entitled to make up and fit out spectacles. The Government have made it clear, however, that they support the concept of ignorant prescribing.
      It is always difficult to know where we stand when nods, winks and half-promises are given in the Commons about changes that might be introduced in the Lords. From Second Reading onwards, right through the Committee and Report stages, we have been waiting for someone to honour the undertakings given by the Secretary of State on Second Reading to protect not just the opticians but the people who turn to them because they need glasses to be prescribed. The Secretary of State has said all along that he is prepared to consider further protection, especially for people who need extremely complicated prescriptions, against the possibility of glasses being prescribed by someone who is not up to the task.
      That semi-promise has been made constantly, but it does not seem to have been honoured in any of the Lords amendments. Perhaps the Minister will explain the reason for that. I hope that the answer will be that the undertaking can be honoured in regulations even if it is not enshrined in statute. Nevertheless, I hope that on this occasion the Government will give a clear and genuine commitment rather than the vague undertakings given in Committee and on 2 May and the even vaguer undertakings given by the Secretary of State on Second Reading before Christmas.
      Therefore, although we welcome the minor changes made in the Lords amendments, we look to the Minister to explain why the more major change that we had expected has not been made. Perhaps the Government intended to introduce an amendment in the other place but decided that regulations would be better in case the recalcitrant peers voted against the amendment.
      Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I am delighted that the Government are supporting these drafting amendments. I regret that they have not gone further in protecting both the title of optician and the public at large, but, although these are minor, drafting amendments, it is no doubt better that one sinner should be called to repentance than that 10 saints find their way to heaven.

      721
      I wish to follow two points raised by the Minister and by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). First, in view of the Government's willingness to make the matter much clearer, I had hoped that the Bill would make clearer to the general public the vital distinction between an ophthalmic optician and a dispensing optician. Hon. Members who are familiar with such matters are aware of the distinction.
      The Bill destroys 30 years of tradition among dispensing opticians. The Minister is optimistic. He hopes that eventually the public will have some protection. He maintains that even someone who goes to Woolworth's for glasses must take an incomprehensible prescription which no one but a dispensing optician will understand.
      Nothing concentrates one's mind on a problem more than experiencing the problem oneself. I have just picked up the second pair of spectacles dispensed for me in the last three weeks. Thank goodness the National Health Service has a superb ophthalmic department at Westminster Hospital. The legislation is not yet on the statute book, so I am still able to use all the facilities that I have used for 30 years.
      The Minister says that in protecting the optician he is also protecting the public, but the amendments for which we hoped have not been approved. I have two intra-ocular implants. I am perhaps the original bionic man with two false ears and two false eyes. I return to Westminster hospital tomorrow for a possible third pair of spectacles. The amendments passed by the Lords are acceptable and welcome, but the Government should have gone further.
      Recognised opticians are able to deal with elderly people who have had cataracts removed. An elderly person might need as many as six changes of spectacles within two years of having a cataract peeled. At present, spectacles can be borrowed while the changes are made. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has answered my parliamentary questions about the system in good faith, but he did not check sufficiently. There are discrepancies between ophthalmic departments in hospitals as there are between contracting opticians. The service depends entirely upon which hospital one goes to and which contractor is employed. Elderly people who have had cataracts peeled might be involved in considerable expense under the Bill because under the old system as the cataract healed and the lens and focus changed new glasses were provided.
      I thank the good Lord for small mercies, because this Bill now provides facilities nearer those offered in the Opticians Act 1958. However, we should have been more than grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had seen the light further down the tunnel and if his focus had been a little more concentrated on the importance of the optician.
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: Throughout the progress of the legislation hon. Members from all sides have opposed what it does to the optician and ophthalmic services. We have been given repeated assurances by Ministers, particularly by the Secretary of State at the end of last year, that the complex prescriptions aspect would be re-examined and that the Bill would be redrafted.
      Some changes have been made, but from exchanges in the House of Lords last week it seems that the Lords remain unsatisfied about that aspect of the Bill. They were not convinced that the amendments, although welcome,
      722
      were sufficient to overcome the practical problems that the legislation will cause for those needing complex prescriptions. Even at this late stage, we hope that the Government will give an assurance that they and the Department will take further action. We have been through all the arguments, so there is no point in rehashing them now.
      As I have told the Minister, areas such as mine, which include vast rural parts as well as conurbations, will face many practical difficulties with dispensing services. I am sure that the concern felt in those areas is reflected in rural areas in England and Wales. I plead with the Minister to give the House further assurances, because, frankly, the amendments in no way match the expectations raised by the promises given by the Secretary of State. Clearly, the other place was not satisfied either, although it, like us, was happy to accept the amendments.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) hinted that this was another case of the other place forcing an unwilling Government to accept its views and change policy. However, the amendments were moved in another place by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Glenarthur, on behalf of the Government. I accept that they reflect a change of view in the drafting of the clause, which came about after we listened to the arguments of the noble Lord Mottistone and others. Both this House and another place agreed with what we were trying to achieve in clause 3, and if those briefed by opticians in another place believed that a certain form of words achieved that objective rather better than the original words, it did not seem worth arguing about. We listened to the argument on drafting, just as we listened in a constructive and reasonable manner to all the arguments put to us during the passage of the Bill.
      There is no inconsistency between our anxiety to protect the title "optician" in clause 3 and the general policy of the Bill. The general policy is to extend choice and competition to the general public when obtaining spectacles. Parliament, probably accidentally, gave a total monopoly to qualified opticians to sell spectacles, frames, lenses and even frames without lenses. As the Office of Fair Trading report shows, that has had an unfortunate effect on the service given to the public. The quality of dispensing and eyesight testing in Britain is extremely good, but prices have been higher than necessary for some spectacles and optical goods because of the lack of competition and choice.
      However, choice exercised by the public should be informed choice. We have never denied that a qualified optician has certain skills and the benefit of certain training, which are not available to others. Therefore, a member of the public is entitled to know whether the person with whom he is dealing has those qualifications and training before he decides whether to pay extra—if there is any extra — for the services of a qualified optician rather than the services of his competitor round the corner.
      We must ensure that people use the title "optician" only where it is reasonable to allow them to do so and that it is not used by unqualified persons so that members of the public are not misled into believing that they are qualified. That has been the whole point of trying to get clause 3 right, and I believe that that is what we have eventually achieved.

      723
      Having been reasonable on that point, we have been reminded of one or two other undertakings that we certainly intend to honour so that we can ensure that the public are protected in other ways.
      The first relates to those who require the most powerful lenses and who have the most complicated prescriptions. Throughout the passage of the Bill, people, including the three hon. Members who have spoken today, have been concerned about the extra expense that might be imposed on some patients who need particularly powerful lenses. There has been a tendency on the part of some commentators to exaggerate the bill that might face such people.
      We are removing the general subsidy under the general optical service from everybody except children and those on low incomes who at present qualify for free glasses or reduced charges. However, the general subsidy which we are removing from the rest of the public is often exaggerated. The average subsidy for a pair of spectacles is only £5. The majority of patients get a subsidy of only £2 from the general optical service when they buy NHS glasses. Those with the most powerful lenses rarely, if ever, receive a subsidy of more than £30.
      For that reason, it is inconceivable that any individual could find that the increase in charges for a pair of glasses could exceed £30 above what he or she is paying at present for glasses. In fact, they will be rare and exceptional cases and I believe that the new competitive climate which the Bill introduces will so reduce the general price of spectacles that an increase of £30 is unlikely.
      Amazing figures were put forward to show how spectacle prices would rise. For example, it was suggested by some that glasses at present costing £30 would go up to perhaps £90; that was about the highest estimate I ever saw. People, especially pensioners, faced inflated fears as they listened to people campaigning on behalf of opticians, who said that in future glasses would cost a fortune.
      To protect against the risk that costs could escalate in that way—if we were proved wrong, which we might be; I am content to wait to see what happens in practice — we have decided that those who require the more powerful lenses, because they have the poorest sight, should continue to have access to the general optical service to obtain their spectacles at cost price to the NHS. We are proposing that that should be extended to all who at present get a subsidy of £15 or more on their glasses.
      Those people will be entitled to continue to get their glasses under the GOS for the foreseeable future. They will get them at whatever it costs the NHS—and we are talking about a tiny number of people. That is in line with what the Secretary of State first said on 20 December 1983, as reported in column 297 of Hansard of that date, and I put it in more explicit terms on Report. The point laboured by all three hon. Members who have spoken today is not on the face of the Bill. That is because it can, and will, be done by regulations under clause 28.
      Mr. Pavitt: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has concentrated his argument on those with low visual acuity and needing a very powerful correction of a lens. The far wider area embraces not necessarily those with low visual acuity but people who, because they have a differing form of sight, at both long and short distances, require not necessarily a powerful lens but a lens suitable to their
      724
      disability. Therefore, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman has covered one sector, he has not covered a far wider sector.
      Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has great expertise in these matters and will be aware that it is a simplification to talk about those with very poor sight needing the most powerful glasses. We are both talking about possible expense; that is the aspect which is worrying people. That is why the definitions which we shall use of patients who will be able to benefit from the protection that we are suggesting are patients who at present receive a subsidy of £15 or more.
      That means that, regardless of the exact visual disability which causes them to need more expensive glasses, so long as the difference between the charges that they pay at present and what their spectacles cost the NHS is £15 or more, they will continue to have access to the GOS and will go on being provided with spectacles and lenses at no more than the cost to the taxpayer of those spectacles.
      Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister qualify that point? Is he saying that those who already have glasses for which they pay £15 will be all right, or is he saying that people who, by some calculation made in the DHSS when they go for their glasses in future, would have been paid £15 will be all right? In other words, does the new measure include only people who have glasses now or will it include people who will need glasses in the future? Whatever the answer, will there be some provision for keeping up with the rate of inflation?
      4 pm
      Mr. Clarke: I am talking about the class of people who would, at the moment, be eligible for a subsidy of £15 or more. That includes people whose eyesight deteriorates, so that they become eligible for that in future. We shall make arrangements to enable people who at the moment receive glasses that require a subsidy of that level and those who require such a subsidy on glasses in future, to take advantage of our concession. By definition, that will take account of inflation and when we come to draw up the regulations, the hon. Gentleman will see that we are aiming to ensure that those who require the most expensive lenses will still be able to get them at cost under the general optical service if they so require.
      Mr. Kennedy: At the risk of playing devil's advocate, I point out that the Minister is not looking terribly convinced. Will he give one further clarification? He has said that this happy position will continue in the foreseeable future. What does he mean by that?
      Mr. Clarke: Eventually, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we hope to go over to a system of cash grants. We do not believe that the Government and the NHS should be in the spectacle business, offering a set range of frames and providing appliances. The problem is that the low income of some people means that they are unable to afford glasses when they wish. The state should provide the right sum of money so that those people have the benefit of choice, as everybody else does, and with the right money can get the spectacles of their preference. We propose to move over to such a cash grant system as soon as we reasonably can.
      For the time being, we shall keep the general optical service for children and those on low incomes and those

      725
      who, at the moment, get reduced charges. We propose, as a result of discussions on the Bill, to have this extra arrangement for those who, as things stand, will receive a subsidy of £15 or more. We are proposing that those people should have glasses, under the GOS, provided at the price that they cost the NHS, and we shall provide for that in the regulations.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) looks so perplexed. As, at the very last moment, he and his hon. Friends, and the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), will continue to chew away at this tiny point, about which they have affected to be so concerned, they will continue to have nitpicking answers until the details arrive, when the regulations that they are so eager to see are finally put before them.
      Mr. Dobson: As the Minister knows, the Secretary of State gave a wide promise on Second Reading that he would offer all sorts of protection to all sorts of people. Nobody would suffer, everybody would be better off—roughly speaking, that is the general drift of what the Secretary of State said. We pressed for detail on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. If we had had a long Third Reading debate, no doubt we would have pressed for detail then, and the other place also asked for detail. Now the Minister comes galloping up and talks about an everybody-in-excess-of-£15 scheme and expects us to swallow it as if we were some trout that wanted to be caught. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and I, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), are having to take on board a new announcement. Is the Minister saying that somebody who was paying £14.99 in the past will have to pay the full price but somebody who was paying £15.1p will get his spectacles for nothing? That sounds an odd proposal.
      Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is trying, at the last moment, to breathe life into some rather boring Lords' drafting amendments. He is getting carried away in his recollection of our previous debates. He says that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State promised the broadest possible protection for everybody. My right hon. Friend said:
      "In the vast majority of cases I cannot believe that that subsidy is justified."
      He was talking about the low level of average subsidy about which I was talking. He continued:
      "On the other hand, it has been argued that them are those with the very poorest sight who need complicated, more expensive lenses, and I am certainly prepared to consider the evidence on that to see whether they can have continued access to NHS glasses."—[Official Report, 20 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 297.]
      I am not announcing this measure this afternoon for the first time. I am repeating announcements that I have made in earlier debates. My recollection is that I said the same thing on Report.
      We decided that those who require the most expensive glasses will be protected by protecting those who receive a subsidy of more than £15—not those who pay £15, but those for whom the difference between what they pay and the cost to the NHS exceeds £15. Those are the people who need the most expensive glasses, and who will be offered some protection. The protection is that they will continue to have their glasses, if they wish, under the general optical service and we shall charge them the cost
      726
      to the taxpayer. They can have the glasses at cost. I have announced that before, and it appears to us to be adequate protection.
      My announcement does not answer all those fanciful fears that have been raised to alarm people about the Bill. People are told that the price of the more complicated glasses will go soaring into the stratosphere. Those alarmist claims greatly exaggerate the extent of the subsidy that is given now, and ignore the fact that, with more competition, prices will come down, not go up, despite the arguments of some of the lobbyists.
      Mr. Pavitt: There was not much comfort in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's threat of yet another means test. He is making an important point about regulations. Before they are finally drafted, will he have consultations with the National League of the Blind and Disabled and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf? Those bodies represent the people whom he is trying to protect. There are pertinent questions, to which those who are on the receiving end need to know the answers, about the judgments being exercised and the point on the scale at which it is decided that people need more powerful lenses, and therefore get a subsidy.
      Mr. Clarke: We shall have consultations before we introduce the regulations. I shall follow closely the hon. Gentleman's argument about the points that may be made on behalf of the registered blind and the registered deaf. I am sure that we shall produce regulations that live up to what I have described.
      I remind the House that on 2 May on Report, in columns 391–392, in exchanges with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and the hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) and for Preston (Mr. Thorne), I set out our thinking about providing glasses through the GOS for those who need the most expensive lenses. I said that that was how we would honour the undertaking given by my hon. Friend on Second Reading.
      I am glad that the amendment made in the other place on clause 3 is so readily accepted. I am sorry that hon Members find our commitment to the other things that we promised a little more difficult to follow, but it is there and it will emerge in due course in Me detail of the regulations
      The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) also raised a point about cataract patients and others who have had operations. He unfortunately has difficulties with his eyes and he will know that such people have to have: frequent changes of glasses. There is no danger of people facing enormous bills as a result of that, because the present arrangement in hospitals will continue unchanged by the Bill.
      Mr. Pavitt: The present arrangements are marvellous.
      Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman says how marvellous they are. That being so, I cannot understand why he thinks that, as a result of the passing of the Bill, which will make no difference to them they will suddenly become unsatisfactory.
      Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain what the present arrangements are; then I shall give him an opportunity to say what he thinks they ought to be. For anyone who has had, say, a cataract operation requiring frequent changes of glasses, it is possible sometimes for the hospital to lend glasses to the patient, who carries on

      727
      changing them until his eyes have settled down, and finally has the pair of glasses that he requires. But the more usual procedure is for the patient to pay for his first pair of glasses and then, as his eyes settle down, to get the next pair or pairs from the hospital free of charge. That is because the problem for such patients is their non-tolerance of the first glasses given to them. Either way, it is usually possible for a hospital to allow anyone who has had a cataract operation to have a pair of glasses and to pay for one pair only what he would expect to pay, like everyone else, under the general optical service. Those arrangements are not affected by the Bill.
      Had there been legitimate fears of the kind that the hon. Gentleman expresses, we would have met them. We have met all reasonable objections throughout the Bill where they could be sustained. All these matters are vaguely related to clause 3, but not too closely. I am glad that one matter about which we remain unanimous is the drafting of clause 3 as the other place has now changed it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 10 agreed to.

    Schedule 3

      FAMILY PRACTITIONER COMMITTEES
      Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 44, line 9, at end insert—
      "(3A) One member must be a person who—

      (a) is registered in the register of qualified nurses, midwives and health visitors—

      (i) as a nurse recorded in the register as having an additional qualification in district nursing;

      (ii) as a midwife; or

      (iii) as a health visitor; and

      (b) has recent experience of providing services to patients (other than patients resident in hospital) in any such capacity."

      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      We have been persuaded by their Lordships to put on the face of the Bill an undertaking given by the Government which always met with the approval of the Opposition in both Houses.
      It has been argued strongly ever since we proposed our new arrangements for the independent status of family practitioner committees that one of the members of a new committee should be a nurse with community experience.
      When we debated the Bill in this House, I kept giving undertakings on behalf of the Government that we would ensure that that was the case when we appointed the FPCs. I regret that, even in another place, there were unworthy suspicions that that undertaking might not be honoured —not by present Ministers but by our successors. In answer to that, someone succeeded in finding a way of putting the necessary provision on the face of the Bill. I do not recall that either House at any stage argued that there should not be a nurse with community experience included as a member of a family practitioner committee.
      I suggest that at this stage we congratulate the other place on getting it put into the Bill and that we agree with the amendment.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Dobson: As the Minister said, this amendment meets an undertaking given by the Government. It appears
      728
      that, following certain salutary events in the other place, the Government now take more notice of expressions of cynicism by their Lordships about the Government's good intentions than they do of similar expressions in this House. A good deal of cynicism was expressed about whether even present Ministers—and certainly future ones—would honour undertakings given in the House that did not appear on the face of the Bill. Now that those expressions of cynical amusement have apparently been expressed in the other place as well, the Government have decided that they had better still the discontent by accepting what other people have been proposing all along should be included in the primary legislation.
      We welcome the provision that each family practitioner committee will now include a nurse, a midwife or a health visitor who has some record of that type of work in the community. This may be my last opportunity to mention to the Minister my experience as a member of one of the formerly constituted family practitioner committees. Whenever we wanted to discuss any community nursing matter, the person who shuffled in was the gaffer of a group of nurses working in a hospital whose experience was not necessarily all that relevant to what we wanted to discuss.
      We congratulate the other place on pressing more effectively than we did for an amendment along these lines.
      Mr. Kennedy: The alliance welcome this amendment. However, when thanking their Lordships, we should not ignore the fact that it was not just the official Opposition who supported the change. My noble Friend Lord Kilmarnock was also extremely supportive of the idea that some kind of nursing representative should be a member of each FPC. I am sure that the Minister will be the first to acknowledge that.
      We have been through the arguments about whether the greater independence of FPCs will allay the fears of the National Association of Health Authorities, but it is a pity that the Government did not take advantage of the opportunity presented to them to dilute the powers of the Secretary of State to control the composition of FPCs. We on the alliance Bench would argue that they would have been well advised to inject an element of direct election into the composition of the committees, in much the same way as we would like to see it on health authorities generally. It is a pity that that element is lacking, but perhaps the Minister will take advantage of a future Bill to introduce a provision along those lines.
      Mr. Pavitt: I can understand the Minister's evident exasperation. On one of the few occasions when he is doing all the right things and we are praising him and thanking him, just like Oliver Twist we immediately ask for more. That is certainly true of this Lords amendment.
      It is right that district nurses, health visitors and nurses with community experience should serve on FPCs. Their presence has been lacking for a long time. The problem now is to deliver. The additional qualifications required will present a problem in the coming months. The Government have cut £2 million from the funds available for the education and training of nurses. One of the scandals affecting district nurses and health visitors is that nursing is probably the only profession where a state registered nurse wishing to acquire additional qualifications has to pay her own fees and then, when she has

      729
      passed her examinations and qualified, gets no additional increment. She is paid precisely the same as she was before.
      I am glad that the Government have seen the light and that the Lords have put this provision on the face of the Bill. However, the problem remains that, unless there is a change of policy about nursing education, in future the family practitioner committees will have a smaller and smaller pool of district nurses and health visitors on which to draw. They are very busy people. They do a full-time job. The additional responsibility of attending committee meetings will make further inroads on their time—for which they will get no additional remuneration.
      I apologise to the Minister, because he has been extremely good to me today. Even when he is being good, I twist his arm to look at the problems which arise when he comes to implement the good that he has done. It is no good having a provision on the statute book if, when it comes to implementing it in two or three years, people are not available for a number of reasons, one of the most important being the £2 million cut in nursing education.
      Mr Kenneth Clarke: It would be wise of me to resist being drawn into an argument about a new feature of our alleged cuts in the Health Service—a feature with which I am not instantly familar. We are trying to increase the emphasis on community nursing and community services in general throughout the NHS. That applies to the hospitals and to general practice. I am glad to say that there is a welcome and continuing increase in the number of nurses both being trained and engaged in community nursing. Without being drawn into a discussion of the hon. Gentleman's ideas about training problems, I can assure him that we will continue to give a high priority to increasing the quality of training in this field and the numbers of nurses who specialise in it.
      The hon. Gentleman has suggested that I must be feeling exasperated. That is not so. We have at last reached a stage in our discussion of the Bill when all four hon. Members who persist in discussing it—including myself —are in complete agreement about the amendments that have been made in another place and the policies which underlie them. Our proceedings will end on a happy note of unanimity.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 8

      REPEALS
      Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 63, line 38, leave out "paragraphs 1(a) and" and insert
      "paragraph 1(a) and (c) and in paragraph"
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment is technical. It adds to the schedule of repeals in the Bill a further reference to a child dependency addition which is made redundant because of its abolition by clause 13 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of schedule 5.
      The amendment repeals an entry—in paragraph 1(c) —relating to the child dependency addition to sickness benefit, in order to be consistent with the entry for unemployment benefit, in both cases for beneficiaries under pensionable age. The provisions of clause 13 and
      730
      schedule 5, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Bill have the effect —we discussed this point in Committee—of confining child dependency additions of sickness and unemployment benefit to beneficiaries who are over pensionable age.
      The amendment simply corrects an error. In making the necessary consequential amendment, sickness benefit was inadvertently omitted. We are now suggesting an amendment to tidy up the Bill. We want the schedule to be consistent with the basic purpose of the main provisions of the Bill.
      Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Is the effect of the amendment consistent with what is being done in the Bill with regard to such provisions? It is consistent in its mean-mindedness and in its disadvantageous result for poor families. The amendment completes the removal of child dependency addition from all the short-term benefits.
      Not only between both sides of the House but among many of those who comment on social security for the Government or some other body, it has always been common ground that it would be desirable over a period to subsume those additions into child benefit. However, the Minister will not, I am sure, deny that when that was agreed on all sides, the impression was created that subsuming such additions into the benefit meant adding them to the benefit in a way which preserved a similar level of income and resources for poor families.
      However, over the past few years the Government have significantly reduced the value of the additions, and can now therefore say that it is hardly worth while to retain them. They expect no one to notice or care when they remove them.
      That is particularly disgraceful because we have never made sufficient allowance in any of our social security calculations—whether connected with child dependency additions, child benefit or anything else — for the maintenance of children. The levels of such benefits and additions were set a long time ago after a study which was not remotely scientific or, indeed, justifiable. A calculation was made of how much it would cost to support a man in prison and then, without any separate study being undertaken, it was assumed that it would naturally cost less to support a woman. The support for a woman was therefore set an arbitrary percentage—I believe about 60 per cent.—of that for a man. The level of support for a child was equally arbitrarily assessed at a certain percentage of the level required for a woman.
      Anyone with experience of rearing children will know that they are not only frequently as costly to keep as adults but that, at some periods of their lives, they may cost even more. In the United States—conditions may be different there, but we may be heading in that direction—it has, recently been calculated that the cost of supporting a teenager amounts to 110 per cent. of the cost of supporting an adult. Yet, in dealing with the system which supports our poorest families, we persist in perpetuating the myth that such individuals cost less to support. That has never been the case.
      Furthermore, such families are facing particular difficulties at present. Apart from changes such as this, and apart from the general flaw which runs through the whole system of calculating benefit, the Government have taken steps to reduce the amount of help available to such families towards the cost of rearing their children. I am thinking, for instance, of single payments for clothing. It has now been ruled that no payment will be made where

      731
      the ground of the request is merely that the child has grown out of his coat or shoes. That change would be difficult to defend at any time, and it adds to the burden on the families who are now losing this extra addition.
      The level of the addition has now fallen to 15p, and that is the Government's justification for abolishing it. However, the Government's case is not helped by the fact that the rate of the addition was reduced between November 1980 and November 1983, at a time when child benefit itself was worth less than in 1979. It is clear that four or five years ago the Government had already discarded a principle on which, in theory, we are all agreed —that of subsuming these additions in child benefit and maintaining the value of the subsumed benefits.
      It was through a change in the method of calculation that the Government managed to reduce the value of the addition to 15p. Depending on the statistics which one accepts, the value of the addition under the old method of calculation would now have been either £1·70 or £1·85. The Child Poverty Action Group suggests that the figure is £1·70, and the statistics section of the Library gives it as £1·85—a slightly unusual situation.
      I can explain the reason for that decline in value. At an earlier stage, child benefit was added to the dependency addition, that total sum was increased by something like the percentage at which all benefits were increased, and then the new rate of child benefit was subtracted. The result was the new rate of dependency addition. On such a method of calculation, the figure would now have been £1·85 rather than 15p. For the families involved, that is a substantial sum. As the Minister has said, they are the families of the unemployed, living on short-term benefits, which are not set very high. Those benefits are calculated to support people for only a comparatively short period. For those individuals, £1·85 a week would make a substantial difference to their income.
      4.30 pm
      The Minister said in Committee that about £2 million is being saved in the social security budget by the proposal in the amendment. The abolition has been condemned by the Opposition and by the independent social security advisory committee which the Government set up, no doubt in the hope that it would give more favourable verdicts on their actions than they obtained from its predecessor. However, the committee said in 1981:
      "We support the Government's objective of including the short-term child dependency additions in child benefit but only in so far as the overall value of child support for people on contributory benefits is maintained in real terms. We consider that the method used by the Government for uprating the dependency additions does not achieve this … We are equally clear that the present method of achieving this is wrong. The objective is a sound one only if there is no loss of income in real terms of families dependent on contributory benefits."
      That could hardly be more condemnatory and it is instructive to note that, despite those firm commitments, the Government have nevertheless persisted in this unfair, unjust and morally wrong method of calculating benefits.
      Apart from the £2 million that the Government intend to save by this abolition, they saved £50 million a year between 1979 and 1981. It is wise to remember that, because the Government continually praise themselves for the changes that they have made, the increases that they have given and the improvements that they have achieved in bits of the benefit system, but they almost never add that
      732
      in almost every case, improvements have been paid for by another group among the poor or the slightly less poor. In no case has the money for improvements come from those who can best afford to pay it, and to whom the Government have given thousands of millions of pounds a year.
      It is particularly sad that the changes are being made, because poverty is on the increase. Some of the most recent figures available — for 1981 — show that 2·8 million people were living on an income below supplementary benefit level—a 25 per cent. rise since 1979. Within that group, the number who were unemployed had risen threefold in the previous two years, the number who were in that group because of disability had risen by 67 per cent. and the number of single parents in that category had risen by 55 per cent. The cumulative effect of the changes was that 2·8 million families were living below the supplementary benefit level, which is calculated to support people only at subsistence level. In other words, they were living at below subsistence level.
      In 1981, about 38 per cent. of those living below the poverty line were families with children; about 500,000 children were involved. The Government estimate that about 200,000 children will be affected by the saving in the amendment alone, although the Government told us in Committee that there will be little difference for those on supplementary benefit.
      We ought to take another look at the history of the additions. It is a bad and boring habit of Ministers when making comparisons to look back not to the record of the previous Conservative Government, but at the achievements of the last Labour Government. Let us look at the record of that Labour Government in this context.
      Before 1977, the Labour Government used the method of calculation that the present Government use. In that year, we faced a far worse economic crisis than this Government have yet managed to induce, and, unlike the present crisis, it was not of our making, but was caused by other people. Nevertheless, we decided that the existing method of calculation was insufficiently generous and that we were not giving enough help to poor families. Therefore, in 1977, we changed the method of calculating the additions and implemented the method which, if it were used today, would give an addition of £1·85 a week. One of the Conservative Government's first actions in 1979 was to reverse that beneficial change and to go back to the method of calculation that has left us with a child dependency addition of 15p a week.
      I remind the Minister of those facts to save him the trouble of searching for comparisons with the Labour Government and because the proposed change is typical of the Government's attitude to the welfare state. Step by step, they are trying to reverse all the beneficial changes made not only by the last Labour Goverment, but by Labour Governments over the decades. The amendment is technical and consistent, but the policy with which it is consistent is to be deplored.
      Mr. Newton: I shall resist the temptation to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about the cause of the economic difficulties experienced by this country in 1976 and 1977. However, if she really believes that the difficulties were generated outside this country rather than by the policies of the then Government, I hope that she never serves in a future Government, because if she does we shall soon have the

      733
      IMF on our tails again. The first to suffer, as they were the first to suffer in 1976, would be many of the social security beneficiaries whose benefits would have to be cut to meet the requirements laid on us. That happened in 1976 as a result of the profligacy of the policies of the Labour Government.
      Whatever else may be said about the hon. Lady's speech, she certainly showed astonishing ingenuity in stretching the remarks about a technical amendment so far. I understand the reasons for that and I am not criticising her. I am expressing genuine admiration at the fact that so many bricks can be made from so little straw, especially as the amendment does nothing more than tidy up a part of the Bill and does not make the change about which she spoke at such great length.
      More seriously, the hon. Lady dwelt at length on the 15p addition, which relates only to sickness benefit and not to unemployment benefit, which is not touched by the amendment, because it was effectively dealt with in the original drafting of the Bill. Therefore, her estimates of the number of children affected must be inflated.
      That 15p does not, of course, even go at present to most of those who are short-term sick. For most of them, sickness benefit has been replaced in the first eight weeks by statutory sick pay, and the question of the child dependency addition does not arise. Again, for those who are on sickness benefit for more than six months and who go on to invalidity benefit, the question does not arise because a higher child dependency addition continues in payment. On the uprating technique that the hon. Lady mentioned, the 15p would have disappeared last year rather than this year if we had had the power to abolish it then. In that sense, there has been a small and uncovenanted bonus for the beneficiaries concerned, in that that sum has been paid this year.
      Although the hon. Lady recognised what I said in Committee, most of her remarks about the amount needed to keep a child were literally irrelevant to the debate because they were directed at the supplementary benefit scale rates for children and not at the child dependency additions paid either with short-term or long-term national insurance benefits. Indeed, one of the justifications for removing this residual 15p child dependency addition is that at the margin it has enabled us to ensure that we can protect—and, over the past five or six years, more than protect — the children's scale rates on supplementary benefit. Where the total income of the head of household or of the family is below the level of supplementary benefit due to sickness or unemployment, that family will get not 15p but the children's scale rates on supplementary benefit. The 15p literally does not make any difference, because it will be taken of their supplementary benefit. Perhaps I should say rather that the ultimate payment of supplementary benefit would be a net calculation if the 15p continued to be paid.
      Thus, there should not be any misunderstanding. The poorest families, where the head of household is sick or unemployed, are not in any way affected by what the hon. Lady described as the proposal. Those on supplementary benefit are not at all touched by this claim. As the hon. Lady did not mention it, I should point out that the 1980 reform of the supplementary benefit system included a significant increase in the scale rates paid for many children. There was a real increase then, and it remains the case that the amount of benefit paid for significant groups of children on supplementary benefit is much higher, in
      734
      real terms, than when this Government came to power. That, indeed, was part of the trade-off for the change in single payments in relation to clothing. I believe that it was right to pay a higher level of basic benefit in respect of several age groups of children rather than to perpetuate a system under which, on a geographically very variable basis, some families received additional help for clothing rather than regular weekly payments of additional benefit, as are now made with the higher scale rates for some groups of children.
      Mr. Dobson rose——
      Mr. Newton: As the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) apparently attach some importance to single payments of supplementary benefit—whether for clothing or other purposes—I shall gently point out that if they had their way, and the short-term child dependency additions were maintained at the 15p level or at the higher level that the hon. Lady apparently wants, some families at the margin would be taken off supplementary benefit altogether. Their incomes would rise above the assessed level for supplementary benefit purposes, and they would cease to be entitled to single payments of supplementary benefit.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister still stand by the view that it is good that families can no longer receive contributions towards reclothing children who have simply grown out of their clothes? How does he square that with the Prime Minister's famous speech in the United States of America in which she said that she wanted a society in which all children could grow tall but some could grow taller than others? Apparently that did not apply to those who needed such benefits.
      Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are provisions in the supplementary benefit regulations for certain exceptional cases. But the general policy involved in the 1980 scheme of restricting some aspects—and it was only some—of the supplementary benefit single payment regulations in favour of an increase in the scale rates for two substantial age ranges of children was only sensible, is particularly since the way in which clothing single payments were paid varied very unfairly from one part of the country to another. It was notorious, for example, that in some parts of Scotland clothing payments were handed out very freely, while in other parts of the country they were much more difficult to obtain. Such differentiation in the treatment of payments is very difficult to defend. Thus the basic policy that we adopted in 1980 was sensible.
      Mrs. Beckett: The Minister is right to say that it was recognised that the previous system was unfair as between one area and another. But those who wanted to remedy the situation did not imagine that the best way of doing it was effectively to abolish the payments altogether. The hon. Gentleman is being slightly disingenuous when he says that there are still grounds for such payments to be made, since he knows perfectly well that the grounds are those of wholly exceptional wear and tear for some reason, such as health. Secondly, some grounds, such as the ground that children have grown out of their shoes, are specifically disallowed. The Minister may recall that I cited the example of a man who had had a health claim for such a payment on the ground of exceptional wear and tear. His

      735
      claim continued for several years, as he continued to have such a need, but eventually the DHSS officers ruled that, because it had existed for several years, his need was no longer exceptional for him. The Minister will probably agree that such a decision was a mistake, but it shows that the grounds are now more, and not less, difficult to establish.
      Mr. Newton: There is no doubt that grants for clothing and shoes are now much more difficult to obtain. I am not denying that. That was one of the purposes of the change made in 1980. However, I cleave to the view that it was sensible to increase the regular amount paid to two substantial age ranges of children—the main subject of the hon. Lady's remarks — thus giving their families greater weekly payments of benefit and making it that little bit easier—although I do not say easy —for them to budget for regular replacements. It was, indeed, more sensible to do that than to maintain a system under which the benefit rates for those groups of children were lower and under which their parents had to ask for a separate assessment by a DHSS office every time that they needed clothes or shoes. That was not a particularly attractive proposition administratively and, even more importantly, it was not very attractive to the families involved to have to face a special means-tested assessment and to have to show that they had less than a certain amount of capital every time they wanted to replace little Johnny's shoes. In the long run, we should try to move away from that approach as much as possible.
      Question put and agreed to.

  Iron and Steel
  4.48 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): I beg to move,
  That the draft British Steel Corporation (Borrowing Powers) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.
  The subject of this draft order is the statutory borrowing limit of the British Steel Corporation. This limit applies to all the corporation's borrowing, whether from the Government or from outside sources, as well as to payments of public dividend capital into the corporation.
  The principal statute governing the BSC—the Iron and Steel Act 1982—provides that the limit shall be in the range of £2,500 million to £4,500 million and may be varied by order subject to an affirmative resolution of this House. The present limit stands at £3,000 million. It was set at that level in December 1982 by the British Steel Corporation (Reduction of Capital) Order that completed the capital restructuring of BSC which was begun in 1981. The order raises that limit by £500 million to £3,500 million. The House will recognise that, as with all these orders, it is permissive and does not commit the Government to providing that amount of money. Future funding will be governed by the external financing limits and the money will be subject to the Vote of the House through the Estimates in the normal way.
  Hon. Members will recall that, when the present limit was set in December 1982, BSC's recovery from the steel strike of 1980 had also been hit by the introduction of protectionist measures in the United States. There had also been a sharp downturn in world markets for steel and, consequently, there had been a collapse of steel prices in Europe. Shortly after the House discussed the previous borrowing powers order at the end of 1982, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who was then Secretary of State for Industry, made a statement to the House on BSC's strategy in the light of those events. He reported that progress to break even would be slower than had been expected and that the EFLs that were set for 1982–83 and for 1983–84 were no longer achievable. In the same statement, my right hon. Friend announced the Government's decision that BSC should draw up its next corporate plan on the basis of steelmaking continuing at all five integrated sites, with the objective of breaking even in 1984–85.
  Although the corporation would be able to take management action to cut costs to maintain efficient operations and to move steadily towards the objective of viability, any closure of one of the five main integrated steelworks would have to be considered jointly with the Government. That remains the case. Following my right hon. Friend's statement, the EFL for 1982–83 was increased to £575 million and a new limit of £325 million was set for 1983–84. In the event, BSC's results for 1982–83 reflected the severe difficulties that I have described and the loss before exceptional items was £386 million—up £47 million on the previous year. I have described what happened in 1982–83 in some detail simply to remind the House where we have come from.
  I am pleased to say that BSC made substantial progress in 1983–84 in recovering from the setbacks that I have outlined. I should like to refer to some of the events that are described in detail in the BSC's report and accounts,

  737
  which were laid before Parliament earlier this month. One of the BSC's major objectives is to improve the cost structure of its businesses to bring them up to the best European standards. Since the end of 1982, productivity has risen steadily. The number of man hours needed to make one tonne of liquid steel fell to 7·1 in 1983–84, as compared with 9·3 in the previous year. In the quarter ended March 1984, BSC's production of crude steel rose to an annual rate of 271 tonnes per man year — 12 tonnes per man year better than in Germany and 46 tonnes per man year better than in France.
  During 1983, performance records were broken at many BSC works. For example, weekly production records for continuous casting were achieved during September and October at Scunthorpe and Stocksbridge, and in August the Port Talbot slab caster recorded the highest United Kingdom weekly output for a single concast machine. There have been some considerable improvements and achievements. Overall production of liquid steel totalled 13·4 million tonnes—an increase of 1·7 million tonnes on the previous year. Energy usage per tonne of steel fell and the proportion of steel produced by the continuous casting process increased from 38 per cent. to 46 per cent.
  Of course, improvements in manufacturing performance cannot be and are not the whole story. It is also necessary to increase the market share. During 1983–84, BSC maintained its share of a growing home market and increased its exports by 16 per cent. against an increase in the world market of only 3 per cent. I know that BSC has made considerable progress on customer satisfaction in terms of delivery and quality. Some hon. Members will recall the director of the National Association of Steel Stockholders paying tribute to the improved quality of BSC's products when he appeared before the Select Committee.
  In financial terms, BSC's loss, excluding exceptional items, fell in 1983–84 to £174 million as compared with £383 million in the previous year. The external financing requirement fell from £569 million to £318 million. The number of employees fell during the year by 10,000. That is a lot but I must stress that it was the smallest reduction for several years and that, of those 10,000, about 2,000 were transferred to new companies that were set up or disposed of as part of the privatisation policy. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that, taken as a whole, 1983–84 was a year of achievement for the BSC. I pay tribute to the chairman, the board, the management and, of course, the work force on their efforts to achieve these satisfactory results.
  It would be wrong, however, to suggest that the results were achieved without problems, or without problems having to be overcome. The performance for the year conceals a contrast between the two halves of the year in terms of operating conditions. In the first half, there was a strong trading position and the BSC was ahead of forecasts in most respects. However, in the summer and autumn of 1983, prices became much weaker throughout Europe and trading conditions in the second half of the year were much more difficult. For that reason, action was taken by the European Community at the end of last year to restore market stability through a reinforcement of the anti-crisis measures. That helped to stabilise matters in the early part of 1984. I think that most people agree that that has resulted in price improvements in the current financial year. The anti-crisis measures, which include stricter
  738
  output quotas, minimum prices for certain products and monitoring of intra-Community trade flows, are designed to provide a breathing space to facilitate the restructuring of the industry and to enable state aids for steel to be phased out by the end of 1985 — a Community requirement.
  The Government have always been a firm supporter of those measures and our industry has been in the forefront in implementing the painful but necessary restructuring. It is pleasing that there is now evidence that other countries are matching our efforts. Commissioner Andriessen announced in May that he expects capacity reductions in the Community to reach about 30 million tonnes between 1980 and 1985.
  In those circumstances, it is all the more important that the BSC should be able to compete effectively in Europe and the world and that the position reached through the commitment of funds in the past and the tremendous restructuring which has taken place should not be thrown away.
  In view of the achievements of the BSC work force, it seems to me all the sadder and all the more perverse that the competitive position which has been reached should be threatened by the miners' strike. The attempts which have been made to prevent the steel industry from carrying on its business risk, as everyone must know, the permanent loss of markets which would endanger the future of the whole industry. It cannot be right to say that the BSC can survive the interruption of steel production. Everyone must know that foreign companies will snap up the market at the first opportunity. There is no need to dwell any longer on that aspect. The steel workers who have experienced a painful but necessary contraction of their industry have by their actions recognised the realities.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I do not wish to anticipate difficulties in the steel industry, but does the Minister accept that, early in the miners' dispute, an agreement was made between those who work in the steel and the coal industries to ensure that Scunthorpe received the amount of coal that it needed and that men from pits in my constituency loaded and sent that coal? Does not hindsight suggest that it would have been better for the same approach to be adopted with coke? Is it not the case that, had adequate warning of the need for coke been given, the scenes at Orgreave would not have occurred?
  Mr. Lamont: That is not a fair representation. It would not be right for this debate to turn into a great debate on the miners' dispute. I shall not pursue the hon. Gentleman down that road.
  It is normal in debates on nationalised industries' borrowing powers to outline the planning over the period covered by the new powers. At present, however, planning is impeded by the uncertainty of the strike. The existing borrowing limit of £3 billion has been in place for about 18 months, which is very much as was expected when the previous order was debated at the end of 1982. At the end of March 1984, BSC's actual and potential borrowings against the limit stood at £2,866 million. The order seeks an increase to £3,500 million. We have set a target for the corporation of breaking even before interest in 1984–85 and an EFL for this year of £273 million. In the period after that, the BSC will seek to achieve enduring profitability and freedom from state aids from 1986 onwards, as required by the EEC. The corporation's assessment is that

  739
  the business will require external financing during 1985–86 of a similiar magnitude to 1984–85. Other things being equal, therefore, we might expect the new powers to last for about two years from now.
  The planning process has, however, been interrupted by the strike. The BSC chairman stated in his recent report that the corporation had come close to breaking even, before interest, at the beginning of the current financial year. We must hope that the impact of the miners' strike will not be too adverse on the corporation. Undoubtedly, that strike has had an effect, although these are early days and it is too early to say precisely what that effect is likely to be.
  Mr. James Hamilton: Does the Minister recollect that yesterday, on "The World at One", the Secretary of State for Energy stated that, despite the miners' strike, there had been an increase in steel production?
  Mr. Lamont: It is true that overall steel production has stayed at remarkably high levels, and getting coal, coke and ore supplies through is a tremendous achievement. Production is down at some plants, but it has risen at others. The remarkable achievement has not been made without considerable effort. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that point, but it is no thanks to his hon. Friends that that production level has been achieved. I was thinking that it was perhaps not a good thing to turn this debate into a discussion on the miners' strike—that is still my inclination—but I am willing to do so, if the hon. Gentleman wishes it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Despite what the Minister is willing to do, the Chair will ensure that hon. Members keep to the subject of the debate.
  Mr. Lamont: I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that relevance is a far better route to pursue. I am bound, however, to make the point that we cannot debate the finances of BSC without observing that the miners' strike could have a serious effect on the corporation's finances, its markets and the future of individual plants.
  Decisions on the BSC's planning will need to wait until the position becomes clearer. It is already obvious that, under any foreseeable circumstances, the cash needs during the current year and the next financial year will require the commitment of the great bulk of sums provided for in this order. The House will, of course, be kept informed as external financing limits are set for each year.
  We have made it clear that we wish the corporation's activities to be returned to the private sector. I should like to comment on the rather synthetic expressions of surprise made by some hon. Members when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made it clear in answer to a recent parliamentary question that our aim is that BSC should earn profits and pay dividends on its capital and should eventually be returned to the private sector. It cannot be any surprise to the House to note that that is the Government's objective. We have consistently made it clear that we see no reason why the Government should be involved in steel production through ownership of the major part of the industry, and we see no reason for this industry to continue to depend on funding from the taxpayer.
  740
  Priority must necessarily be given to the reduction of losses, not just to reduce the burden on the taxpayer but because viability and profitability are essential if private sector finance is to be attracted and industry is thus to have a long-term future. However, the Government and the corporation have both taken the view that, while striving to turn around the corporation's overall performance, immediate attention should be given, first, to privatisation in the area where BSC's activities are in direct competition with the private sector and, secondly, to those activities that are not part of the corporation's mainstream business. We are, however, still some way from the point at which bulk steelmaking can be privatised. The timing of the elimination of subsidies depends on developments in the market, the successful continuation of the anti-crisis measures in Europe and continued improvements in BSC's performance. In the so-called "overlap- area, we have been concerned that the conditions of competition between the public and private sectors should be, and be seen to be, completely fair. For that reason, we have sought where possible to achieve the outright sale of the BSC's activities or, where that is not immediately possible — for example, because of a need for large-scale rationalisation — to set up Phoenix-type joint ventures as a halfway stage. In 1983–84 a number of joint ventures of that kind were set up, including two mergers between BSC and Tube Investments for seamless tubes. Those disposals have already helped to reduce the proportion of the corporation's activities in the overlap area.
  Since 1980, the total book value of assets disposed of is £274 million, which is 13 per cent. of the total book value of BSC's assets in 1980. Land and property sales have realised about £61 million. Twelve companies have been set up, some of which have subsequently been privatised. They include the so-called Phoenix II joint venture in engineering steels which would halve the remaining overlap area. I know that certain hon. Members are interested in this point—proposals have been put to the Government on this venture and negotiations are taking place.
  Mr. Stan Crowther: I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the proposals in the order take account of the Phoenix II proposals. Is the proposed new limit of £3,500 million based on an assumption that British Steel's special steels group will have been privatised during the period covered by the order? Clearly that factor must affect the borrowing requirement.
  Mr. Lamont: The corporation is not the only source of finance for Phoenix II, but it might be a contributor to a joint venture. Part of that is provided for in the extension of the borrowing limit, but it depends upon precisely when the investment takes place because, as I have said, we expect the limit to last for some two years. It includes some contribution towards a Phoenix II venture.
  Mr. Crowther: The Minister is not answering the question. If the Phoenix II proposals have not gone through during the period intended to be covered by the order, any investment in the special steels group must be covered by BSC's own borrowing powers. If, however, special steels have been privatised by then, future investment will be covered from outside BSC's borrowing powers. I am anxious to know which assumption has been made in arriving at this figure.
  Mr. Lamont: The borrowing power is consistent with both assumptions. There could be a contribution from BSC towards a proposed joint venture, and there could be investment by BSC in its own engineering steels business. Either way, that would be consistent with the powers being taken under the order.
  The hon. Gentleman will realise that it is open to us to decide when we must come back to the House for more money. Under the terms of the order, we expect that there will be a contribution towards Phoenix II. It is not open to me now to say precisely what we expect that will be or when it will be made. In addition to Phoenix II, there are several orders——
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Before the Minister leaves Phoenix II, can he say a further word about the proposals to which he referred? He will be aware that the annual report which he has mentioned contains a statement that a detailed joint plan covering Phoenix II has been submitted to the Government. The Minister will be aware that some of my hon. Friends and I discussed Phoenix II across the Floor of the House with him as long ago as 1982. The talks that gave rise to the proposals which are now in the Government's hands have been going on for four years. Can he say what has gone badly wrong?
  Mr. Lamont: A detailed proposition has been put to the Government only recently. There have been many discussions about possible propositions and different combinations of plants, but we now have a specific proposal and a specific request. We are now looking at them. I am sorry that it is not a satisfactory position for the House. We want to reach a decision on that as quickly as possible. I well understand the anxiety that the matter causes in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We shall attempt to deal with it as quickly as possible.
  Several other disposals or joint ventures are in prospect. There are two sides to privatisation. It also requires a commitment from the private sector—steel or non-steel —to strengthen its involvement in the industry. BSC's assets will be sold only at a realistic assessment of their value to a viable business.
  Where immediate disposal is not in view, we are encouraging the corporation to set up further limited liability companies. We have stressed that these must be genuinely at arm's length from the corporation. That will improve the transparency of its separate businesses and be a first stage towards privatisation. That is a point that the private sector has put to me, again and again, as one to which it attaches importance, because it demonstrates transparency and fairness of competition.
  Government assistance to the corporation has been massive over a number of years. We look forward to the time when such support will no longer be necessary. The management and the work force have contributed wholeheartedly to the return of the business to viability. The order will enable further funds to be provided to enable the process to continue over the next two years. The immediate future is, as I have said, regrettably unclear because of factors to which I have referred. However, the House will be kept informed as decisions are taken and the provision of finance to BSC will be subject to the normal controls. I commend the order to the House.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: The order is essentially about the corporation's borrowing powers
  742
  under the Iron and Steel Act 1982. The Opposition welcome and support the proposal to increase those borrowing powers from £3,000 million to £3,500 million.
  I was glad to hear from the Minister of the progress that has been made by the corporation in recent years. He gave splendid figures of its overall output and efficiency with regard to the tonnage produced compared with the number of people now employed. The corporation is now, of course, slimmed down.
  There was one worrying aspect of the Minister's speech. I am talking, of course, about the Minister's reference to the Government's privatisation proposals. They will create a new scare and further uneasiness throughout the corporation. We must remember that it was originally taken into public ownership to provide the essential investment in the steel industry that had been denied it for many years by its former private owners. His remarks will cause bitter resentment throughout the industry. They might herald a new period of instability and uncertainty, which could do untold harm to its future.
  Those of us who have been interested in the industry for a long time believe that an efficient steel industry is vital for an industrial nation such as Great Britain. We cannot afford to rely upon imported supplies of steel. We believe that a sizeable and efficient steel industry is vital for this country's defence. It could be justified on that ground alone. Without an independent steel industry we would be at the mercy of overseas suppliers with all that that can mean for pricing policies and delivery dates.
  Our steel industry's production capacity has been cut to the bone. I have put forward that view in the House many times. I have spoken in most of the steel debates over the years. I have a constituency interest in that the integrated plant of Llanwern and other smaller works are in my constituency. When we debate the corporation's borrowing powers and this proposal to increase them, I can ask the Minister, with a twinkle in my eye, whether he would please bear in mind Llanwern and its proposal for a new concast plant. I believe that its record of output and overall efficiency in recent years justifies such an investment.
  The Minister has said that we are in the midst of a serious mining dispute. I am aware that that has posed many problems for the steel Industry. In some ways, it is disrupting the industry. The longer the dispute goes on, the more serious the situation becomes. For many reasons, the sooner the mining dispute is concluded the better. The politics of confrontation should cease. What we require now is statesmanship, because there would seem to be little between the two sides.
  In recent weeks and months there have been proposals concerning the European Coal and Steel Community. Can the Minister say, in relation to recent agreements, what will be the future position of the United Kingdom steel industry? What is happening about new investment? I am sure that many of my hon. Friends representing steel constituencies throughout the country are anxious about the future of their plants, believing that we need new investment in them to keep up with new technology, and to retain our competitive position in the markets of the world.
  Recently, there has been comment in the media about the quota system. Can the Minister tell us how the BSC will fare under the new system? Some of us recall what happened when there was a mass attack on our own domestic steel industry. We recall that while our industry

  743
  was being cut to ribbons, with all the social problems involved, Italy was increasing its overall productive capacity.
  As I said earlier, I speak with a certain local —indeed, a Welsh — interest. Unfortunately, Wales has always had a record as an area of high unemployment. Since 1977 it has lost no fewer than 40,000 steel jobs. I vividly recall what happened at Shotton, at Ebbw Vale, at Llanwern, at East Moors and at Port Talbot. Thousands of jobs were lost, causing problems for many families and many communities. Many of my colleagues could tell a similar story from their own areas, particularly in Scotland and in the north of England.
  I repeat that our steel industry has been cut to the bone. We need our five integrated steel plants. From time to time, the media refer to the alleged rivalry between Ravenscraig and Llanwern. I say clearly and unequivocally that it is non-existent; there is no such rivalry. We need all five plants. I believe that one day, perhaps even under this Government, we shall have a measure of economic expansion — a so-called upturn in the economy. In that sense, I support the order.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Richard Hickmet: The present position in my constituency reflects to a certain extent what has happened to the steel industry in recent years. In the good days we were making a great deal of steel in Scunthorpe, with three major steelworks employing about 26,000 men. Today, we have one major integrated plant there, employing 6,800 men. Nevertheless, prior to the coal miners' strike, the Scunthorpe steelworks was achieving new production records. The weekly production was 61,000 tonnes at its height. That is in a context of overcapacity in steel production, not only in the United Kingdom or in Europe but in the United States and on a world wide basis. Europe is awash with steel. The BSC exports about £700 million worth of steel—roughly 30 per cent. of its product.
  The position in which the BSC finds itself as a result of the coal mining dispute is, to say the least, serious. Prior to the dispute, the BSC had managed to sustain three price rises. The market had borne those three price rises since about January. Our market share at home was increasing by about 4 per cent. per annum, although I am bound to point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that that is not on the capital side. When production increases on the capital side BSC's position will become that much stronger. Nevertheless, production in the home market was increasing by about 4 per cent., and the BSC had become one of the most competitive, if not the most competitive, steel producers in Europe.
  My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the figures. In the United Kingdom, tonnes per man-year in the year ending March 1984 were 271, compared with 176 in 1982. That was higher than the figures for West Germany and France— a remarkable turn-round. The quality of the product that the BSC is producing is infinitely superior to what has been produced in recent years. In addition, the BSC has become more reliable in its production targeting and in meeting its orders.
  The present position is, of course, serious, because the BSC has, in effect, stopped exporting the amount of steel that it was exporting prior to the coal strike. I do not know
  744
  what the present figures are. The Minister has not given them and I do not think there has been any public announcement about them, although there is some speculation.
  The coal miners' strike must be causing losses to the BSC. I do not know what they are running at. In some journals, the losses are said to be virtally nil; in others they are said to be about £5 million per week. I do not wish to turn the debate on the order into a debate on the coal mining dispute, but I do not think that we can look at the financing of the BSC without taking that dispute into account. If the NUM's policy was successful, and production ceased at Ravenscraig and Scunthorpe, our market share would be lost substantially in Europe and in the United Kingdom.
  The lesson of the 1980 strike was that, however hard we try to prevent imports, it cannot be done. BSC has been driving out imported steel and has recaptured more of the market. We have more of the home market than do any of the major European steel producers. The loss of the European markets and the home markets would be a double tragedy for BSC.
  The attempt by the leadership of the NUM to put the steel industry out of business has been pursued with unacceptable vigour. I hope that the dispute will be ended speedily. Nevertheless, it is essential that supplies of coal, coke and iron ore continue to enter the steelworks in sufficient quantities to maintain their production. I hope that the Minister will assure us that that will be so.
  I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. Future state aid to BSC depends upon the Commission's approval of the BSC's new corporate plan, which will produce viability by the end of 1985. Can the Minister tell us what the corporate plan provides—I believe that he has had the plan on his desk for some time — and whether the need to bring capacity and demand into balance will ensure that our five major integrated plants can be retained?
  Can the Minister tell us whether the quota arrangements and agreements for capacity restrictions are being observed by the Italians, the Germans and the French? There was clear reluctance by the Governments of Italy, Germany and France to come up with the requisite capacity reductions. Have they realised that they cannot continue to fund the massive losses in their steel industries? Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient is being done to ensure that those countries are observing the Commission's directives on capacity reductions?
  The Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) was a member, made several recommendations in its report that have implications for BSC's funding. Recommendation 3 is that
  "now is not the time to close a strip mill".
  Can the Minister enlarge upon that?
  The strategy of rationalisation, or cutbacks, in European steel-producing capacity has gone hand in hand with social policy. Member states do all that they can to ensure new investment in steel closure areas. I should remind the Minister that the Government are considering the regional aid map. I ask him to bear in mind the special position of steel closure areas in this country.
  It is apparent that BSC — its work force and management and the trade union—have turned round BSC from an appalling loss-maker to a position in which it approaches its target of viability. However, viability is

  745
  not enough. If adequate capital investment is to take place there must be profitability. BSC has turned into one of the most productive steel makers in Europe. All those concerned should be congratulated on their effort.
  It is vital that the attempt by the NUM leadership to bring the steel industry to a halt should be defeated. If it were successful, the consequences for the 71,000 men working for BSC would be more hazardous in many ways than for those who are presently engaged in the coal mining industry. Steel would be affected by rationalisation in the mining industry. I should like, therefore, to support the order.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Stan Crowther: I was most surprised that Conservative Members brought the coal industry dispute into the debate. If the Government had pursued expansionist economic policies in the past five years, not only would the steel industry be far more productive, but we should be using every tonne of coal that we could get. Arguments about pit closures would be largely academic. Because of the Government's contraction of the economy, we have a dispute in the coal industry. Therefore, I was surprised that the hon. Gentlemen brought the dispute into our debate.
  The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) referred to the sad story of the reduction in the work force at Scunthorpe. That merely reflects what has happened throughout the steel industry. It is, I agree, a very sad story. Nothing is more tragic than the way in which our steel industry has been run down in recent years. It is heart-breaking to pass through the area between Rotherham and Sheffield, and to see works that have closed and are derelict. Once, it was the most intensive centre of operations in steel making and heavy engineering in the whole of Europe, but the industry has been moving in that direction for some years, under the Government's leadership.
  I thought that the Minister was getting a little mixed up after he kindly allowed me to interrupt his speech to ask him whether the Phoenix II proposals were taken into account in fixing the £3·5 billion in the order. The fact is that that is affected by whether privatisation has taken place. A long time ago, when the then Secretary of State for Industry, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), invited several hon. Members to discuss what became known as the Phoenix II scheme—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) was there — the right hon. Gentleman explained that that scheme had to be put outside the public sector so that its borrowing would not be reflected in the public sector borrowing requirement. If the Phoenix II proposal goes ahead and the special steels group of British Steel Corporation is passed into the private sector, any borrowing by that company from then on will not be within the £3·5 billion limit proposed in the order. Therefore, that matter is relevant and any further borrowings will be in the private sector, not the public sector. I wanted to make that point clear.
  When the chairman, Mr. Haslam, gave evidence to the Select Committee on 18 January, he said:
  "At present we have a number of these projects in hand".
  By "these projects", he meant the Phoenix schemes. He stated further:
  "Our EFL for the coming year, which is £275 million, will not cover all the larger ventures in hand. In our discussions with
  746
  government on our EFL we naturally recognised for example that if we go ahead with Phoenix II, which is a joint company with GKN, then an additional contribution from government would be necessary."
  I think that the chairman got it wrong too, if what the former Secretary of State said was right. It is true that more Government money will be necessary. It may be Industry Act money, but it will not be under the BSC borrowing powers.
  I am extremely worried—as worried as everyone in the industry is — about what is happening about the Phoenix II proposals. I should remind the House what Phoenix II now entails compared with more than four years ago, when it was first considered. At that time it was intended to merge the BSC special steels group with several private sector plants, including Duport's works in south Wales and the west midlands, the Round Oak works in the west midlands, Hadfield's in Sheffield and the GKN Brymbo works in north Wales. However, because of the terrible events in the steel industry—so much has closed down—only GKN Brymbo is left in the private sector to be merged with the BSC special steels group.
  According to written answers that I have received, about 82 per cent. of the productive capacity of the proposed new private sector company will come from the public sector. Less than 20 per cent. will be provided by GKN, yet BSC will not be permitted to own more than 50 per cent. of the shares in the new company. Therefore, the taxpayers' assets will be handed over to a private sector company and our representatives, in the form of BSC, the only public corporation involved, will have no more—probably less—than half the shares in the company. That is a serious matter for the taxpayer. It cannot be in taxpayers' interests to pass over to the private sector what is potentially the most profitable part of the whole of BSC' s operation.
  It is remarkable that, when the Minister of State gave evidence to the Select Committee on 8 February, he omitted to mention that proposals jointly agreed by BSC and GKN on Phoenix II had arrived in his Department on 19 December. He was extensively questioned on the matter, but at no stage did he tell the Committee, "We have received proposals from the two organisations involved." In fact, far from saying that he had received the proposals, he went out of his way to imply that the Department had not received them. I asked him whether there was an estimate of the new company's productive capacity and whether any capacity closures would be involved. The Minister said that his Department did not have an estimate. I asked him how much Government money would be put into the new private sector company, and he said:
  "no proposition for the money has been put forward."
  It was only as a result of written answers and correspondence from the Under-Secretary that I discovered that all that information and all those proposals had been in the Minister of State's Department since 19 December, including proposals for further reductions in capacity which, according to the Under-Secretary, are commercially confidential and including proposals for more Government money, although no precise figure was yet put on it. I do not intend to pursue that point further in the Chamber because it might be pursued elsewhere. I am rather disturbed that the Minister of State felt it proper to try to keep that information from the Select Committee

  747
  when we were carrying out an inquiry into the future of BSC. No doubt he had good reasons, but I cannot understand what they are.
  If the company is established under the Phoenix II project, it will have a monopoly within the United Kingdom in the production of a wide range of engineering steels. The Select Committee has expressed grave concern on that matter. We said that many customers will not be happy about having only one source for their steel. People might be driven to going overseas and importing steel because they do not want to be tied to a single supplier in the United Kingdom. To their credit, the Government are looking into that issue. I look forward to seeing the results of their inquiry. The result of my inquiries is that many existing customers of the special steels industry, both in the public sector and private sector, are unhappy about the idea of having only a single source in the United Kingdom.
  Another effect on customers should be taken seriously into account. Several people have expressed concern to me about it. GKN is the other partner with BSC in the venture. That is what creates the problem. GKN is not only a steel maker but a steel user. It has massive engineering interests. Some of its competitors in engineering suspect that GKN, having established itself as a major partner in a new company holding a monopoly in the production of these steels, will be able to use its influence to provide for itself an advantage in prices that will not be available to its competitors in the engineering world that have to go to the same company to buy their steel. The Minister of State should be concerned about that matter. After all, we have been assured time after time that competition is one of the important features of the Government's policy. They believe in competition to provide efficiency in industry, and so on. In this case, they are about to destroy competition, apparently greatly to the disadvantage of many private sector engineering companies.
  The Select Committee refers to the effect of Phoenix II on the taxpayer in paragraph 35 of its report, which expresses concern about the hiving off of a potentially valuable and profitable part of BSC:
  "We are concerned that such an approach will lead to privatisation of the more profitable parts of BSC only to leave a loss-making rump in the public sector."
  The Minister of State must deal with that point when he winds up the debate. If it is Government policy to privatise those parts of any public corporation that can make a profit —for instance, the Jaguar cars part of BL, perhaps the warship-building operations of British Shipbuilders and certainly the special steels section of BSC—how can it be for the benefit of the taxpayer to be left with the non-profitable parts of the industries concerned? The Government must give a full explanation of how it can possibly be in the national or public interest to take away the parts of publicly owned industry most likely to bring a return on the money that taxpayers have invested. As taxpayers, we are entitled to expect a return on our capital. If the operation involved is hived off to the private sector as soon as such a return becomes available, how can the taxpayer get something back for what he has put into those industries?
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: In return for the profit-making asset, the taxpayer receives a capital sum which reflects the potential future profitability of that asset. The loss-making parts of the undertaking remain in
  748
  the public sector in any case. The capital sum received by the taxpayer can then be invested in other areas such as the National Health Service, Government bonds, the Post Office or building societies to yield a rate of return.
  Mr. Crowther: With respect, if the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything. The history of privatisation by the Government shows that, on the contrary, valuable public assets have been sold off at bargain basement prices.
  Mr. Hawkins: That is a different point.
  Mr. Crowther: It strikes me as being very much the same point. Moreover, with Phoenix II it is not even a question of selling but of giving away. It has been made clear both in the chairman's evidence to the Select Committee and somewhat grudgingly in parliamentary answers to me that the taxpayer will be giving the so-called purchaser extra money to take away potentially the most profitable section of the industry. That is utterly unacceptable. It is not as though the Government are asking the City, as they sometimes do, how much they can get for the asset. On the contrary, they go along to GKN — the only company left since Duport, Tube Investments and Hadfield's have been knocked out—and ask what it is prepared to pay.
  At least, that seems to be the intention if we are to believe the words of the then Secretary of State—there have been quite a number of them—at the last general election. In a letter to the British Independent Steel Producers Association, the then Secretary of State said that the intention was to see what the private sector could afford. Apparently, it is no longer a matter of what things are worth but merely of what the private sector can afford. When there is only one potential buyer, that is scarcely a reasonable way to determine the true market value.
  In my view, there is no doubt at all that the taxpayer is to be sold down the river completely. There is also a great danger to the private sector engineering companies which will have to buy their steel from a United Kingdom monopoly in which one of their competitors holds a substantial part of the equity. These questions are causing great concern. I hope that the Minister can produce some good answers today.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: I have had the privilege of attending every steel debate in the House since 1979, but this is the first in which there has been a note of such considerable optimism. I no longer represent a steelworks as my constituency now ends about a mile from the great Appleby Frodingham steelworks, which I had the privilege to represent from 1979 to 1983, but times have certainly changed since the dark days of 1979 and 1980 when the Opposition, week after week, led by the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow spokesman, called from crowded Benches for debates about the steel industry. Where is the Leader of the Opposition now? Where is the Shadow spokesman? Where are all the Opposition Members? They are not here because they no longer need to worry about the steel industry.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: Perhaps I may first develop the point.

  749
  I make no criticism of Opposition Members for not being present today because there is no need for them to be here. The steel industry no longer faces the crisis that it faced in 1979 and 1980. In those days, the Opposition were right constantly to demand debates, to participate in those debates and to argue about the kind of steel industry that we should have in the future. It was a testing time for me, too, because I had to decide on my own stance, bearing in mind not only my constituency interest but my loyalty to my party.
  Mr. Ewing: I am anxious that the hon. Gentleman should not continue much longer without apologising for drawing attention, in his usual unfair way, to the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) as soon as my right hon. Friend had left the Chamber. As my right hon. Friend had been present throughout the earlier part of the debate, the hon. Gentleman should have the courtesy to withdraw his remark. Moreover, before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away by his own enthusiasm, he should remember that we have plenty of crises to deal with—the economic crisis and the crisis in the coal industry, to mention but two. We are never short of a crisis or two with the present Government in power. Whether it be in the steel industry, the coal industry or elsewhere, there will always be a crisis so long as they remain in power.
  Mr. Brown: I shall ignore the hon. Gentleman's last comment, but I certainly withdraw any unfairness that my remarks may have implied. They were certainly not intended in that vein. I went on to make it clear that there was no need to worry about the steel industry. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there are probably more important matters now requiring attention. I certainly intended no criticism, but if any was implied I certainly withdraw it. We have come a long way since 1979 and 1980.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) made a significant statement in his comprehensive speech when he said that the taxpayer had a right to a return on his investment. For one moment I thought that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), the former Secretary of State, speaking. Any of my hon. Friends could have said that. How right the hon. Member for Rotherham was. That is what this Government have tried to ensure for five years. From 1979 the Government's intention has been to say as loudly and as clearly as the hon. Member for Rotherham that the taxpayer has a right to a return on his investment. At one time nearly £1 billion a year was being lost in the steel industry.
  Mr. Crowther: If that is so, why does the hon. Gentleman support giving away public assets just when they are about to give the taxpayer a return on investment?
  Mr. Brown: The taxpayer can be saved the sums that he used to have to spend to keep going an industry which was inefficient and producing steel for the wrong customers, or for customers who were not there. He can be saved the £869 million that he had to spend in 1982–83 and throughout the mid and late-1970s. Is it not right that the taxpayer should now receive a return on his investment because people are able to invest voluntarily in the steel industry?
  I want to contrast what happens today with what happened in 1979–80. It is important and puts in context
  750
  the achievement by the Minister of State and his colleagues in the order. I recall the massive sums that had to be voted through to sustain the steel industry in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, that is not all that this Government are about. They have ensured that the industry can survive and thrive. It is not enough to come to the House every year, or every two years, with a borrowing powers order. It is not enough to announce each year the external financing limits, although tremendous achievements are involved in that.
  According to this year's report, the external financing limit is £3 million below the limit of £321 million set last year. That represents the smallest subsidy for nine years for the steel industry. My hon. Friend the Minister acknowledged that 10,000 people went out of the industry in the last year, but that was the lowest number for many years.
  We now have a steel industry capable of surviving and competing against the most difficult competition from Japan and Germany. According to this year's annual report, output is up to 271 tonnes per man-year, compared with 259 tonnes per man-year in Germany and 225 tonnes per man-year in France.
  Criticism was heaped upon me, Mr. MacGregor and my right hon. Friend when in 1980–81 a decision was made that had a tremendous impact on the constituency now represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet). I was challenged by the Opposition to go into the Opposition Lobby to save the Normandy park steelworks and oppose the redundancies involved. I decided that my duty was to support the policies upon which I had been elected to a steel constituency. Today I can say that I never regretted going into the Lobby wholeheartedly in support of the policies that the Government set for the steel industry. Today, tomorrow and in the future my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will represent a steel constituency. If we had not taken those decisions in 1980–81, my hon. Friend would represent not a steel constituency, but an industrial desert.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe for the way that he has represented that constituency. Like me, my hon. Friend recognises that it is important to tell steel workers the truth and to vote in support of one's own Government when one knows that that will benefit the steel industry in the long term. Steel workers will then vote Conservative. My hon. Friend's presence here today is testimony to that.
  Mr. Crowther: Does the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) recall that when Mr. MacGregor, as part of his corporate plan, proposed to close down Normandy park he appeared on television with me and strenuously defended the decision to close the works on the ground that it would guarantee the future safety of the rest of the steel industry in Scunthorpe? How many jobs were lost in Scunthorpe after the hon. Gentleman approved the closure of Normandy park?
  Mr. Brown: I shall answer the question with pleasure. I recall the interview. It was in line with the speech that I made to the House in November 1980 when the decision to close Normandy park was announced. The capacity of Scunthorpe today as a result of the decision to close Normandy park is higher than expected. Of course. some jobs have been lost subsequent to that decision. I do not

  751
  know the exact figure, but relatively few were lost. It was always made clear by the Government, by Mr. MacGregor and by myself that the closure of Normandy park of itself did not mean that we would give up the battle to become efficient. It did not mean that we would give up the battle to achieve 271 tonnes per man-year output. Nowadays we have to look further than job losses. The 271 tonnes per man-year is the important statistic which will guarantee future jobs in the steel industry.
  Mr. Hickmet: What happened in Scunthorpe and elsewhere was simply the precursor to what is happening now in the rest of Europe. Since 1979 the Government have succeeded in putting the British Steel Corporation in the most competitive position that it has been in for many years. The Italians are reducing capacity by 6 million tonnes, Belgium by 5 million tonnes, France is planning to make a quarter of its steel workers redundant and Germany is examining the prospect of taking out 10 million tonnes of capacity.
  Mr. Brown: I agree with those statistics. They clearly show that our steel industry has already taken decisions which are now being taken by the rest of Europe.
  Perhaps I have been provocative, but I shall now try to find a common cause with the hon. Member for Rotherham, a distinguished member of the Select Committee which produced an excellent report on the future of the steel industry. The Select Committee took the view that there was no room for further capacity cuts, and I agree with that. Because of the policies instituted by this Government four or five years ago, which were carried out with such effectiveness by Mr. MacGregor and supported by the work force in the steel communities, there is now the possibility that the market for the United Kingdom output of steel can be sustained by five integrated steelworks. I commend that section of the Select Committee's report to my hon. Friends. However, we must constantly underline the need for competitiveness and that supply and demand should, as far as possible, be in line. On the basis of the industry's output, its costs and its profits, I think that we can justify the retention of five integrated steelworks.
  The figures in last year's annual report, recently produced by the British Steel Corporation, show that the Select Committee's optimism is justified. In 1983–84, the industry's exports had risen by 15 per cent. to the highest figure for five years. The role that British Steel has found for itself in the export market shows that there is room for the optimism in the report. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rotherham and his colleagues for producing such a fine report.
  I pay tribute also to my hon. Friends at the Department of Trade and Industry, the British Steel Corporation, the work force and, above all, to Mr. Bill Sirs, the general secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation. Mr. Sirs is a distinguished trade union leader and his words during the past few weeks have been little different from the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East when he was Secretary of State, the words of his successors, and the words of Mr. MacGregor two or three years ago.
  I recall the laughter in the Chamber when, time after time, the only message that my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State and Mr. MacGregor could offer to the
  752
  work force was that we must retain our markets and supply our customers with the products they wanted at prices they could afford. During the past few months, Mr. Sirs has said nothing more nor less than that. He has shown great courage. Of course, we all want a unified trade union movement. I do not think that any Conservative Member derives any pleasure from seeing trade union leader fight trade union leader. That is not healthy for industrial democracy or good will—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) laughs. I am making a serious point. I hope that he derives no pleasure from the fact that Bill Sirs has had to write the sort of article that was printed in the national newspapers last week. I do not derive pleasure from that, and nor do my hon. Friends. We do not derive any pleasure from seeing the triple alliance—
  Mr. Crowther: The hon. Gentleman should speak for himself.
  Mr. Brown: Of course I speak for myself, but I cannot believe that I am not speaking for the whole House in saying that we derive no pleasure from seeing Bill Sirs fighting the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers. Surely the Opposition would agree with me on that—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, who has dropped into the Chamber for a few moments, will take—
  Mr. John Prescott: Rubbish.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman may call what I have said rubbish, but I hope that he is not calling what Mr. Bill Sirs has said rubbish. Now that the Humber bridge is built, some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents may work in Scunthorpe. He should remember that the words of Mr Sirs are those of a wise trade unionist who, when time and occasion demanded, was willing to take industrial action on behalf of his members. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises what he is saying. He should read the articles in the national press written by Mr Sirs who, not only on behalf of the steel workers but on behalf of manufacturing industry as a whole, has stood up against one man.
  The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) referred to the coal mining dispute and said that there was little standing in the way of a negotiated settlement. He may be right. Only one person stands in the way of a negotiated settlement, and that is Mr. Arthur Scargill. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. While it is in order to discuss the coal mining dispute in relation to the steel industry, I hope that hon. Members will not be led into a discussion about the dispute itself.
  Mr. Brown: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was incited to go down a road that I recognise was out of order.
  It is important to recognise that, with the justified optimism in the Select Committee report and the excellent policies that have led to the creation of one of the best steel industries in the world, only Mr. Scargill's coal dispute stands in the way of ultimate success for steel workers in general and for the steel industry in particular.
  Six coal mines in south Yorkshire —11 throughout Britain — supply the Scunthorpe steelworks in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. I hope that all will recognise the

  753
  importance of the steel industry to the coal mining industry. I hope that all will recognise the words of Mr. Bill Sirs. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will give Mr. Sirs the same support as he has given to the leader of the NUM. Bill Sirs is a distinguished trade unionist and we can all learn many lessons from what he has had to say on behalf of the steel industry.
  Mr. Crowther: I am listening with great interest and approval to the words in praise of Mr. Sirs. But did the hon. Gentleman support Mr. Sirs in 1980? Did he support him while he was opposing closures in the iron and steel industry? Why, suddenly, has Mr. Sirs become a great man? The hon. Gentleman should have supported him before.
  Mr. Brown: I think that Mr. Sirs would be the first to admit that he and his union learnt the hard way. They learnt that the strike in December, January, February and March of 1979–80 led to the loss of jobs.
  I think I hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East saying, "We won". I presume he means that, in his view, the steel workers won. In fact, they lost as a result of that strike. Bill Sirs has made it clear that an industrial dispute of the kind which was prosecuted by his union in 1979–80 and the dispute now being prosecuted by the coal miners will in the long run result in fewer jobs in the steel industry, and, ultimately, less opportunity in the coal industry.
  I congratulate all concerned on what they have achieved in the steel industry, including the Government, the British Steel Corporation, the workforce and its union leader. Only one man stands between solving the miners' dispute and between success and failure in the steel industry.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The vitriol which, no doubt, Conservative Members have been, advised to use in this debate was personified in the speech of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I, too, recall the steel strike of 1980. I remember seeing Mr. Bill Sirs on television with tears in his eyes, but I do not recollect him being supported by Conservative Members.
  It is a matter of pride for me, as we address ourselves to the problems of the steel industry, that some of the foremost supporters of the miners in their present dispute in Lanarkshire are people employed in the steel industry —an industry which, despite the tone of the Minister's speech and the remarks of Conservative Members, still feels insecure.
  The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes said that he had attended every steel debate in the House for the last five years. I do not want to split hairs, but I suggest that he was wrong. I have been in the House for two years and in that time have initiated two Adjournment debates—[Interruption.]—on the future of the steel industry in Scotland. That may be a laughing matter for Conservative Members; their sense of humour is as repugnant as their economic policies.
  In those debates, I presented what I thought was a reasonable case for the future of Ravenscraig and Gartcosh. When replying to those debates, the Minister did not give the assurances to which we were entitled. For example, he did not give the sort of assurances which the figures in the order now before the House suggest that he should have given.
  754
  Is it not time that the Government stopped taunting Ravenscraig? In view of the success of the steel industry which Conservative Members have drawn to our attention, is it not time that we stopped speculating about the future of any one of the five major plants, and in particular told Ravenscraig that it has made such great strides forward that it has a sure future?
  I say that because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) knows, in my constituency is the Gartcosh plant. The future of that plant is not only important to the future of the steel industry generally but is of great importance to the future of Ravenscraig. In other words, if there are worries about Ravenscraig, there are bound to be fears about Gartcosh. My area once boasted proudly of its coal and steel industries. Today, we do not have one pit, following the closure of Cardowan last year. Should anything happen to Gartcosh, we will not have one steel job in my constituency.
  Time and again we are told by Conservative Members —the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes made a big point of it — that this is an argument solely concerned with markets. In the constituency which I formerly represented, which is now represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), we had the Imperial tube works. I regret to see that the Minister is leaving the Chamber because he had a major part to play at that time. Perhaps he is not leaving but is simply seeking assistance from his civil servants. I am surprised that he must seek assistance so soon. I have only begun to make the major points that I wish to put to him.
  We were told at that time by Mr. Ian MacGregor that 300 jobs at the Imperial works could not be saved, and he was supported in that statement by various Ministers. We were told that there was no need for those jobs because the markets did not exist to support them. Previously, however, we had been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, because of activity in the Northorth sea, there would be prosperity in the tube industry. Mr. MacGregor, supported by Ministers, did not share that view, and those jobs went.
  Shortly after those 300 men at Imperial were made redundant—at high cost to the taxpayer and, no doubt, to the EEC—150 new people were recruited within the following two or three months. Since Mr. MacGregor, supported by Ministers, assured us then that those jobs had to go because there were no markets, yet markets suddenly materialised shortly afterwards, have we any reason to believe that Mr. MacGregor is right today in what he says about the mining industry?
  An event in recent times which I welcome has been the departure of Mr. MacGregor from the steel industry. He created almost as much havoc there as the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes—I was recently in Asia—created in Hong Kong. Now, Mr. MacGregor has taken his havoc with him to the coal industry.
  Having referred to recent successes in the steel industry, the Minister might at least have expressed public appreciation of the efforts of the workers in that industry, for the main achievement belongs to them. Despite the lack of confidence that they felt — and although Ministers would not give assurances about the future of steel plants that are still with us—the workers went on to produce the outstanding results that we see today.
  To be fair to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, he reminded us that, in the last quarter of

  755
  1983–84, BSC's steel output rose to 271 tonnes per man —year compared with 259 tonnes in Germany and 225 in France. That is a great tribute to BSC workers. I am proud of the workers in my constituency, but the Minister is knocking the heart out of them by producing again the hoary old story of privatisation. The men did not achieve those productivity levels so as to see their industry privatised. They have competed successfully with other countries, the steel industries of which are subsidised to the hilt. For example, France has not given any assurance that by the end of 1985 it will accept the same EEC view of subsidies as has been imposed on, and accepted by, Ministers for the British industry. The employees and their families in the British steel industry are entitled to a greater assurance about the future.
  There is a relationship between the future of the coal industry and that of the steel industry. The Labour party has been arguing the point about this infrastructure for many years. We have argued that if, for example, Ravenscraig were closed, that would reflect not only on the coal industry but on the small service industries, and the large public corporations such as electricity and gas, which would suffer. The job losses on paper would be far exceeded by the job losses in reality. The closure of Ravenscraig would be a grave blow for Lanarkshire.
  In the light of the achievements of the steel workers and the modest successes that we are seeing, if the Government were prepared to get out of the hair of British Steel, allow it to compete in markets and capture them, and protect it from competition with other countries that are subsidising their steel industries to the hilt, the British steel industry would have a future. In spite of the borrowing figures that the House is considering, unless the Minister's reply is an improvement on his opening speech, I, for one, will not have much confidence. Bill Sirs has rightly led the opposition to the Government's policies, and still does, and he can expect and accept the same reaction from Labour Members.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: At the beginning of the debate I raised with the Minister the joint venture project known at Phoenix II, through the medium of which the Government propose to merge BSC special steels and Guest, Keen and Nettlefold, although originally a greater range of companies was rumoured to be involved. I did so because, as the Minister knows, I have a profound constituency interest in this matter. The Minister can confirm that, over the past three or four years, I have repeatedly pressed him for information about either the state of discussions or, more recently, what proposals were available. Most recently, I pressed him on when the Government could be expected to come to a decision. He will know that my concern arises from the widespread fear in my constituency that the Tinsley park works in the east end of Sheffield, which may be a party to any Phoenix that takes off, may be at risk.
  I can understand why the Minister has not been able to be more forthcoming. Notably, he has been worried about commercial confidentiality. However, he must know that recently the feeling is that it is not just commercial confidentiality that is holding up the Government's statement, but that something—as I hinted earlier—has gone wrong. As he must know, because his office will be
  756
  reading the reports in the press, it is believed that the Government are having second thoughts, or are even backing out.
  The Minister must know that even the BSC executive Bob Scholey has recently voiced warnings about the difficulties that will attend future joint ventures. He has said:
  "Unless the market circumstances, demand and prices are such that you can launch the thing so that it can really and truly stand on its own feet, you are not being responsible."
  No doubt Bob Scholey, when he was putting that warning on record, had in mind the experience of another joint venture, known as Phoenix III, in which my constituency was also involved. It gave rise to Sheffield Forgemasters.
  The Minister will be aware to the lessons of that joint venture, born of the merger of Firth Brown and BSC River Don. It must be in the mind not only of the Minister but of all those planning future denationalisation projects. Sheffield Forgemasters lost £18 million in the first year and more in the second. Mr. Scholey continued:
  "The problems worrying the private and public sector steel managers planning denationalisation projects have been exhibited in Forgemasters. You set off with all good intentions, market prospects and the prospects of prices rising, and that never happens."
  The Minister will be familiar with these views of Mr. Scholey. I wonder whether they are not now weighing in his judgment and that of his advisers.
  It is not merely the finding of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that will be weighing with the Minister, but the experience of his office in other joint venture projects. The statement following the publication of the Select Committee report by its Chairman, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), a friend of the Minister, that it would create a private sector monopoly in engineering steels has also to be borne in mind. The Committee Chairman said in a newspaper article:
  "a loss-making rump, which would result from Government privatisation policy, would not be in the interests of the steel industry, customers or the taxpayer."
  There is another warning for the Minister. Such warnings have come from men who are basing them either on experience of the industry or on the findings of a Select Committee that has the respect of the House.
  Another consideration that will weigh with hon. Members as well as with the Minister is the recent change in merger policy and the increased emphasis on competition policy. Might that have an effect on the merger between BSC special steels and GKN, if it were to come about? A year ago, I raised with the Director General of Fair Trading the possibility of such a merger, if Phoenix II were to get off the ground, and suggested that this would not be in the public interest. He did not then take that view but I wonder whether he might now take such a view. What is the point of the recent change of merger policy if it was intended only to give an increased emphasis to competition policy?
  We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) about the concern that he and his colleagues on both sides of the House who served on the Select Committee feel about sourcing policies. The Minister will know that that is a real danger, given the possible emergence of Phoenix II. It must have an effect on imports. It is a consideration in the minds not only of Members of Parliament and of the Minister but of people in the industry. They do not like to be confined to a single

  757
  source, but nor do they want to be driven to going overseas. However, there are some of them who will take what for them is that very unpalatable step.
  There is the further consideration of cost. What will be the cost to the public purse? Although the Minister cannot be drawn on this, he must know that it is a very real factor. What is to be the reaction of the Treasury? The Treasury will not feel happy, never mind right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, about such a lopsided and inequitable arrangement as will be any merger between BSC special steels and GKN, where 50 per cent. and no more of the stake will be held by BSC special steels although it is well known that it will be providing far in excess of 50 per cent. of the asset value..
  The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) thought that this "was a return to taxpayers on their investment from which they would feel some satisfaction." If I have quoted the hon. Gentleman wrongly, I shall take the first opportunity to withdraw, but I think that I understood what he was getting at. I hope that he will see that a merger such as is now intended and which I have very fairly described cannot really be in the interest of taxpayers, certainly not to begin with. Given the example of Sheffield Forgemasters, it may not be in the interests of British taxpayers for a very long time to come. It might not be in the interests of taxpayers at all given the change in the market position in recent months..
  BSC special steels is in a different position now from the position that it was in a few months ago. I shall not stray into any reference to the present industrial crisis, but BSC special steels has kept clear of recent industrial disruption. It is blessed with electric arc furnaces, but it is producing and it is selling.
  I shall be paying my customary annual visit during the recess to BSC locally in the east end of Sheffield and in south Yorkshire, and I am sure that I shall hear the same kind of optimistic results there as we have heard from other hon. Members on both sides of the House. If there are grounds for this optimism in special steels, again why are we going ahead?
  I come finally to the feeling in my own constituency, and I hope that I shall be forgiven if I dwell a little on that. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that jobs are uppermost in the minds of my constituents. In recent years my constituency has been devastated. There is scarcely any industry left in what was once the most industrial constituency probably in the world. If there was a more industrially concentrated constituency, I was not aware of it. Today anyone driving up the M1 and leaving it at Tinsley viaduct and then driving along Attercliffe common the two miles into the centre of Sheffield will look almost in vain to right and to left for any industry. All that he will see is acres of clearance.
  However, I still have Tinsley park. I do not have Hadfields any longer, which was party to this development about a year ago. That has already gone. But Tinsley park remains, though it is only fair to say that those who work there are as anxious that Tinsley park should survive as I am, not only because of the jobs involved, which must be a prime factor in the minds of everyone, but also because of their pride in it. The plant has a proven track record of efficiency.
  I am wondering just how much that plant has suffered during the past four years because of these discussions
  758
  about its future and then because of the delay in coming up with proposals and the further delay in the Department in arriving at a decision about those proposals.
  I wonder how much Tinsley park has suffered in investment terms. It has been denied investment. It does not have continuous casting. That is what puts it at risk. Might it not have had it at any time over the past four years? This is a new plant. It is modern. It is a plant in which we all take pride. Hon. Members may be wondering why I am speculating in this way. I am only echoing the fears of my constituents, and they are genuine.
  In terms of investment, modernisation and its claims to survive, Tinsley park might not have suffered because of the protracted length of discussions about the possible shape of a Phoenix II, whereas inevitably during the past four years it has cast a shadow over that work force, and men are angry about it.
  Other BSC workers in south Yorkshire whose jobs are not under immediate threat fear that pension rights and other long-established conditions of employment may be changed for the worse should they find themselves working in the new Phoenix company outside BSC. In south Yorkshire workers dread that Phoenix II will mean the end of their works and their jobs. Other workers only a few miles away in plants which feel secure are also in dread of the fundamental change in working conditions resulting from a Phoenix joint venture..
  Mr. Hardy: Recently there has been a degree of anxiety which is relevant to the point that my hon. Friend is making. Those people who have left the steel industry and engaged in courses supposedly funded by the EEC have been able to receive their wages from BSC during the courses while they wait for the EEC decision about the renewal of the grant of those funds. Other workers who entered the same courses and who were employed by the private sector of steel have not enjoyed the same facility. That has not created a particularly helpful climate in the industry in south Yorkshire.
  Mr. Duffy: My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to him. Both he and I are concerned to make the best possible case for our own local industry, and I hope that the House will not think that I have failed in that.
  I understand the Minister's position. However, I hope that he will understand my position and that of my hon. Friend in trying fairly to represent our constituents and to convey to him their anxieties in asking on their behalf when the Government will come to a decision. If it is delayed further, will the cut-off date of the end of 1985 because of EEC requirements affect such a joint development? Will the Minister ensure that the public interest is also safeguarded? I hope that he will not allow his anxiety to further the cause of privatisation to lead to what might be seen in south Yorkshire as an unforgivable betrayal of an industry into which so much dedicated effort and public money has been invested. I hope, too, that he will avoid any charge of selling it off at give-away prices to private buyers..
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Richard Holt: I apologise to both Front Bench speakers for not being present at the beginning of the debate. In fact, I had not intended to intervene in it, being comparatively new to the steel industry, but, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg

  759
  and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), I am possibly less charitable in pointing out that the hon. Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) has not seen fit to be present today. Although the Redcar steelworks is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the satellite element of Skinningrove and Carlin How falls within my constituency.
  The debate so far has made no mention of Redcar, and it is perhaps the example sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to explain why many Opposition Members have chosen not to be present. I refer, of course, to the immense success of the Redcar steelworks. I recently spent a day going round the works. The men there were very proud of their achievements of the past few years. I am not as familiar with the statistics as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, but the men were justly proud to tell me that in the past four years the number of man hours required to produce a ton of steel had been reduced by two thirds, from 13 to 4·4 hours. At the same time, the earnings of workers there are now higher than ever.
  The men are happy in the knowledge that their industry in Redcar and in the satellite that I represent is secure far into the future. That was not so five years ago. The uncertainty has been removed. The plant will now fail to succeed only if the market contracts. However, new markets have recently been obtained, and some expansion is in prospect. There has been investment in the plant. The new coke oven is on stream. There are 7,100 workers at the plant as opposed to 15,000 previously, but they are producing more than 100 per cent. of the capacity produced by the 15,000 workers.
  It was distressing to learn from the accountants that if it were not for the burden of the rates imposed by Langbaurgh council the plant would be even more competitive and would be able to employ more people. We are all concerned to ensure that people have work. It is worrying that so many jobs are lost because local council, are irresponsible in spending other people's money. The steelworks is the only major industry in Redcar. If steelmaking declined further because of the impost of the rates, the effect not only on steel workers in the area but on other workers too would be highly detrimental.
  Redcar is a shining example of the success of the past few years. I was struck to learn from the management that no new managers had been brought in from outside the industry by Mr. MacGregor. Mr. MacGregor came to the industry and gave it leadership. He found out what was wrong and put it right, and the works is now in the hands of people who have been there all the time. They have a pride in what they are doing, and in their industry.
  However, it would be unwise for the Government not to continue to invest in this part of the public sector. We must bear in mind the difference between the north of England and the south where jobs are concerned. I urge Ministers to visit the Redcar area. I urge as many people as possible to go there to see how important it is for the steel industry to be maintained and for the investment which the Government are directing into the industry—albeit into the public sector—to be continued until such time as the whole steel industry can be made private for the benefit of us all.
  What the industry needs now is an opportunity to settle down after the repercussions of the events of the past five years. After that short, sharp, clinical exercise, the
  760
  industry requires a period of recuperation. The industry is not helped by the antics of the coal mining dispute. The steel workers of Redcar have no sympathy for the miners, who are seeking to destroy all that they have achieved in the past five years.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I must apologise to the Minister for having missed the first two lines of his speech. However, as I have heard every other speech that the Minister has made on this industry, I expect that I know the first two lines by heart.
  I was saddened by the terms and tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). It is a pity when an hon. Member enters the Chamber halfway through a debate and then complains about the absence of another hon. Member. I speak personally, not as an Opposition spokesman, but I have always thought it childish, petty and dangerous for hon. Members to complain about the absence of others without first checking on the reasons for their absence. I have never become involved in such tactics. There is no more assiduous attender in the Chamber than my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn), and it was a pity that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh spoilt a reasonably good speech by that silly point. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) properly withdrew his own comment in that regard. I hope that the comment will not rebound to the discredit of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh during some future debate when he may have good cause not to be here.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) has requested to know the position in relation to Phoenix II, involving BSC and GKN in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe has attended one steel debate after another and raised that single point with great consistency. He wants to know the position of the Phoenix II project.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) made the point that, to his knowledge, the proposals had been with the Minister since 19 December last year. The House is now about to rise for the summer recess, but the Government have still not reached a decision on this important project which will have an important effect on the Tinsley works in my hon. Friend's constituency. I hope that the Minister of State, in his usual helpful manner, will be able to tell my hon. Friend and his constituents something about this matter. The project should have been cleared by this time. Delays in reaching a decision lead to suspicion. The Minister of State may say that there is no cause for concern, but when a project has been in the Minister's hands for over seven months the Minister will understand the concern, if not the suspicion, so constantly expressed by my hon. Friend.
  The debate has been wide-ranging, yet within the bounds of order. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes made an enthusiastic speech.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Ewing: I hear the hon. Gentleman expressing his confidence. The hon. Gentleman says that he was confident in 1979. He says that he was confident about the steel workers in 1980 and in 1981. However, he was not confident in 1983. He did not stay to fight his constituency. He ran away.
  Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman ran away to the seaside and left the steel workers to his hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet).
  Mr. Brown: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the name of my constituency?
  Mr. Ewing: It is Brigg and Cleethorpes.
  Mr. Brown: What was the name of my old constituency?
  Mr. Ewing: It was Brigg and Scunthorpe.
  Mr. Brown: How is it possible for one Member to represent a constituency that has been cut into two halves?
  Mr. Ewing: I have obviously touched a raw nerve. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes does not relish this appearing in his local newspaper, though his hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe relishes that prospect. I think that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes chose wisely, especially when I look at the size of the parliamentary majorities. I do not think that his confidence that his hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will represent steel workers for a long time will prove justified at the next election.
  I do not intend to dwell on what the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes said, because, even by his standards, it was fairly low-grade—barely sixth-form—stuff. However, he justified his support for the Government's proposals between 1979 and 1982, but it was significant that he did not mention that, as a result of that support, whole areas of the country were decimated. Perhaps his area was not as badly affected as others, but there were some effects there. The works at Consett were closed and 7,000 jobs were lost.Steel treatment continues at Ebbw Vale and Shotton, but steel production was stopped. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that the proposals that he supported devasted whole areas of steel production.
  The Minister of State, in his honest moments, will admit that every time the EEC has laid down diktats that we must accept restrictions on our steel output, the Government have accepted the new quotas.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has been hectoring about personal behaviours—and I do not disagree with him — but before he talks about running away from seats, he ought to realise that my previous constituency, which had an electorate of nearly 110,000, was cut in half. How can one hon. Member stand for two constituencies? Scunthorpe now has two Conservative voices, whereas previously it had only one. The second voice is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet), who is here because of my decision.
  I fully recognise that, in voting as I did in 1979–80, I was voting for redundancies. Between 7,000 and 8,000 people in my previous constituency were made redundant and there were a number of redundancies in my present constituency. However, I said at the time that I voted as I did because the Government's proposals held out the best prospect for a steel industry in the future — in Scunthorpe and elsewhere.
  Mr. Ewing: I do not want to continue the debate about which half of the constituency the hon. Gentleman chose to fight. However, I am a good lip reader and it looked to me as if the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe was saying that his hon. Friend should have taken the other half.
  Mr. Hickmet: May I inject a serious note into this amusing farce? The hon. Gentleman said that my sojourn in the House would be a short one. However, steel workers have been waiting for the Labour party to condemn the attempt of Mr. Arthur Scargill to make them redundant at Llanwern, Ravenscraig and Scunthorpe. The hon. Gentleman says that those workers will not vote Conservative at the next election, but I can tell him that there is no prospect of their voting Socialist, because that means supporting the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), which means supporting Arthur Scargill, which means closing steel plants.
  Mr. Ewing: I apologise to the House for giving way. If the hon. Gentleman had been present at a recent Trade and Industry Question Time, he would have heard me set out the Opposition's policy. The steel industry is as important to the miners as the mining industry is to the steel workers. That is the position on which the Labour party has stood since the dispute began.
  I return to the point that I was making about EEC quotas. We want an absolute assurance that the Government will not accept any more reductions in the steel quotas for our industry. I think that the Minister of State will admit that one of the problems over the years, particularly in the past five or six years, is that the EEC crisis measures—when the BSC annual report refers to crisis measures, it is referring to the EEC steel quotas—have always affected our steel industry more than the industries of other member states.
  We have always had to bear the heavy end of reductions in steel output and, therefore, reductions in the number of people working in the industry. It is a sobering thought that since 1974 the number of people working in our steel industry, private and public, has fallen from 200,000 to 71,000.
  I do not say that the reduction is directly attributable to Government policies or to Mr. MacGregor's activities, with which I disagree. The main cause has been the crisis measures adopted by the EEC. They have fallen much more heavily on our industry than on Germany, Belgium and France. One reason why France and Germany are being asked to cut back is that they have had it easy over the past six or seven years, but there is no doubt that the proposed cutbacks on production in Germany and France will be nowhere near as severe as the cuts that were made here. We want an assurance from the Minister that he will not accept any more reductions in quotas.
  The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe mentioned pricing. The history of pricing in the steel industry is interesting. In 1983, there was a collapse in the market. One contributory factor was the collapse in the value of the pound against the deutschmark. It was only at the beginning of 1984 that steel prices began to pick up. Only then did the market begin to recover its buoyancy.
  Conservative Members will argue that one reason for the difficulties confronting the steel industry is the dispute in the coal industry. I have made the Opposition's view clear, but the Government must now make up their mind. The Secretary of State for Energy came into the Chamber a few minutes ago, but left quickly, because he did not want to embarrass the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Energy was on Brian Walden's programme. I shall not misquote or take him out of context, but he said that the

  763
  coal dispute was having no effect. When the Minister was challenged on that, he admitted that production has been maintained at a remarkably high level.
  Mr. Hickmet rose——
  Mr. Ewing: I shall not give way, because I know that the hon. Gentleman is determined to stir up trouble between steel workers and coal miners, and I do not want to give him that opportunity.
  Mr. Hickmet rose——
  Mr. Ewing: I shall not give way. I am trying to introduce some sense into the debate. The Minister will have to make up his mind who is right. Either the Department of Trade and Industry, which claims that the dispute in the coal industry is having a dramatic effect——
  Mr. Hickmet: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman should not pay attention to the PPS.
  Mr. Hickmet: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman made an accusation against me and my motives for the stance that I have taken throughout this dispute for the past 20 weeks. He said that I was determined to stir up trouble between the coal miners and the steel workers. Am I right in thinking that he is obliged, by convention, to give way and to give me an opportunity to answer that accusation?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): It is for whoever has the Floor to decide whether to give way.
  Mr. Ewing: The Minister must make up his mind whether the Department of Trade and Industry is correct in saying that the coal mining dispute is having a fairly serious effect on the steel industry, or whether the Department of Energy and the Secretary of State for Energy are correct in saying that it is not having any effect. That is what the Secretary of State for Energy said on Brian Walden's programme. It does not do one Minister any good to go on protesting that a dispute is having an effect on another industry and for another Minister to claim that it is having no effect. That just adds to the confusion. The Minister should say which of those views is right. Is it that of the Department of Trade and Industry or that of the Secretary of State for Energy? One thing is certain, and that is that they cannot both be right.
  I turn to another aspect of the viability of the steel industry that has so far not been raised, although it is specifically mentioned in the BSC's annual report, to which the Minister referred—the price of scrap steel. There is a paragraph in the annual report—I think on page 8 — that mentions, in particular, the difficulties being created for the BSC. Although we are not debating the iron castings industry, that industry is also affected. However, the BSC makes it clear that over the period covered by the report the price of scrap steel has increased by 50 per cent. I think that that figure has been overtaken by events. My information is that the price of scrap steel has increased by about 120 per cent. in the past year, due to the substantial export of what is, to the steel casting industry, a basic raw material. Recently, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asking him to
  764
  impose the export quotas that are within the Government's power. I think that it was the Minister who replied, saying that he could not see any case for imposing the export quotas.
  Yet, in the BSC's annual report, the chairman specifically mentions that the corporation is looking, with some encouragement, to the directive being discussed by the EEC, with a view to imposing quotas on the export of scrap steel. An increase of at least 100 per cent. in the price of a basic raw material will have a serious effect on any manufacturing industry operating on the margin, and that must worry the Government. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will say a little more about that aspect of the annual report, and where it fits into the £500 million increase in borrowing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham mentioned the role of GKN in the Phoenix II project. Worries have been expressed about GKN and its position as a major steel user and — as it will become — steel producer. The Government will have to consider the situation. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham explained the point clearly enough for the Minister to give us some idea of the Government's thinking on this important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) mentioned Ravenscraig and Gartcosh. I hope that the British steel industry has now reached a stage at which the Minister can give us a guarantee about all five plants. As has been said, it is not a case of competition between Llanwern and Ravenscraig. We need all five integrated plants. If the new-found optimism that seems to have permeated our debate is justified, the Minister must be able to assure us that all five integrated plants will be required, so that we can forget, once and for all, any threat to the future of Ravenscraig. My view is that Ravenscraig will survive. I do not now believe that it is in any danger. Indeed, great tribute has been paid to the work force.
  We hope that the British steel industry is now in a position to take off. We also hope that the Minister will not say that this will be its permanent shape and form. If the United Kingdom's economy is based on steel output of 11 million tonnes, it will not be very large. Therefore, I hope that one of the reasons for the order is that the steel industry is at the beginning of a growth period. I hope also that this new-found optimism will lead the Minister to tell us that Ravenscraig is secure and that there is a future for Gartcosh.
  Mr. Crowther: My hon. Friend is making an extremely important point. Does he agree that the cuts that have taken place in both the public and private sectors of the steel industry have reduced it to a level at which it might well prove impossible for the British steel industry to take advantage of any significant increase in demand, should the economic situation change? It may well be that any future demand from the steel users will merely result in an increase in imports because of the terrible cuts in capacity that have already taken place.
  Mr. Ewing: That is a very real danger. Indeed, we have mentioned it time and again in our debates. It is very dangerous for any industry, particularly the steel industry, to have its output reduced to a level at which it cannot possibly take off in the event of an economic recovery. I hope that the Minister will soon come to the House to announce plans for some form of expansion in the steel industry based on the Government's own economic

  765
  optimism. As I said, if this country's economy is based on 11 million tonnes, it does not have a very bright future. That is the whole point.
  I do not wish to be derogatory, but the Minister did not say how and on what the £500 million is to be spent. I should like some details about what the money is for. What will be the effect on BSC of the Government's decision to phase out regional development grant? I understand that BSC qualifies for such grant. If the grants are phased out during the next two years, what effect will that have on the finances of BSC and its ability to expand? Moreover, what effect will it have on the use of the £500 million, which the Opposition obviously support?
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Norman Lamont: All of those who have spoken have, to a greater or lesser extent, reflected greater optimism about the steel industry. Inevitably, however, some have been anxious about their constituency interests. We had some forthright constituency speeches. Some hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), said that there should be greater certainty. I appreciate his desire but BSC still has some way to go. I detailed its progress but it has some way to go before it reaches enduring viability.
  The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) asked about the relationship of investment to the Community and about Community approval for investment. He was right. It is part of the European steel regime that new investment projects be subject to Commission approval. It approved major projects proposed by BSC in the Port Talbot hot stripmill and in the galvanising line at Shotton. He also repeated, not for the first time, the need for concast at Llanwern. He will have heard me say that, if the BSC board proposes such an investment as part of its new corporate plan, the Government will consider it on its merits. However, no such proposal has yet been made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) talked about his constituency and the impact of rates on BSC. He is right. We hear much from Opposition Members about the problems that face BSC. Indeed, they quoted some of the chairman's annual report. In that annual report the chairman, just like his predecessor Mr. MacGregor, drew attention to the difficulty BSC faces with its large rates bill.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) asked about a guaranteed future for the five major plants. I cannot add to what I said in my opening speech. The 1982 decision meant what it said. BSC was asked to prepare its 1983–86 corporate plan on the basis of steel making continuing at the five integrated sites. If BSC wanted to proceed on a different basis in its 1984–87 plan, or if it is forced to do so by the current disruption, it is open to it to make such a proposal to the Government. Such a decision would have to be examined jointly by BSC and the Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) said that he understood that I had the corporate plan. I do not, for the good reason that much of what would be in it is difficult to calculate because of the effects of the miners' strike.
  Mr. Ewing: Is the Minister saying that he does not have the corporate plan because of the dispute in the coal industry?
  Mr. Lamont: I am saying that the projections for the future are deeply affected by the miners' dispute, as is the impact on BSC's markets. Until the smoke has cleared, it is the chairman's view that it is difficult to assess the factors that have to be in the plan.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East tried to contrast what my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy said on a television programme, which I did not see, with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy was referring to the fact that production in BSC has been kept up. We owe BSC and its work force great praise for that. That is not to say that extra costs have not been imposed on BSC. It has incurred extra costs getting in the coal and the coke and as a result of the blend of coals. The dispute is having an impact on BSC but all right hon. and hon. Members welcome the fact that production has been kept at near pre-strike levels.
  Mr. Ewing: Perhaps I can take the Minister back to the corporate plan. Can we have the matter on the record? Is he saying that the chairman of BSC has told the Government that, but for the dispute in the coal industry, the Government would now have the corporate plan? It is important to have that on the record.
  Mr. Lamont: I have made the matter crystal clear. The chairman has said that much of what would have to be in the corporate plan and which is vital to framing it cannot be included in the present uncertainty. There is no point in the Government and BSC considering the corporate plan until after the strike, when those factors will be clearer.
  Mr. Hickmet: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially in view of the accusations that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East made against me. Is it not the case that Scunthorpe has suffered almost the entire cut in BSC production? The record production figure of 61,000 tonnes before the strike has dropped to less than 25,000 tonnes. When it is said that I am attempting to stir up trouble between the mine workers and the steel workers, should it not be borne in mind that, at one time, there were 10,000 men standing on a picket line at Orgreave trying to close the Scunthorpe steelworks by stopping coke going from Orgreave to Scunthorpe? Is that not a disgrace?
  Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. Although I have said that BSC has been able to keep production at near pre-strike levels, the situation at Scunthorpe has been extremely serious and, at times, it has come close to closing down. For Scunthorpe and BSC generally, it is a tragedy that miners should try to deny steel workers the fruits of their efforts and sacrifices of the past few years.
  Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lamont: I do not think that we want a debate on the miners' strike. I should have thought that Opposition Members would have agreed about that and would have preferred to debate the steel industry. In my normal way, I have attempted to lower the tension, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister also regret that BSC management did not give the people who made the agreement that Scunthorpe should have the coal that it required time to negotiate an agreement so that coke could have gone to Scunthorpe, thus maintaining the market for south Yorkshire coal and not adding to the already heavily

  767
  fuelled bitterness and frustration in south Yorkshire? Does he agree that BSC management at Scunthorpe could have been wiser?
  Mr. Lamont: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He made that point when previously he intervened. The fact is that the NUM, aided and abetted by the rail unions, sought to starve Scunthorpe of its supplies by rail, so the corporation had no option but to look elsewhere. That is why BSC decided to use lorries to run coke from its Orgreave plant. That seems to be perfectly reasonable and lawful. The response was violent picketing on a mass scale, which cannot be justified.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East said that he was sorry that he had missed the first two lines of my speech, but said that he thought he knew what they were—a repetition of previous speeches. I do not plead innocence to that charge, but I must say that some of his themes are pretty well worn.
  Mr. Ewing: That is because I do not get any answers.
  Mr. Lamont: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman always listens to the answers. He repeated the points about reductions in capacity and reductions in Europe. I am sure that he knows that, because of the decision of 29 June 1983, which was subsequently endorsed by all member states, and the meeting of the steel Council earlier this year, the cuts required in the major countries as a percentage of steel capacity are now as follows: Belgium 19·4 per cent.; Luxembourg 18·4 per cent.; France 19·8 per cent.; Italy 16·1 per cent.; the Netherlands 13 per cent.; the United Kingdom 19·7 per cent.; and Germany 11·3 per cent. Our cuts have already been made. It is clear from those figures that by 1985 those countries will have made reductions in capacity comparable to our own.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe was right when he drew attention not just to the commitment on paper but to what is happening on the continent. France has announced 5 million tonnes of cuts and has said that it will take out 20·5 per cent. of steel capacity, which is larger than the original decision required. Luxembourg has said that it will cut steel capacity by 24·9 per cent., which is larger than our reduction and larger than the requirement of 18·4 per cent. The Netherlands has said that it will cut steel capacity by 18·2 per cent., instead of 13 per cent.
  If hon. Members doubt that those commitments are real, they should lift their eyes across the channel and look at the telling example in France. We know about the disruption here, but there has not exactly been an absence of disruption in France.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister nevertheless agree that that fact does not invalidate the point I made in my original remarks, that at the time of the terrible carnage in BSC, Italy was expanding its steel production? That is a simple point.
  Mr. Lamont: The Italian industry was, of course, in a very different position. I do not want to defend what happened in Italy. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to weaken my negotiating stance. We have made it very clear that we think that the Italians should make larger cuts. The Italian Government have pointed out,
  768
  first, that there has been growth in their economy and, secondly, that much of the growth in the steel industry happened in the electric arc mini-mills unaided by the public sector.
  The House should be in no doubt—hon. Members have heard this before—that we made our cuts when we did because we had to, because we were running up large losses and were uncompetitive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said, we are benefiting from the strong competitive position that we established. Both sides of the House have acknowledged that point and the fact that the economic climate is better now than it has been for some time.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East asked about the article 58 quotas. We have continued to take up that issue with the Commission. Because in 1983 the United Kingdom economy was growing faster than the economy in Europe generally and both steel consumption and steel production were growing faster than in Europe, we have had problems with quotas. I am pleased to report that Commissioner Davignon confirmed at the end of last month that arrangements had been made to deal with BSC's immediate difficulties and that the Commission was ready to devise a lasting solution if the problem persisted. If individual private sector companies face those difficulties, we shall certainly pursue those cases with the Commission.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East asked also about scrap prices. The hon. Gentleman knows, of course, that scrap prices are notoriously volatile. I note that he is looking at the report. I assure him that I, too, have read what the chairman said in the report. Although recently there have been large price increases, they have taken the prices of scrap only up to the level prevailing in 1979. Moreover, United Kingdom prices are below those on the continent. In that case, the Government do not intend at present to restrict scrap exports.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) came back on the question he had put to me in an intervention about whether the money available under the order covered Phoenix II. I am not sure why he was dissatisfied with my answer. The order is permissive. It would allow BSC to contribute to the new companies' cash needs, if that were the decision. The powers do not, however, require that to happen and could equally be used for investment in engineering steel outside Phoenix II. That point may be more succinctly expressed now, but that is what I said before to the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham put to the House various remarks about the mix of assets and the cash liability that might be shared between BSC and the private sector. He thought that the measure would be poor value for the taxpayer. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that I cannot comment on that point at the moment, because the final decisions have not yet been made. The hon. Gentleman will have to examine that aspect, and he will be able to question my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and myself either in the House or before the Select Committee on whether the measure represents good value for money.
  The hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and for Rotherham raised points about a monopoly supplier and customers wanting a choice of supply, and we shall, of course, look at their points. Those aspects are extremely important when making a decision on Phoenix II. As with so many cases, we face a familiar dilemma:

  769
  do we want a strong national grouping that is capable of competing against international supplies or do we want to place greater emphasis on domestic competition, which may not be able to cope so well against imports?
  The hon. Member for Attercliffe asked whether the Government were backing off on Phoenix II. No, we are not backing off. The hon. Gentleman will understand that that is an immensely important venture, involving not only a BSC contribution and private sector contribution but perhaps the question whether the Government should give assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act. That could be an expensive solution, and must weigh with us heavily. We are not backing off, but the project could be an expensive demand on scarce funds.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham attacked the idea of privatisation as applied to the steel corporation. He felt that it was wrong that we should privatise the most profitable bits of nationalised industries. He did not confine his argument to BSC. He said that it was wrong to privatise Jaguar and the warship-building part of British Shipbuilders. Our aim is privatisation; my view and experience is that if one does not privatise when one can, one never does. If one does not privatise when the bits are profitable, one will never privatise.
  Furthermore, I do not subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's view that it is right to use the profitable bits to subsidise the unprofitable bits. That is the way in which many of the profitable parts of our nationalised industries have been bled of investment. That is why many of them have got into trouble. There are several reasons why it is right to privatise parts of the corporation. One is that the parts that we are privatising at the moment are those which overlap with the private sector. Another reason is to ensure fair competition among the unsubsidised undertakings.
  As I said, we intend to go ahead with privatisation. The House must be realistic. We are a long way from privatising basic steel making. Although I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said about his constituents who were apprehensive about that, we are a long way from it. Both sides of the House must agree that it is right to make basic steel making profitable and free from state aid as soon as possible. That is our objective. It is a policy that we intend to follow even when the sums of money allowed under the order are advanced to the corporation.
  Mr. Crowther: Before the Minister——
  Mr. Lamont: I commend the order to the House.
  Resolved,
  That the draft British Steel Corporation (Borrowing Powers) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.

  Education (Scotland)
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Jim Craigen: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Assisted Places) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 840), dated 15th June 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be annulled.
  The assisted places scheme is now entering its fourth year of operation. Therefore, it would be remiss of the House not to question and debate the amending regulations.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to give a number of answers to questions. I understand that, for the convenience of the House, he will be replying at the end of the debate.
  My first point relates to the cost of the scheme. I notice that the scheme will cost £3·1 million for 1984–85. I should like the Minister to explain why nearly £500,000 is to be made available by way of direct Government support for private schools, when his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr Ancram), is pressing local authorities strongly over the operation of the rate support grant and the guidelines in respect of education services are being more stringently drawn. The Government propose to claw back £90 million in rate support grant from Scottish local authorities by the end of the year. Strathclyde education authority, for example, will have to look at expenditure reductions of £20 million out of the clawback total of £38 million assigned to the region.
  What is the reason for this extra £500,000 of direct Government support? It is not clear from the statutory instrument or the press release issued by the Scottish Office what expansion there is in the operation of the scheme. The press release talked of some further expansion. I shall be asking the Minister whether the increase can be attributed entirely to the increased costs of the existing operation or whether additional places are envisaged.
  My second point relates to the relaxation of clothing and travel grants. I understand the reasons behind the introduction of this flexibility. I want to know, however, how the Minister justifies this more generous approach, when local authorities are under increasing pressure to meet the cost of school clothing for many young people attending school. The Minister will be aware that, since the removal of the exceptional needs payments in the 1980 DHSS regulations, most education authorities have been inundated with requests. Many head teachers find decisions over school clothing an unwanted and unpleasant responsibility.
  I understand that Strathclyde region is having to spend about £3 million to ensure that young people are adequately clothed and have adequate footwear to attend school, as they must. That has been a duty on local authorities since the Education (Scotland) Act 1918. This has been an unwanted and unhappy side effect of the changes in the DHSS regulations. These payments, which the local authorities must make, are not rate support granted. I hope that the Minister will show the same generosity of spirit, if not purse, when it comes to considering the difficulties and invidious predicament of education authorities over clothing.

  771
  My third point relates to the more general issue of closures and declining rolls. I suspect that, but for the assisted places scheme, several independent schools might have difficulties with numbers and financial resources. I asked the Minister earlier about the number of extra places. Does he envisage about 200 or 250 extra places among the 42 schools participating in the scheme? The surprising feature about the assisted places scheme is that the majority of assisted pupils were already in the private sector. I believe that the Minister, in a parliamentary answer, has already shown that about 59 per cent. of assisted pupils were in the private sector.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does not that very fact lay the myth that has often come from Labour Members that the private school sector is used solely by the rich and privileged? Is not the position rather that many people of limited means choose the private sector because it offers a particular benefit for their children?
  Mr. Craigen: I do not know about laying myths. I was about to make a point which, knowing the hon. Member's Adam Smith background, might appeal to him. The public purse is now paying for something for which it need not pay at a time when Ministers are denying education authorities, which are charged with statutory responsibilities, the necessary resources to fulfil those responsibilities.
  Perhaps the Minister, in his reply, will say something about the distribution of places. It appeared to me, looking at the allocation of funds to the participating schools, that there was a somewhat uneven distribution throughout Scotland, and that some schools were benefiting considerably more than others. I have raised those matters simply in the context of the difficulties of viability, which we recognise in these times, because of declining pupil rolls.
  With regard to the cost of fees, perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten the House beyond the information that is available either through the statutory instrument or from the Scottish Office press release to which I referred. How does the Scottish Education Department assess value for money among the respective participating schools? I asked the Library to check on some expenditure figures per pupil. It is intriguing that the assisted places are costing more than the maintained places. The Minister shakes his head, but perhaps he will give us the requisite figures. I find it a little disturbing that the available resources per pupil are to go down next year because of the reduced resources that the Government are to make available to education authorities. That will be in contrast to the increases that the Government anticipate in the operation of their assisted places scheme.
  The figures that I obtained from Strathclyde regional council show a cost of roughly £1,300 per secondary pupil, but the cost per pupil in the special schools for those with some handicap or disability is £5,000. It is time for the Minister to consider the special schools, where there is no rate support grant. In these difficult days for education authorities, special schools can become very vulnerable. I hope that there will be some recognition of the difficulties facing education authorities in that regard.
  It would be helpful to have the Minister's figures to show whether the increase of £500,000 in the cost of the assisted places scheme arises largely or solely because of
  772
  increases in the retail price index. Can he quantify the cost of expanding the scheme, as was hinted in the Scottish Office press release? I should like the Minister to comment on some of the intricacies concerning the fees charged by the schools.
  Given the Government's original propaganda about the assisted places scheme—and the high optimism of the Minister's predecessor—the assisted places scheme is a costly flop. The number of young people in the scheme is very small in comparison with the overall responsibilities facing education authorities in Scotland. I find it surprising that three in every five assisted pupils were already in the private sector and are now afforded that same facility through the public purse.
  Mr. Michael Hirst: I suggest that the reason why a number of pupils continue to be a charge on the scheme is that their parental circumstances have changed adversely. If they were not able to continue in private education under the assisted places scheme, they would become a charge on the state system. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Craigen: One always recognises difficult family circumstances, where a death or some sad incident occurs. I do not think that that makes up for the difference in the numbers that we are talking about.
  The Government are proposing almost a 20 per cent. increase in the cost of the scheme at a time when they are trying to reduce—indeed, are reducing—the amount of expenditure on the maintained sector of education. In reply to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), it seems to me that the main impetus here is not so much to assist those whose parents are on lower incomes, which I could readily understand, as to sustain some of the independent schools.
  The Minister has some explaining to do tonight over the proposed changes in the amending regulations. I hope to hear from him before the conclusion of the debate.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I did not expect to be called quite so soon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that the Minister might have had some support from his own side. None the less, I add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) as one who regrets the terms of the regulations not only for what they contain in some detail but because they are part and parcel of a more general scheme which, in my view, bolsters privilege and is rather alien to the traditions of Scottish education.
  With regard to the increase of income levels for full remission of fees, it has often been argued that the basis of the scheme is to increase freedom of choice. If in fact it does so, one would suggest that it is limited to a privileged few. The scheme still imports a degree of selectivity, inasmuch as people have to pass a test. One also suspects that the additional choice that is available is limited geographically. The hon. Member for Maryhill made some reference to that.
  It would be interesting if the Minister were to tell us, within broad geographic areas — it would be more interesting if it could be broken down according to parliamentary constituencies — where the recipients of benefit under the scheme come from. I suspect that few, if any, of them come from my constituency or from other

  773
  Highland and Island constituencies. A high proportion of the sums that were made available for 1983 were spent in Edinburgh. One imagines that many of the recipients who benefited from the scheme also came from the Edinburgh area.
  As the hon. Member for Maryhill has pointed out, the figures show that 59 per cent. of pupils who received benefits under the scheme previously attended fee-paying schools — 1,048 from a total of 1,781. The figures demonstrate that the scheme has not been greatly extended to state-educated pupils, but subsidises three out of five of the pupils who have already benefited from it. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) suggested that that was partly due to the fact that the system had assisted parents whose financial circumstances had changed. I suspect that parents who undertook the financial responsibility to send their children to fee-paying schools may have fallen on harder times. Headmasters pointed out the assisted places scheme, and parents took advantage of it.
  This is a superannuated form of supplementary benefit. The Government should come clean and tell us. I cannot accept the statement of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden that a considerable burden would have been placed on the maintained sector if children had come from the private sector. The schools where five pupils have obtained places under the scheme, the school facilities and the fabric of the building must still be maintained, and the teachers need to be paid. The additional cost of those children to the maintained sector is low.
  The next part of the order relates to travel grants. More public money will be channelled into private education. Again, I suspect that the incentives will lead to the brighter and more affluent pupils being creamed off from poor communities, and bussed to fee-paying schools in better areas. That will further depress the low morale in state-maintained schools.
  Increases in clothing grants will be of greater benefit to pupils in the private than in the maintained sectors. I understand, from the pupil's viewpoint, why the scheme is being changed to allow an annual, increased grant, but it will come hard to a pupil who is unable to wear school uniform or whose uniform is not in good shape. Children make cruel remarks about pupils who stand out. The principle underlying the regulations seems to be that there should be one law for the affluent and privileged, and another for those who must make do with state provision. We are told time and again that the scheme will promote freedom of choice, but we doubt that.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he is in favour of the state providing more resources for the less able and handicapped pupils, but seems to be so embittered about, and so against, extra resources being made available for especially gifted and bright children?
  Mr. Wallace: I have not said anything about specially gifted or bright children. I was making the point that provision has been made for only 1,700 pupils. They do not necessarily fall into the category of the specially gifted and bright. Special provision has been made for them far in excess of that for children in much greater need who attend local authority-maintained schools.
  Another provision of the regulations is notification of fee increases to the Secretary of State. I do not object to
  774
  the fact that the notice has been reduced from two months to one. Will the Minister tell us, under this section, how many applications have been made to the Secretary of State for fee increases, and whether they pertain at the beginning of or only midway through a session? Much of the income of fee-paying schools is obtained from fees, so it would be interesting to know how much fees have increased since the scheme came into operation compared to funding for the maintained sector.
  Some of us doubt very much that the scheme will improve freedom of choice. The Government's underlying assumption is that the schools which participate in the scheme are somewhat better than their counterparts in the maintained sector. It is staggering that the Government response to the difference between these sectors is to starve the maintained sector, which caters for more than 95 per cent. of Scottish pupils. Morale is low and teachers are introducing curriculum reforms with only a modest increase in resources. The Government are channelling £3·1 million into the private sector.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland announced last week that local education authorities in many parts of Scotland will be forced to consider cuts in basic educational facilities. Some rural areas may suffer from the withdrawal of peripatetic teachers because of a shortage of funds, and will lose teachers of music, physical education and arts and crafts. One wonders what freedom of choice will be allowed to the pupils of rural schools. Surely the real question of choice concerns whether Scottish pupils will be allowed an education that will provide them with a wide range of career options and give them the opportunity to fulfil their potential. We question whether that will be possible in schools with leaking roofs, where books are old and outdated and cannot be replaced.
  Equipment needed for education in the latter part of the 20th century cannot be afforded. The cumulative effect of these cuts in local authority expenditure is having a demoralising effect on the teaching profession. We believe that the regulations will provide not so much an increase in choice but rather for the extension of privilege. For that reason, we oppose the scheme.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: If your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were present now, he might have a feeling of déjà vu. I note from the record for 27 October 1982 that I was one of the few hon. Members who spoke on that occasion. Some of the arguments that we have heard, and no doubt some of the replies that we shall hear from the Minister tonight, will be familiar.
  It is appropriate that I should follow the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), because, although he represents the alliance, I agree with him totally. I observe that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), who represents the SNP, has left the Chamber. Once the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the right hon. Gentleman have worked out who is the spokesman for education in Scotland, perhaps they will come and tell us. I am sure that I would agree with every word said on the issue.
  The Labour party, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) so eloquently said, as well as the alliance and the SNP, feels that the assisted places scheme, as I said in 1982 and as the hon. Member

  775
  for Orkney and Shetland said today, is totally alien to Scottish education. It has been imported from south of the border.
  At the general election, 72 per cent. of the Scottish electorate rejected the Conservative party. Yet the Conservative Government have brought forward the regulations. I question the right of the Government to bring such regulations before the House. They have no authority to do so. They are not wanted by the people of Scotland and are totally alien to Scottish educational tradition.
  I use various examples again and again. This is the best one. If the people of Scotland had had the Scottish assembly for which they voted, we would not be discussing the matter. We would not be discussing the assisted places scheme or giving more money to the private sector at the same time as imposing cuts on the local authority sector. It would be quite the reverse. We would be discussing the phasing out of private schools and the development of local authority schools as community schools, providing a good positive education for what the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) described as the specially gifted and bright children. Thank goodness, most of them are wise enough not to be the sons and daughters of Tories. Most of them have been well educated in the local authority system in Scotland. It has produced the lads o' pairts who have gone on to university. The Minister is one of them. I do not know why he is so ashamed of his own education that he has to put forward this paraphernalia for giving people a so-called advantage.
  We know that we are talking not about better education for specially gifted and bright people, but about snobbery and providing an education under which some of the children, particularly of the Edinburgh bourgeoisie, do not have to mix with the ordinary kids towards whom their parents have so much antipathy.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I venture to suggest that Labour Members should get their act together. At the beginning of his speech the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) told us that three fifths of those on the scheme were from low-income families and were already at private schools. Now the hon. Gentleman is telling us that most of the children come from the Edinburgh bourgeoisie. There seems to be an inconsistency.
  Mr. Foulkes: Not at all. I know the Edinburgh bourgeoisie only too well. I know the vehemence of those people. When I was chairman of the Lothian region education committee, and there was an attempt to integrate George Heriot's school into the local authority system, I experienced the wrath of the Edinburgh bourgeoisie, who stuck stickers on my car and shouted abuse at me. Therefore, I know them only too well. Those people are seeking that privilege and that snobbery. I have experience from the inside. As chairman of the education committee in Lothian region, it was my duty to serve on the board of Fettes college, the Merchant company and George Heriot's school. Therefore, I know what goes on and the spirit that motivates those people. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is the spirit that I have outlined.
  This is what really sticks in our craw. We are putting in over £3 million to build up the private sector, which is alien to the Scottish educational tradition; but at the same time I estimate that of the £90 million that the Secretary of State announced he was cutting back, taking the
  776
  region's share and the fact that education is such a big part of the region' expenditure, about £30 million is being cut from the local authority sector. Is that not crazy? We are pumping money into a sector that is already privileged. We are subsidising not just those on the assisted places scheme, but, by boosting the number of pupils at those schools, those who are paying full fees, because we are making sure that those fees do not rise as much as they might if the kids from the assisted places scheme were not there.
  As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, supplies of books are being cut back in the local authority schools. There are more composite classes because the Minister is using a straight line graph. It is not exactly a straight line, but as near as it can be. He is cutting the number of teachers and other facilities as the number of pupils goes down, and we end up with composite classes in the primary schools as well as in some of the other schools that have primary departments. Bussing is also taking place as the action plan comes into effect. It will happen in Ayrshire, where the kids will be bussed from one school to the other.
  The hon. Member for Stirling did not understand this. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, if the kids in the local authority schools got the same clothing grants as kids in the private schools, we might not be too worried. However, we know the difficulty that kids in local authority schools have. Those on supplementary benefit have problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) told me that those kids have great difficulty getting clothing grants, whereas those who go to private schools receive £100, in certain circumstances, without the questions that are asked of those in ordinary local authority schools.
  Mr. James Hamilton: I should like to put the record straight. In Strathclyde region, parents must be on supplementary benefit or family income supplement before they are allowed the £30 clothing allowance. In my constituency, there are five composite classes in one of the primary schools.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has given valuable support to two of my paints.
  It is galling for those of us who send our kids to local authority schools, who believe in them and want to do our best for them, to see the Government, who are prepared to cut everything else, including local authority schools, pouring money into private education. It is criminal in this day and age. It is doubly annoying not just for the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, but for my hon. Friends the Members for Maryhill and for Motherwell, North and myself, who represent constituencies outside the main areas that benefit from the scheme, because, as I know only too well, certain areas benefit, including parts of Glasgow, but the principal beneficiary is Edinburgh. We know that by far the greatest majority of private places in private schools is in Edinburgh. That means that the ordinary ratepayer in Bothwell, Motherwell, Bellshill, Orkney and Shetland, Cumnock and Auchinleck is subsidising the education of the privileged bourgeoisie, principally in Edinburgh. It is just not on. As my hon. Friends the Members for Maryhill, Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) have said on several occasions, we shall get rid of the system. One of the first acts of the next Labour Government will be to get rid of the assisted places scheme.

  777
  We must also tackle some other anomalies and benefits that the private schools receive. Let Conservative Members not forget this. By registering as charities, private schools get rates and tax relief. A year or two ago —I am not sure whether this is still the case—private schools even got cheap butter from the butter mountain because they were charities. The local authority schools did not have that benefit.
  The regulations are an impertinence. The Government have no authority, mandate or right to introduce them in Scotland. Conservative Members have no authority to speak on behalf of the people of Scotland. The increase in resources is impertinent, because local authority schools are suffering cuts, because the scheme gives privilege and priority to the east of Scotland at the expense of the west, and because the private schools are already well off compared with local authority schools. The scheme is an impertinence, and we look forward to eliminating it from the statute book at the first possible opportunity.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Michael Hirst: I wish briefly to support the regulations. I am surprised that they should be a matter of contention, not least for the Liberals who pay lip service to freedom of choice in education when it suits their electoral convenience.
  In the past 10 years, Scotland has lost some outstanding educational establishments as the direct grant schools were butchered on the altar of Labour hostility to private education. Many of those were schools which the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to lead into a debate on the structure of education in Scotland. That would be entirely out order. I hope that he will confine his comments to the regulations before the House.
  Mr. Hirst: I have no such intention, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  When the selective schools in Scotland were butchered by the Labour party, we gave a commitment to introduce the assisted places scheme to provide freedom of choice for people who wished to use private education for their children but whose incomes prevented them from so doing. It is a worthwhile scheme and it is used by a number of my constituents. In my first year as a Member of Parliament I have seen how valuable the scheme has been to people whose circumstances have changed through no fault of their own and whose children, but for the scheme, would have had to change schools abruptly at an important stage of their educational life. Those children would otherwise have become a charge not on the assisted places scheme but on the state scheme.
  Mr. Wallace rose——
  Mr. Hirst: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that the preponderance of assistance under the scheme went to schools in the central belt. If that is so, abolition of the scheme would force many people in a comparatively small——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating the abolition or establishment of the scheme. We are debating alterations to it. The House has already decided on the existence of the scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to get back to the regulations.
  Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that it was important to put the record straight and to dismiss some of the fallacies expressed by the Opposition.
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman referred to the benefit of the scheme when parents whose children attended fee-paying schools fell upon hard times——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is committing the very offence for which I have just chided the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst).
  Mr. Hirst: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am left with the clear impression that you do not intend to allow the debate to stray from the narrow regulations before us.
  I support the increase in funding for the scheme. The increase in parental contribution is extremely modest, and far less than has been suggested by the Opposition. Travel and clothing grants are also important. The wearing of uniform is generally compulsory. If the parents' income has fallen to such an extent as to justify inclusion in the scheme it is surely right that a grant should be available so that their children can be properly involved in the schools' activities. Anything else would be most unfair. I welcome the improvement in that respect.
  Mr. James Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the same amount of money should be given to the state schools as is being given to the private sector through the assisted places scheme?
  Mr. Hirst: That is arithmetically ridiculous logic. The amount spent on the assisted places scheme is tiny compared with the Scottish Office education budget. The hon. Gentleman will also find that there is no great difference in the cost of educating a child in the state sector and through the assisted places scheme.
  Finally, I welcome the fact that redundancy payments will no longer be counted against a parent whose child would otherwise qualify for a place on the scheme. It seems especially unfair that a parent who becomes redundant should be penalised in that way, and I am glad that the Government have corrected that.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The strict guidelines within which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, wish the debate to continue make it difficult to answer some of the points made earlier. I believe that the regulations should be widely welcomed. Certainly the opposition expressed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) did not square with some of the things that the alliance said about the scheme at the time of the general election. All who are concerned about resources for education should welcome the scheme because it distinguishes between the duty of the state to provide an education and its duty to ensure that children obtain an education of a suitable standard. If it is cheaper for the state to encourage people to use the private sector, that should be encouraged, which is exactly what the scheme does.
  Mr. Craigen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I will give way in a moment.
  The attitude of the Opposition stems from their hatred of the very existence of a private sector in education. Indeed, they are committed to the destruction of the private sector and they oppose the scheme because it

  779
  allows people to choose that sector. They do not want people to have that choice, because they see it as a means of establishing a different standard from that of the state system.
  The scheme, however, has not been so successful as we should have liked and I urge the Government to consider ways of extending it. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, for instance, said that there was little opportunity for people in rural areas such as his to benefit from the scheme. Of course, we do not hear him complain when his area receives subsidies for activities which do not apply in the central belt. Nevertheless, we might consider using the extra resources to enable people in rural areas to keep small rural schools going on a fee-paying basis. There are all kinds of possibilities. The scheme offers choice. It offers children from poorer backgrounds an alternative to the state system, although it is a poorer alternative than the direct grant system destroyed by the Labour party.
  Mr. Foulkes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are talking about Scotland, which never had a direct grant system but only a grant-aided system, which is rather different?
  Mr. Forsyth: I take the point, although both systems were based on the principle of allowing children from poorer backgrounds the opportunity of a private education suited to their needs. The scheme offers a poorer alternative, but it is viable.
  I hope that the Government will consider whether it is possible to extend the scheme to rural areas and to children who are not only gifted academically, but who have particular skills such as music, or who are handicapped in some way. That would enhance the scheme.
  8.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): In replying to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I speak as a product of Bell Baxter high school to a product of Haberdashers Aske's
  Mr. Foulkes: And Keith grammar school.
  Mr. Stewart: I note that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley moved from the local authority sector to the private sector. I do not know whether he received an assisted place. I am proud of my education, but we must have the freedom of choice. Both the public and private sectors of education have complementary roles in Scotland.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) and Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) have described the motivation of Opposition Members in tabling tonight's prayer. The assisted places scheme has been successful. It has given a wider parental choice in the private sector to parallel that in the local authority sector.
  One of the key criticisms of the scheme, as amended by the regulations, is based upon élitism and privilege. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley concentrated on that. He will recognise that the scheme covers a wide range of schools. It covers, for example, schools with a long tradition, such as that attended by the Shadow Secretary of State, Glasgow academy which also
  780
  enjoyed the benefit of having the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) as a teacher. These schools have religious or philosophical specialties.
  Mr. Craigen: I do not need to wear sackcloth and ashes. Will the Minister deal with the four main points that I made?
  Mr. Stewart: I shall come to those matters. I am trying to answer some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.
  The hon. Gentleman criticised privilege. The suggestion that the scheme subsidises pupils from well-off families is unfounded. The 1983–84 figures show that over 900 pupils, or 51 per cent. of all pupils participating in this scheme, receive full remission of fees because their parents have a relevant income of £5,622 per annum or less. A further 10 per cent. have family incomes between £5,623 and £6,500 per annum, and 12 per cent. between £6,501 and £7,500. Families with incomes on that scale can hardly be claimed to be a privileged and well-off elite.
  Mr. Foulkes: The Minister, in his prepared text, is answering questions that were not asked. I said that people send their children to such schools for reasons of snobbery rather than education.
  Mr. Stewart: That is rubbish. Parents send their children to particular schools because they think that that is good for their children's education.
  Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that the assisted places scheme is morally more defensible than the hypocrisy of Lefties who use their purchasing power or incomes to buy houses in the catchment area of the more desirable schools which allow them——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Stewart: I do not think that you wish me to follow that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However valid it is, it is not related to the regulations. Hon. Members should recognise that the majority of parents of independent school pupils pay rates and taxes like anyone else.
  Hon. Members talked about the financial implications of the scheme. The Government's financial contribution to independent schools is small compared with overall education provision in Scotland. The private sector accounts for about 3·5 per cent. of the total school population, yet total grants under the assisted places scheme in the current year will amount to less than 0·5 per cent. of total expenditure on school education.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) asked about relative costs. The assisted places scheme is restricted to secondary education and when the average assistance towards fees per pupil is compared with the average expenditure per pupil in secondary education in the public sector there is little difference between the figures. In 1982–83, the last year for which figures are available, expenditure per secondary pupil in the public sector was about £1,270. That is in line with the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave for Strathclyde. In the same year the average assistance towards tuition fees under the assisted places scheme was £1,100. That puts the criticisms in context.
  The hon. Members for Maryhill, for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked about funding. They maintained that the regulations involve an increase in public expenditure on private education. That is not so. The scheme is funded

  781
  from the progressive transfer over a five-year period, ending in 1986, of the maintenance grants previously paid to grant-aided secondary schools. No increase in direct financial support to the independent sector in real terms has taken place since the scheme was introduced. That is because the previous scheme of assistance is being phased out. There is a transfer between the two schemes.
  The hon. Member for Maryhill asked me about provisions for school uniforms under the scheme. The essence of arrangements for all incidental expenses under the regulations is that pupils are not prevented from receiving the full benefits of an assisted place simply because they cannot afford to provide compulsory items such as a school blazer. The position in the education authority sector is different and so not comparable.
  The basic supplementary benefit allowance contains an element for renewal of clothing from which parents should be able to provide clothing. However, when an education authority considers that a pupil is prevented by the inadequacy of his clothing from taking advantage of the education provided, it has a duty to make a clothing grant. The criteria used by authorities to establish a clothing need and the amount of grant are for its discretion. In addition to the large amount of central Government support paid though supplementary benefit and single payments by the DHSS in cases of exceptional need, authorities in Scotland made grants of about £2·5 million in 1982–83.
  Mr. Craigen: Is the Minister concerned about the invidious pressure facing local authorities? Will he seriously consider rate support grant for authorities having to meet clothing requirements?
  Mr. Stewart: Local authorities have discretion in this matter. Clothing grants paid out under the assisted places scheme amounted to only £30,000 in 1982–83.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the number of pupils who had previously attended fee-paying schools. In 1981–82, the first year of the scheme, 72 per cent. of the 776 pupils were from fee-paying schools. That proportion was expected to decrease as the scheme developed, and it has done so. In 1983–84, of more than 1,000 pupils, 59 per cent. were previously at fee-paying schools.
  The hon. Member for Maryhill questioned the value for money for the Scottish Office. Her Majesty's inspectors of schools have knowledge of participating schools, based both on documentation and personal visits. The schools are subject to inspection in the same way as are all other schools.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked about the geographical distribution of recipients. Applications are confidential between the applicant and the participating school. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not involved in the award of places and, therefore, information is not available. The hon. Gentleman also asked about increases in fees. It is usual
  782
  for fees to be increased annually, and my right hon. Friend considers the proposals as they arise. If it is proposed to increase fees more often, he takes account of any previous increases.
  Hon. Members have criticised the regulations in the context of public expenditure. As I have already emphasised, they represent a tiny percentage of the total public expenditure in Scotland. We must view those criticisms against the background that the amount spent per secondary pupil in Scotland is higher in real terms than at any time previously, and against the background of a planned percentage increase of 5·5 per cent. in education expenditure to 1986–87 compared with the projected 5·5 per cent. fall in pupil numbers during the same period.
  The basic criticisms about the assisted places scheme and the regulations are ideological. It is a widely accepted scheme and a sensible and cost-effective method of extending parental choice. The regulations are not controversial and, therefore, I ask the House to reject the Opposition's prayer.
  Question put and negatived.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  ANIMALS
  That the draft Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.
  CONSUMER PROTECTION
  That the draft Motor Vehicles Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
  That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
  That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Cheese, Fish, Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, Meat and Poultry) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
  That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Miscellaneous Foods) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
  That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

  COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL
  That the draft Comptroller and Auditor General (Examination of Accounts) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  Question agreed to.

  Coal Industry Dispute
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones]
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Little attention is given to many Adjournment debates; often they are of importance only to a single individual or a particular locality. On this occasion, while the matters to which I shall refer certainly have considerable relevance to my constituency, they are of more extensive interest and, perhaps, of a gravity that may be—and should be—of considerable national significance.
  To some extent, the debate relates to the position and role of an hon. Member. Current fashion may suggest that the Executive has become more willing to disregard the representations of an individual Member. The conduct of the Home Secretary and his colleagues during recent months has revealed disdain—a disdain that has been a response not only to my representations but to those of a number of my colleagues who have made serious endeavours on behalf of what they and I believe to be a sane course in the interests of those whom we represent. That disdain during the past few months has approached serious negligence.
  The present coal strike is serious. It could have been avoided, as could have been the bitterness that has developed in recent months. My colleagues and I thought to warn the Government of that — indeed, I did so during a debate on the coal industry last December. Our assessment has proved more than justified.
  Then came the decision to cease production at Cortonwood colliery in my constituency. That brought out the Yorkshire coalfield in pledged, solid and predictable response. On Friday 9 March I addressed a large number of my constituents in the parish hall at Brampton Bierlow, close to Cortonwood colliery. I expressed sympathy with them and I shared their concern, but I urged them to ensure that their activities during the strike were entirely peaceful. The Cortonwood miners accepted that advice, they conducted themselves responsibly and they prepared a carefully presented leaflet that dealt with the facts—with no sedition and no call to arms; it was merely an argument. They decided to take that leaflet to other people in the mining industry who were still working.
  For the first few days they were able to do that, but then came the day when they were prevented from handing out leaflets that presented a fair case. On 21 March I wrote what I believed to be a responsible and serious letter to the Home Secretary. It described how 12 Cortonwood miners were not allowed to give out leaflets at the three entrances to the Silverhills colliery near Mansfield. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) checked the facts, and I do not think that the Minister would disagree with them. The miners were prevented from handing out a responsible leaflet. They were told that they had to occupy a stretch of pavement and that if they stepped off the pavement they would be arrested. They were told that if they spoke to a Nottinghamshire miner they would be arrested. They were told that if they gave out their responsible leaflet they would be arrested.
  There have been a number of decisions of that kind and they have bred the anger and bitterness in the coalfields. That sort of refusal accelerated trouble, to the point when, the day after I wrote to the Home Secretary, a young miner
  784
  in my constituency, a decent lad named Sean Webster, was arrested when walking away from the picket line, having decided that he had been on the line for long enough. When he asked what the charge would be, he was told, "For walking on the grass." His companion said, "I have not walked on any grass. What would the charge be against me?" He was told, "You could be arrested for walking on a crack in the pavement."
  We are expected to urge our constituents to remain restrained. We have tried to do that, and will continue to do so, but anger has been caused by the sort of events that I have described and it is time that the Home Secretary began to perceive what is being felt. It was foolish of the Home Secretary to announce that all complaints against the police were lies or smears. That caused great difficulty. The Home Secretary may have been misreported; suffice it to say that in March he was reported as having made that statement.
  It was obvious that the idea of road blocks—they stopped miners but they also held up others who had nothing to do with the mining industry—on the border between Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire was bound to cause resentment. I urged in one of my several letters to the Home Secretary that he needed to defuse the situation and establish an impartial inquiry. I have maintained that view, which is incorporated in a motion which is now attracting the support of many hon. Members.
  Since I wrote that letter of 21 March events have deteriorated. Many grim weeks have passed and, as was suggested at Question Time today, we may have spent on the coal strike £10 billion, money which this country could have used in better ways. The weeks have indeed been grim. I hoped, as I wrote to the Home Secretary in serious terms, that he would show a similar serious intent. I continue to seek his consideration as the result of a number of serious incidents affecting my constituent.
  I am aware of the procedure for making complaints against the police. On a few occasions when I have notified the chief constable of south Yorkshire over certain incidents, I have received a swift response, and some of my constituents have expressed themselves as satisfied. I only wish that the Home Office had responded with anything like the despatch demonstrated by our local police.
  Unfortunately, no response was forthcoming from the Department. More weeks passed, the situation deteriorated and the bitterness became even more intense. On 14 June I tabled several parliamentary questions to the Home Secretary for answer on 21 June—three calendar months after my first letter—to ask when I would be receiving replies to that and other letters that I had sent him. The reply was largely to the effect that he had referred the matters to the chief constable of Nottinghamshire.
  My letter of 21 March had been referred to the chief constable. On 28 June I asked in another parliamentary question on what date the Home Secretary had referred my letter of 21 March to the chief constable of Nottinghamshire, and I was told in reply that it had been referred on 18 June. That was almost 13 weeks later. I hope that we never introduce the principle of surcharge which applies in local government to the central Administration of this country. If this dispute has cost £10 billion, it is clear that 13 weeks' delay of that sort demonstrates something shameful.

  785
  I have written other letters to the Home Secretary, and the response to all of them has not been good enough. Given the events of the last three months, that slow and inadequate response provides me with a reason for suggesting that there must be an impartial and serious inquiry into the dispute.
  I propose to table a question later today asking how many people were arrested in the Brixton riots and how many have been arrested since the beginning of this strike in March. Brixton is only a stone's throw from this House. Many of my hon. Friends and I live even less than a stone's throw from where the dispute is taking place. Although the main areas of dispute may be 100 or 200 miles from this place, these matters are sufficiently serious to justify deliberate attention.
  I am the last person to complain about the police, who have a job to do. Most police officers wish to do that job well. The negligence which has been displayed in the last three months and the insensitivity which has been shown to the mining areas—as we have seen the miners' strike policed from some corridor in Whitehall—has made the policing in many coalfield areas perilous. I trust that in future we shall see a more careful, intelligent and sensitive response than has been the case so far.
  At Question Time last Thursday, the Home Secretary said that if only the miners had picketed in the small numbers which the law allowed things would have been better.
  Mr. Stan Crowther: The civil and criminal law does not place any restriction on the number of pickets. There is merely a code of practice suggesting that six is a reasonable number, but it is not an offence for more than six pickets to be on duty at any one time.
  Mr. Hardy: I accept that. My hon. Friend and I have discussed these serious matters on a number of occasions. Whatever the legal position may be, the Home Secretary said on Thursday that if the number of pickets at each place had been reduced to six neither policemen nor anybody else would have been injured. I agree to a large extent with the Home Secretary in that. What a dreadful pity that heed was not paid to the suggestion which some of us made, that the approach of the Cottonwood miners early in March should have been encouraged instead of being stopped. What a shame that the letter which I sent to the Home Secretary on this subject on 21 March did not secure his attention and understanding. If he had applied intelligence to the matter, fewer police and pickets would have been injured and much less money need have been spent.
  We have watched the situation deteriorate as the Government have seemed more concerned to win the battle of public support. The miners inflicted a defeat on the Government in 1972. That strike was avoidable. Those close to the industry know that if 50p a week more had been offered the 1972 strike would not have taken place. My hon. Friends with experience of the mining industry know that if the Government had not decided to try to win some mythical battle of public opinion in 1974, and defeat the miners by a specious wage offer designed to appeal to the public, that strike would not have happened. This strike need not have happened, and all that has happened since March might have been avoided if more intelligence had been used.
  I wrote a number of other letters. One concerned a constituent of mine, whom I know well. He is an entirely
  786
  responsible individual. He came to my house immediately after his experience and he wrote to me soon after that. I passed his letter immediately to the Home Secretary, because I believed that it presented a serious problem. My constituent was less concerned about taking the matter through the various procedures of police investigation than that this incident should receive serious political consideration. This is what part of my constituent's letter says:
  "We proceeded North at a pace of 10 to 20 miles per hour, on reaching a distance of approximately ½ mile from the Barlborough junction, the cars came to a halt. We stood on the motorway approximately 15 minutes. I was positioned in the centre lane third vehicle from the front, when 15 to 20 police arrived on foot from the direction of Barlborough junction. They proceeded to smash the offside window and windscreen of the car in front of me, and to my left in the nearside lane, they dragged the occupants out and the one I saw was dragged towards the hard shoulder, and 5 policemen proceeded to assault this man with truncheons and boots. I was greatly disturbed to see such a thing happen in this country. The whole thing was over in 3 minutes. We were told to proceed which I did, and returned back to Barnburgh Colliery."
  My constituent did not make this complaint to embarrass the police, but because he was disturbed to see that happen in this country. His letter, dated 30 March, I sent to the Home Secretary on 3 April. I had to ask questions in the House to find out what happened to my letter.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: En the specific case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, has the individual to whom he is referring formally complained about the police behaviour?
  Mr. Hardy: I do not know the name of the individual who was injured. I suspect that the solicitors of the NUM will be more competent to pursue the case than I am. I have read that letter to the House not to attack the police or to take sides in a matter that should be before the courts but because that incident, as Mr. Sanderson who wrote that letter believes, should be a matter for political consideration at the highest levels rather than being lost in the labyrinth of the necessary police complaints procedure.
  More recently has come another letter and a visit to my surgery the other day that has considerably upset me. A young man, a colliery electrician, slight in build and timid in disposition, decided that he should go picketing as well. At approximately 11.45 am on Monday 9 April, he was standing at the roadside and
  "cordially speaking to a police sergeant when the crowd of people 200 strong pushed from the back. The sheer weight of numbers pushed me through the police, and my glasses fell off. The sergeant I had been speaking to ran to the edge of the road where I had fallen and stopped a car coming towards me. He then lifted me to my feet and asked if I was OK. I replied to him 'Yes I'm OK' and bent down to pick up my glasses. As I did this 2 or 3 Metropolitan police officers ran up, punched and arrested me. I told them that I was just picking up my glasses. The met officer looked down saw my glasses, and stamped on them—breaking them—and I have not seen them since.
  I was then man-handled across the road and taken to a police van and transported to Mansfield Police station locked up for 10 hours put before a magistrate and charged with threatening behaviour. I must add that the Mansfield police were very. courteous and dealt with me very well and were astonished at what had happened".
  There is some confusion about the officer who arrested my constituent, Mr. Lockwood. At any rate, he was charged with threatening behaviour and brought to the court in May and given bail on the sort of conditions that seem, to many of our constituents, to be designed to prevent them from

  787
  even contacting their Member of Parliament for advice. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and I, and other hon. Members, have made representations about that, and bail conditions were slightly amended the following month.
  The following month my constituent again appeared and was granted bail. This month he has been back to court. This time he was charged not only with threatening behaviour but also with assaulting police officers. If the Minister could have been with Mt. Lockwood in my surgery the other day, he would have realised how sad and how shocking it was that such a different charge was made against him. I should like the Minister to meet Mr. Lockwood. Then he would understand why such a charge is almost contemptible.
  I suggested in a letter to the Home Office the other day that the charge was altered after I had complained, but I am assured that, since my letter to the chief constable did not go to him until 18 June, that cannot be so because it was decided to change the charge before that date. That being so, the complaint that my letter represents is regarded as irrelevant. However, I hope that the legal advice and assistance that Mr. Lockwood will receive ensures that justice is done in the courts. It is a pity, perhaps, that it has not been done before.
  I realise that such places as Brampton, Breilow, Thrybergh, Sunnyside and Swinton in south Yorkshire are very far from Whitehall corridors. But our people are citizens as well. The Minister must understand that over the past few years there has been a great deal of effort in such places in the metropolitan borough of Rotherham to build good police-public relationships. Individual officers have put a lot of effort into that. But a great deal of it is not merely imperilled but undoubtedly on a temporary basis brought to ruin, and I feel great distress and considerable frustration. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and I have been involved in the divisional community-police liaison committee. We have sought to assist its development with a considerable amount of diligence and energy. I wonder whether the whole of that effort on our part and that of other well-meaning citizens will ever be justified.
  My experience of delay is quite incredible but, as I say, it is not unusual. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who cannot be here for this debate, has asked me to refer to questions that he sent to the Home Secretary on 26 March and 2 April. He had to ask a question in the House on 25 June to discover why the Home Secretary had not replied. Hon. Members with vast experience in the coal industry and other hon. Members who have long represented mining communities are frustrated and angry and understand the bitterness which has been bred in our constituents. If the Minister considers that, he may begin to understand why delay by the Home Office has been so embittering. Judging from ministerial responses at Question Time last Thursday, there is little evidence that Ministers have given any thought to our letters and the very serious words that they contain or that they have given any credence to the fact that some of my hon. Friends and I might be qualified to offer comment and suggestions. We have not had any sensible response.
  Since our constituents are aware of our representations and realise that we have had no replies to them, the Home
  788
  Secretary and his colleagues have added to the bitterness and contributed to the grave problems affecting society in many parts of these islands.
  I suggest to the Minister of State that, while we were not afforded the courtesy of a ministerial approach through many grim and grave weeks and months, there is now an opportunity for a remedy to be put into effect. That is why I suggest that the Home Secretary and his colleagues should recognise that the terms of the motion that I tabled last Thursday are very serious. I believe that an inquiry of the type that I propose is necessary. If an inquiry is held, I trust that it will also investigate the awful delay that my hon. Friends and I have experienced this year. It is a degree of delay, a degree of disdain and a degree of contempt and arrogance which the House and the country cannot afford.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has been in this House almost as long as I have. He and I are friends. I take seriously what he has said tonight, and I hope very much that if there are any cases where there is prima facie evidence of the police using excessive force the hon. Gentleman will use his good offices to ensure that charges are brought. The courts will then determine the facts, and the proper verdict will be reached. That is the proper way to proceed. The hon. Gentleman, who has done much for relations between the police and the public in his area, must agree with me about that.
  During the past tragic weeks, I have travelled to the coal mining areas on several occasions. I was born in a coal mining area. I have seen something — though perhaps not enough—of the picketing and the police response. Hon. Members on both sides of the House deeply regret what has happened, but no one regrets it more than the ordinary men and women of the police service themselves. I know of no police officer who has any desire to put on a plastic helmet and flameproof overalls—let alone to be pelted with bricks and bottles or to be involved in baton charges or the use of police horses.
  However, the police have a job to do. If thousands of violent men, whatever their purpose or origins, seek by physical violence to prevent other citizens from going to work in peace — aided and abetted by hundreds of politically motivated hangers on—it is the duty of the police to protect the civil rights of anyone who is the target of such criminal attacks. And the police are bound to respond with whatever level of force is required to uphold the law. If the law can be brushed aside and violence can prevail, there is no civil liberty for anyone. Democracy is at risk. Liberty slides into anarchy.
  The police are not, of course, entitled to over-react. If they use excessive force, they must answer to the criminal law, to which they are just as answerable as any picket. They are also responsible to the police complaints system and to their own disciplinary code. However, the world's least violent and most accountable police service is entitled to feel angry when its members are subjected to a barrage of bricks and bottles simply because they are doing their duty in upholding the Queen's peace. Members of the police service are even more entitled to resent being likened to the Gestapo and compared with the Polish or

  789
  South African police—especially when the author of such mendacities is a man who denies to his own union members the right to a secret ballot.
  The machinery available to those who wish to complain against the police is well known. Whether or not it needs to be reformed is a matter for debate in proceedings on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. But if a citizen has a complaint, he has a duty to bring the matter to the notice of the local police. If it is well founded, it will be investigated; and, if there is sufficient evidence, the policeman concerned will be charged. Alternatively, the matter can be dealt with under the complaints system, which now has a strong independent element. Complaints can also be dealt with by the criminal or civil courts, through the local police authority or, ultimately, the Home Secretary. There are in fact five or six ways in which complaints against the police can be pursued.
  I wish to identify four general complaints and to dispose of them. The first is that the police in south Yorkshire are enforcing a Tory Government's trade union laws. There is no truth in that allegation. The police have nothing to do with the Government's trade union laws. They are dealing with breaches of the criminal law, as they should.
  The second complaint is that the police are engaged in paramilitary policing. Anyone who believes that should look at what happens in other countries where police have to deal with violence. They use water cannon, as in Switzerland and Japan; they use armoured fighting vehicles, as in Germany and France; they use riot guns and gas, as in the United States; they even use heavy weapons, as in the peace-loving democracies of eastern Europe. By contrast, the British police have placed their own bodies between the pickets and those who wish to go to work in peace. As a consequence, the police have suffered the most serious injuries. I know, too, from having discussed the matter with officers on the spot, that the police always seek to react with the minimum, not the maximum, force.
  The third charge made against the police is that they are, as one hon. Member has claimed, systematically destroying civil liberties by tapping miners' telephones, imposing no-go areas, invading miners' homes and terrorising their families. No evidence to support this has been produced in the House, and when I have asked hon. Members for it they have ducked the question. If there is such evidence, let the inquiry take place in the courts, but in truth there is no evidence of the police systematically destroying civil liberties.
  The fourth charge is that our police are engaged in national policing. That charge is based on the notion that the existence of the national reporting centre and the coordination of mutual aid by the current president of the Association of Chief Police Officers have turned our police into a national force. There is no basis for this charge. It is not true. If we did not have mutual aid, with the command being retained in each individual force, south Yorkshire—or any other area—would simply be overwhelmed because it does not have and could not afford the many more men that it would have to recruit to deal with any contingency.
  Mr. Max Madden: To which Minister is the head of the national reporting centre responsible?
  Mr. Griffiths: He is not responsible to any Minister. We do not have police Ministers, and I hope that we never shall. If the Home Secretary broke the law, an ordinary constable could arrest him, and no doubt would do so.
  The national reporting centre, which was set up under the previous Labour Government—if any Government were involved—is a simple mechanism for the exchange of requests for help. I invite the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) to go and see it. It is a coordinating arrangement so that information is provided by one force to another. And all mutual aid groups come under the local command of the chief officer of the receiving force concerned.
  The hon. Member for Wentworth asks for an inquiry. I believe that there will be an inquiry into the way in which violence has been met during the recent troubles in the coal industry. It will take place in the House when we debate, during the next year, the public order legislation that lies ahead of us. There is bound to be an inquiry then. But the specific matters into which the hon. Gentleman seeks an inquiry tonight should be dealt with in the courts. The courts of law are the best place for that, and I hope that he will accept it.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Martin Redmond: There is a good expression to describe the speech made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I do not know whether it is a parliamentary expression, but the hon. Gentleman's speech was certainly a load of bullshit.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is certainly not a parliamentary expression.
  Mr. Redmond: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
  The hon. Gentleman shed a lot of crocodile tears, but despite all that he did not support the request for an investigation. That does not surprise me. As a new Member of Parliament, I have been appalled by the sniggering and sneering of Conservative Members whenever we ask any question about the mining dispute. We have asked numerous questions, highlighting certain activities by the police, but they have met with no response but with laughter and sniggering. I am appalled.
  If there is nothing to hide, the Minister will no doubt agree to an investigation. If he adopts the other course of action, he will be condoning what is happening in the coalfields. Hon. Members have mentioned South Africa, but Conservative Members should try travelling to this House from Doncaster. They will find that on certain days police checkpoints will stop them going about their lawful business. If that is not a matter of concern to the Minister, he should say so now.
  I and other hon. Members went into Nottingham at the request of the Yorkshire area of the NUM because of allegations that were made. At one pit, no peaceful picketing was allowed. The police had herded about 50 lads to the other side of the road. According to the evidence, those lads had not been able to get near the entrance. We said that six of them would be sufficient to picket the lads going into work at that pit and that the rest would go home. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) will confirm that after five minutes it was then agreed that those six pickets could go across and peacefully picket. But then one of the thugs from down south—I cannot call him a police officer,

  791
  because he was a thug—came across and would not allow anyone to picket. Is it any wonder that people get riled?
  It is asked why people do not complain about what happens. Often, the police do not wear identity numbers and have obviously removed them from their clothing. If a lad is manhandled by the police, his first concern is to protect himself. If he is guarding his head with his arms and hands against truncheon blows, the last thing that he will think of is to get the policeman's number. There are numerous cases of lads being injured but finding it impossible to identify the policeman concerned. That is why an investigation is important.
  People who are charged with obstruction and are remanded on bail appear in court several weeks later—a similar delay as when hon. Members write asking for information. One of my constituents, Mr. Henderson, was charged with obstruction—but what happened when he appeared in front of the magistrates to ask, through a solicitor, for unconditional bail? Apparently he had a criminal record. It consisted of a six months jail sentence for actual bodily harm, a three months' sentence for theft, a three months' sentence for criminal damage, a supposed court appearance for excess alcohol in his blood —presumably drunk and disorderly — and a court appearance for breach of the peace.
  Mr. Hardy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to Mr. Henderson, whom I also know. I share my hon. Friend's view. When Mr. Henderson listened to that bogus record, one of my constituents, Mr. Kevin Heavey, went to court and discovered that he had a criminal record that showed that he had served 18 months in prison for armed robbery and had other convictions for theft. There is no evidence of Mr. Heavey having any criminal record. I know him quite well as he lives round the corner from my home in Wath upon Dearne.
  Mr. Redmond: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. There is a conveyor belt system. There is all sorts of conniving to stop our lads getting unconditional bail. If the Minister is sincere and wants to uphold the law, he should agree to the request for an investigation.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), I have always regarded the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) as one of the most responsible and respected Members of the House. I do not doubt that he is right when he says that, in general, he is one of the last people who would wish to attack the police. I do not doubt that, in principle, he is one of those members of the Labour party who believe in the maintenance of law and order and a civilised society. However, although he might say that he wants law and order to be maintained, any debate such as this and any speech such as he made is bound to be taken as a general criticism of
  police behaviour during the miners' strike.
  The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that he quoted examples of what he claimed was police over-reaction. He gave his credence to complaints about police behaviour and he criticised the police in a way that suggested and created the idea that the violence that we have seen has
  792
  been caused by the police rather than, as is the case, by violence on the picket lines to which the police are bound to react.
  Mr. Hardy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should understand that I sent letters describing what I read to the House today to Ministers three months ago, because I recognised that those events were serious. I believed that the problem should be solved and that Home Office Ministers bore a heavy responsibility that they needed to begin to exercise.
  Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with the matter of the delay, if there has been one. That is a matter for him to consider.
  The tone of the speeches of the hon. Members for Wentworth and for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) amounted to a clear attack on the police. Their remarks were a travesty of what has happened. The hon. Member for Don Valley talked about "our lads" being injured, but he did not say a word about the number of policemen being injured. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on this question: is it not an extraordinary fact that, if all this violence is created by the police, as the hon. Gentleman wishes us to believe, it is always the police who appear to have the greatest number of injuries at the end of the day? The police, whose task on behalf of society is to maintain law and order, are using the force they need to use—I believe no more than they feel is necessary—to ensure that their duty is done.
  Mr. Redmond: I shall match my record before the strike started with that of any other hon. Member on the way in which we have attempted to bring about great cooperation between the police and the general public. I shall provide the right hon. and learned Gentleman with evidence of that co-operation after the debate, if he wishes. Numerous injuries are inflicted on the miners, but the miners are a breed of men who do not go running and crying.
  Mr. Carlisle: I repeat a great many more policemen than others involved appear to have been injured. That is an extraordinary fact in view of the hon. Gentleman's statement about the violence coming from the police side.
  If allegations have been made in certain places mentioned by the hon. Member for Wentworth that the police have acted in that way, there is a recognised complaints procedure. That procedure is supported by both sides of the House, and it includes an independent element to which people can complain. There is no such complaints procedure for those who have been the victims of violence, threats, terrorism or intimidation from those on the picket line. There is no method by which people can complain that their property has been damaged because of the action of those who support the miners on strike. I remind the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that people may use civil procedures. If people claim that they have been beaten up, they are free to sue the police in the civil courts. How many complaints have there been? How many actions have been taken in that way?
  We have heard a totally one-sided description from the Opposition of what is happening. The police are doing not only their duty but what is required for society. They are ensuring that freedom is maintained by making sure that those who wish to work are able to get to work and are free

  793
  to work. By their actions, the police are upholding the values of a civilised society. It is those values, freedoms and rights that are under attack by some of the militants among the striking miners. The right to work is a fundamental right. The freedom of an individual to choose not to join a strike is just as important as his right to choose to join a strike. The freedom of those who wish to work in the mines must be preserved, and their ability to do that must be preserved. Only the existence of an adequate police force has enabled them to achieve that right.
  Complaints have been made about the numbers of police that have been seen at some of the mines. The numbers are those required to deal with the threat of violence which otherwise exists. The interesting point is that, thanks to the police force, that vital freedom to work, and that additional right to keep open other industries, has been preserved against violent attack by some of the people on the picket lines.
  If the right hon. Member for Gorton speaks in the debate, perhaps he will tell us what he has to say about the reports that we have heard today of windows being smashed by boulders being thrown at colliery buildings. Is that the sort of violence, which is supported by Mr. Scargill and Mr. McGahey and which his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition condones when he speaks on the platform alongside Mr. Scargill, that the right hon. Member for Gorton condones? We are seeing violence, intimidation and attacks on property of a nature that we have not seen before and which I hope we shall not see again. The only people who can preserve the freedom of individuals not to suffer from that intimidation, those threats and attempts to terrorise are members of an adequate police force.
  Allowing that there is a complaints procedure and the right of any individual to sue the police authority if he believes that he has been damaged by police action, I do not believe that there is any need or justification for a Government inquiry. Whatever the hon. Member for Wentworth may say, we know that a Government inquiry lends support to the suggestion that police behaviour has been improper and wrong. I do not believe that to be so.
  I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about delay. One of the worrying aspects of the matter is the delay in bringing cases before the courts. That, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, is the right place for these matters to be decided. I ask my right hon. Friend what efforts the Government are making to persuade—that is all that they can do—the courts in the area to try to speed up the hearing of some of the many cases before them. It is a matter of anxiety that only 10 per cent., or less, of the cases brought have so far been dealt with by the courts. I say that irrespective of the outcome of those cases. Justice must be seen to be done, and done speedily.
  Many people outside the House are worried. They see cases of violence on the television during the evening. They hear that so many arrests have been made, but they never hear that those cases have come before the court. It is not adequate that those matters should be dealt with three or six months later. I know that it is a matter not for the Government, but for the courts. The local courts should see that cases are disposed of quickly in the interests of the parties so that allegations and counter-allegations can be properly investigated.
  794
  One must, of course, regret that the strike has gone on for this length of time. But one must regret much more the attitude of Mr. Scargill, on television, on Channel 4, when he said of the miners:
  "we have no intention of abiding by laws, be they civil or criminal, which restrict our ability as a trade union to fight for the rights of our members".
  That is a direct attack on parliamentary democracy and on the rule of law, and a direct attack on the basis of our freedoms. That is the sort of direct attack that neither side of this House can afford to allow to succeed. We have to look to the police to see that it does not.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Alec Woodall: The whole House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for initiating the debate. I congratulate him and thank him for his efforts.
  When I entered the Chamber to try to take part in the debate I was determined to stick to the motion on the Order Paper—
  "the subject of correspondence with the Home Office regarding policing of the miners' dispute".
  Ever since the dispute started, the Home Secretary has consistently ignored letters and anything that has been said to him about police activities and what has been happening on the picket lines. He appears to have adopted the first part of the Yorkshireman's motto—
  "Hear all, see all, say nowt'.
  We are not getting a dicky bird from the Home Office. My hon. Friend and I and others have sent letters to him but there has been no reply from the Home Office. I have records of letters which have been sent since last March.
  I should like to tell the House about some of the events which took place in the third week of March, the third week of the dispute. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) and myself, after we had received complaints from Yorkshire about the attitude of the police on the Nottinghamshire picket lines —to which my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) referred—sought a meeting with the Home Secretary. I give credit where it is due. The Home Secretary immediately agreed to meet us. He gave us 20 minutes. I am convinced that, if it had not been for my right hon. Friend, I would still have been waiting to see the Home Secretary. It appears that anyone with "r h" in front of his name carries a bit of weight.
  We met the Home Secretary for 20 minutes. We outlined to him what we had been told was happening to Yorkshiremen going on to the picket lines in Nottinghamshire. The Home Secretary looked at us and smiled, as he usually does. He nodded and said, "It is not a matter for me. I must leave the matter in the hands of the police." He has been doing that ever since. He does not give a damn. There have already been three deaths on the picket lines, apart from the 4,000 injuries to police and miners. He does not seem to bother.
  What perturbs me is not so much that the Home Secretary ignores my letters but that he ignores letters from people in positions of responsibility. I have here a letter dated 28 June 1984 which was sent to the Home Secretary by the chairman and deputy chairman of the police authority of West Yorkshire metropolitan county council. I should like to read two passages from it. In the fourth paragraph they say:
  "There is evidence which we believe shows that the wider interests of the community are being neglected and undermined

  795
  by disproportionate attention to one manifestation of a temporary civil disorder. (It may be that the very size of the police involvement is not helping in the disorder). In certain parts of the country there is what some describe as a state of civil war, which amongst other effects is seriously damaging present and future police-community confidence, and this in areas far removed from the immediate point of conflict."
  In the next paragraph, the chairman and deputy chairman say:
  "We see, as a matter of grave urgency, a need to restore the Queen's peace and goodwill between the Police and the other parties concerned who are deeply committed in this dispute."
  That letter has still not been acknowledged. It is from two responsible county councillors, Ron Darrington, chairman, and Harold Best, deputy chairman, of the police authority of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council. They have not even received a card acknowledging receipt of their letter.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned four things and in his intervention just now referred to the bottles and stones that have been thrown at the police, and asked what they were to do about it. What happened last week in my constituency leaves a lot to be desired from the police. No sticks, stones, or bottles were thrown, but the police went to question a man. What happened there was diabolical. I interviewed five of my constituents a week ago yesterday morning. They had all been at the receiving end of the police special action group.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the accusation of paramilitary tactics by the police, which he did not try to deny. He just went on to mention what had happened in other countries. Let me tell him what happened to Mr. Alan Hurst, in this country. He was walking home in Fitzwilliam a week last Monday night. He saw a disturbance, in which a young man was having his head bashed on the pavement by police. He went up to them and recognised the young man as his own nephew. After they had given the nephew's head several bangs on the pavement, Mr. Hurst said, "Hold on a bit. You have given him enough. Just stop it, will you?" The next thing, he was grabbed and handcuffed to a lamp post.
  The police continued to knock his nephew about. When they had finished with his nephew, they set about him. A week yesterday morning, Mr. Hurst took off his shirt to let me have a look at his back. It was like the back of a zebra. He is an innocent, 43-year-old, law-abiding citizen, who was just going home. He tried to admonish the police and tell them that he thought they were doing wrong.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Has the hon. Gentleman put the evidence before the police complaints board, and if not, why not?
  Mr. Woodall: The evidence has been given to it. I had correspondence this morning from the deputy chief constable of West Yorkshire metropolitan police. He has written to Mr. Alan Hurst, and to the others involved. I went to see the chief constable last Monday. All those involved have been invited to make their statements to a special police—I stress "police"—inquiry.
  I am satisfied with that as far as it goes, until I see the end product of the inquiry. If the outcome is not suitable, I shall support, as I do now, the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth that an inquiry should be held. The inquiry should not be held into the police — the
  796
  motion is not about their activities, as they are bound to be involved—but about our concern at what they are not doing. They do not give a damn. It is about time that the Home Secretary pulled his finger out.
  I want to mention Cortonwood. I wanted to stick to the wording of the Adjournment motion, but it is difficult in this situation. My hon. Friend was right. The dispute started last November with an overtime ban. The union policy, declared by Mr. Arthur Scargill, was specific. He wanted an overtime ban, and nothing more. The ban started on 1 November last year and went on until March this year, when the Cortonwood colliery closure was engineered by Her Majesty's Government, to cause a strike. The Government caused the strike, not the miners.
  Eighty four per cent of Yorkshire miners voted in 1981 for the motion,
  " Are you in favour of taking strike action if any colliery is closed other than by means of seam exhaustion?"
  There was not seam exhaustion at Cortonwood. Men had just been transferred there from nearby Elsecar colliery to keep Cortonwood going for the next five years. There is still 1 million tonnes of good coking coal avaialble at Cortonwood. Men from Elsecar were promised work for the next five years.
  Why, then, ignoring the new procedure, did the National Coal Board announce the closure of Cortonwood, without any consultation whatsoever? It was engineered. The Government wanted a showdown. They have got it. Now that they have the result of the showdown, they do not like it. They see all, they hear all, and they sit there and say nowt. It is about time that they got their finger out.
  I appeal to the Home Secretary to answer the letters and listen to the advice that has been given to him and the pleas that are being made, particularly by Opposition Members, and to intervene, because the damage has been done. I am law-abiding. I have always supported the police until the present incidents. When one hears these reports about the police, it is time for an inquiry to be held. That is why I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call anybody else, I should mention that the Minister wishes to reply to the debate at 10.15 pm and four other hon. Members wish to take part before then.
  9.50 pm
  Mr. Allen McKay: I shall be brief because we have referred to this matter time and again. It is no use going over the same old ground because I am sure that the Secretary of State and other hon. Members know about the situation.
  I should like to examine why this situation has developed. The story of the strike is sad. It never needed to come about. Cortonwood, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), is on the borders of my constituency. Also, I worked for 21 years at Elsecar colliery, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall). I think that I know every person and all the families of those who work at those two collieries. I have lived in that area all my life. We have to live with the strike day after day. At the weekends, we spend all the time with our constituents listening to their complaints. It may seem one-sided, because it is our constituents who are doing the complaining. The police have never yet come to us with a complaint.

  797
  We know the people who are concerned. I am not saying that action on the picket line does not cause problems—it does. However, one must ask oneself why the problems were caused in the first place. I take Orgreave as an example. What were the pickets to think when the police escorted lorries through their lines at 60 mph? The police did not deny that when they were asked about it. Why were the lorries not allowed to stop so that the pickets could do their picketing? Why has an agreement on picketing not been reached? When 300 or 400 people are standing there shouting, no harm is done. Many times the pickets have asked for six of their members to be given permission to stop people going through the lines so that they can talk to them and put their case, but it has been refused. Because of that, the pickets have had to resort to the tactics that we have seen. When they do so, the police naturally react, and when that happens the pickets also react. It goes on and on, and gets bigger and bigger. However, no one has sat down and thought about talking about it, as happened in Wales when there were problems on the picket lines. We could put a stop to the problems on the picket lines if we used some sense instead of the direct approach.
  I have disagreed with my constituents about some aspects of picketing and told them why. It is significant that when we had problems in Toxteth a Minister went there after two days to see for himself. After the problems in Brixton, there was the Scarman report. All that we are asking for is that, after 20 weeks of incidents, there should be a public inquiry. I support a public inquiry because after the strike has ended policing in the areas affected must carry on. The strike will eventually come to an end and people will eventually go back to work. What will not be forgotten are the incidents at the picket line and the policing. We are not talking about the police themselves. We are saying that there is a different approach to policing methods that we have never come across before.
  After their defeats in 1972 and 1974, in 1981 when the Prime Minister backed down on the proposed 20 colliery closures, after Saltley and all the other incidents, the Conservatives said that it would never happen again. The reason for the vast police presence on the picket lines is the Prime Minister's determination that there should not be another Saltley. That has been the cause of the trouble, but there is no need for another Saltley if industrial relations are handled properly.
  I support the call for a public inquiry because of the aftermath. I have spoken to the police about this. They know what is bound to come. The local police know that once all the extras go back to London they will have to take on the whole burden themselves. Many of us sit on police liaison committees. A great deal has been achieved in the past five or six years. It will be sad indeed to see all that effort lost and the whole job having to be started again. The only way to achieve a base on which to build is to have a public inquiry into the events on the picket lines. Let us have all the information on the table so that we can see what has gone wrong and decide how to proceed in the future.
  There is nothing anti-police in our request for a public inquiry. The results of such an inquiry are essential for the future policing of our areas. If there is no inquiry, there will be more problems than the Government can imagine. Throughout the dispute, I have warned the Government of what was about to happen and how to prevent it, but they have not acted on my advice. I make it clear to them now
  798
  that we need a public inquiry to provide a basis for the future policing of our areas. People in the south of England know nothing about the north. We who live in the north know all about it because we have to. If policing is to come right in the future we must have a public inquiry. Let us have the truth on the table so that we can discuss it.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. Richard Hickmet: I apologise to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for not being present at the start of the debate, but I had not expected it to start so soon.
  Much correspondence and debate has arisen out of the events at Orgreave. As the House knows, the object of the Orgreave run was to ensure that the steelworks in Scunthorpe could continue to operate. From my conversations with both miners and police, and having witnessed some of the worst incidents at Orgreave, I have no doubt that if the police had not been present in such force the steelworks in my constituency would have had to close. It is all very well to criticise the police and their tactics, but the people of Scunthorpe owe a great deal to the police who stood on the picket line at Orgreave, thus ensuring that coke was delivered to the steelworks at a critical time when the blast furnaces were in a very dangerous condition.
  Scunthorpe was also invaded by large numbers of pickets—as many as 3,000 on one occasion. But for the police operation on the M180 to stop pickets entering Scunthorpe, I am convinced that the steelworks would have been brought to a halt. I remind hon. Members of the threats to drivers. They had to be protected. A serious law and order dispute occurred.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Major.]
  Mr. Hickmet: If the president of the NUM says that there is only one law in an industrial dispute—that no one crosses a picket line—are not the incidents in recent weeks bound to occur? The police, in difficult circumstances, have behaved in a well-disciplined and well-controlled manner.
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Michael Welsh: On one occasion 16 loads which were not necessary in Scunthorpe went from Orgreave. Some of our lads' heads were split open by policemen who charged amongst them. I think that that was wrong. Some may say that the police acted properly, but I say that they acted wrongly when they charged amongst the men on that occasion.
  The Home Secretary should reply to all letters from Members of Parliament. It is unacceptable for hon. Members to be told when they write to the Home Secretary that they should take the issue to a chief constable. The Home Secretary may think that that is correct, but he is a Minister of the Crown. If the Home Secretary will not reply to Her Majesty's Members of Parliament, hon. Members must be allowed to write to the monarch, whether one likes that or not. I realise that I must be careful how I express myself.
  Sir Raymond Gower: Surely it is impossible for the Home Secretary to reply if an issue

  799
  is pending trial in a court of law. It would be wrong for the Home Secretary to attempt to reply to a question about a case which is about to be tried.
  Mr. Welsh: That might be a point, but the Home Secretary could reply by saying no. The Home Secretary belittles the House if he does not reply to hon. Members within a reasonable time. Ministers must reply under rules of the House—and they do. I see no reason why the Home Secretary should not do the same.
  I am not a legal man, but a village lad—and proud of it. If the Home Secretary has no desire to reply within a reasonable time to a question about someone walking or riding on Her Majesty's highways an hon. Member must go above the House of Commons and write to Her Majesty to see whether she will give permission for her citizens to travel on her highways.
  10.5 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: This has been an important debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on obtaining it. I also congratulate my hon. Friends on their contributions from their personal and constituency experiences. I regret that the Home Secretary has not seen fit to attend the debate. The allegations that have been made by my hon. Friends about months passing without replies from the Home Office are very serious and show a great discourtesy to the House.
  Mr. Woodall: The Home Secretary believes in the second part of the Yorkshireman's motto, "Eat all, sup all, pay nowt."
  Mr. Kaufman: The Home Secretary, at least momentarily, can be seen in the House, so he may have heard what my hon. Friend said.
  The Opposition repeat their sympathy with the police who have been injured during duties that they would have much preferred not to have carried out. However, we are constantly receiving information—and my hon. Friends have referred to some of it—of incidents on the picket lines, in the coal mining areas and on the highways——
  Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Home Secretary is in the House, should he not be obliged to come into the Chamber?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): That is not a matter on which I can help the hon. Gentleman. I have no control over these matters.
  Mr. Kaufman: That was the Home Secretary that was.
  Information comes in all the time about incidents that show that some members of the police force have behaved with excessive force, have exceeded their powers and have seriously infringed civil liberties. Of course, they are in the minority—just as those who have been violent on the picket lines or elsewhere are acknowledged by the chief constable of south Yorkshire to be in the minority. I say quite firmly, so that it can be clearly understood in this House, that the Opposition unequivocally condemn such violence. Violence is alien to the trade union movement in Britain, and hon. Members should be aware of that.
  However, it must be said that the minority who have been violent on the picket lines have been depicted by the
  800
  Prime Minister and the Home Secretary as being typical of the whole mining community. At the same time, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the whole sorry gang of the Government reject any implication that there might at any time have been any excessive use of police powers.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) denied that the national reporting centre had become the base for a national police force. I have visited the centre and I believe that that is precisely what it has become, and it has happened in a most disquieting manner. In that room in New Scotland Yard are links to all the 45 police forces of England and Wales, subject to the command of the president pro tern of the Association of Chief Police Officers, a man who is literally accountable to no one; not this House, nor to the Home Secretary —and and we are glad of that — nor to any of the elected police authorities. Police forces are deployed by the centre, often against the will of the elected police authorities, but at the expense of the ratepayers who finance those elected authorities.
  During the past few days, the nation has been subjected to an extraordinary and repulsive barrage of vituperation by the Prime Minister and other members of the Government, which has been carefully orchestrated by Downing street. This almost unprecedented propaganda campaign will backfire. While people in Britain wish to, and should, support the police in the proper discharge of their duties, they equally wish to be sure that the police are carrying out their duties in an acceptable manner.
  The police must be given trust and support, but in a democratic society they must never be regarded as being above criticism because once we elevate the police above criticism—once they are placed above the rest of the population—we are headed for a police state, and I am sure that the police themselves would never wish us to go down that road.
  The allegations that have been voiced in this debate and on other occasions, in this House and elsewhere, are too serious and numerous to be dismissed in the cavalier manner in which the Home Secretary has repeatedly reacted to them. My hon. Friends who have voiced these allegations tonight and on other occasions are serious, responsible and respected Members of the House not lightly given to making allegations of the validity of which they are not convinced.
  It is now essential that an impartial public inquiry be held into allegations about the behaviour of certain of the police during the strike. When it is said that the complaints procedure should be resorted to, I must reply that the complaints procedure is not satisfactory in the circumstances. It is not sufficient, nor is it trusted.
  As I say, we require an impartial inquiry. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds really believes, as I am sure he does, that the police have a satisfactory story to tell, he should be as eager for an inquiry as we are. Miners are basically law-abiding men. Unless the air is cleared, there could be a serious, possibly a permanent, breakdown of confidence between the police and many in the mining communities, and that could extend much more widely. Confidence between the police and public is essential in the fight against the desperately serious crime wave that the nation is experiencing.
  It is in the interests of the police that such an inquiry should be held, and we calle on the Government to institute one. Further, I recommend, through the hon.

  801
  Member for Bury St. Edmunds, to the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers that they should join us in seeking an independent inquiry.
  If the Government will not agree to such an inquiry, we shall have to consider whether one can be set up by a Labour Government when we take office. However, before the election, time will have passed and it is far better for an inquiry to take place while memories in all quarters are fresh and while those involved, among the miners and the police, can be questioned properly by impartial people.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: What is wrong with the courts?
  Mr. Kaufman: There are far too many allegations and, as the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) pointed out, the courts are jammed and proceedings are not taking place in the way that they should. What is more, it is not simply a question of individual incidents, important through they are. There is also the question, which is leading to great misgiving in the country, of the nature of policing as it is developing in Britain, in regard to the national reporting centre and of the almost total breakdown in accountability between chief police officers and elected police authorities in many of the areas that have been affected.
  Therefore, I call on the Government to abandon their shrill and partisan attitude to this matter. I call on the Government to help to heal the wounds that have been caused during these long 20 weeks, and not only to bring about an inquiry into these allegations so that all involved should be satisfied at the end but, above all, to take definite, conciliatory, urgent action to bring this sorry dispute to an end.
  10.15pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) began by criticising the handling of his letters to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. He did not say that he had recently received a reply to his letters, which I hope that he will regard as reasonably full. It is wrong that hon. Members should have to wait so long for replies to their letters. Those concerned in the Home Office, working under great pressure, were anxious to bring together the points raised in different letters from different hon. Members and to put them together to the police officers concerned. Looking back, that was not an adequate reason for the delay, and I regret, as the hon. Gentleman knows because I have already told him, the delay in his case, and other delays that may have occurred. We have taken steps to ensure that letters to hon. Members are dealt with more swiftly in future.
  However, I must reject the hon. Gentleman's accusations of disdain and arrogance. There is a crucial distinction between issues of policy and complaints against individual actions by police officers. The first are matters for the Government and for the House. As to the second, Parliament has laid down a procedure, in the Police Acts of 1964 and 1976. Complaints about actions of the police have to be investigated, and the outcome is necessarily subject to the independent scrutiny of the Director of Public Prosecutions on criminal aspects and of the independent Police Complaints Board on disciplinary action.
  Let me clear up two points that are not clear in the minds of the hon. Members for Doncaster, North (Mr.
  802
  Welsh) and for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall). There is no role for my right hon. and learned Friend the Horne Secretary in the procedure for handling complaints against the police. In the legislation of 1964 and 1976—I draw attention to those dates—Parliament gave him no role. The only role that my right hon. and learned Friend has is that, at the end of the day, he receives and decides appeals in disciplinary cases against individual police officers. It follows that my right hon. and learned Friend has no power and right to involve himself in the investigation of complaints against individual police officers. What we can do—and do is to pass on to chief officers who have that responsibility the complaints that we have received from hon. Members and others so that they can be registered officially and investigated.
  Mr. Welsh: The Minister must get many letters from citizens complaining about different things, and in a liberal society we all agree with that. However, when a complaint comes from a Member of Parliament, the Minister should pass that on to the chief constable even if he does not intervene. He should not return it and tell the Member to send the complaint to the chief constable. I am not saying that, as a Member of Parliament, I am better or greater than my fellow citizens, but I am a Member of Parliament and therefore entitled to send complaints to a Minister and hope that, in an open society, the Minister will convey that complaint to the necessary place or person—even if it is a chief constable.
  Mr. Hurd: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's point by saying that that is precisely what we can do, and do. However, my right hon. and learned Friend has no power or right to involve himself in the investigation.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) asked how many complaints had been received. Our latest figures are 205 complaints, 20 of which have been withdrawn, and 778 letters of appreciation.
  My right hon. and learned Friend also touched, as he has done before, on delays in bringing cases to court. This is always a matter of concern, and the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary are very ready to consider what help or advice might be given to any court finding itself with an exceptionally heavy load of cases. In particular, the Lord Chancellor is prepared to meet requests from courts for the assistance of stipendiary magistrates.
  I turn to policy, which is a different matter and which is of concern not just to individual hon. Members, but to the House and to the Government. No one can accuse the Government of failing to answer points made in the House, to answer questions on many occasions, and to reply to debates. A large number of opportunities are open to the Opposition, they have been taken, and we have responded to them in detail.
  I say a word or two on a subject of particular concern which has been raised several times in the debate. I refer to the state of the law as regards the powers of the police to forestall and deal with breaches of the peace.
  The legal basis of that power was described to the House on 16 March by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. It is for the courts to decide whether, in any instance, the police went beyond their power in this respect. But I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Member for 'Wentworth, who implied that the police were wrong to exercise that power. We have all

  803
  been cruelly conscious of the scenes of violence brought about by the numbers of pickets mobilised at particular points and by the tactics which they have employed.
  If the power, which several Opposition Members have criticised, to forestall breaches of the peace had not been used, the numbers outside collieries and in other places would have been far greater. That point was made succinctly by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet).
  Mr. Hardy: The basic point of my speech and the principal reason for my concern is that I wrote to the Home Secretary on 21 March because 12 Cortonwood miners were refused permission to picket at three entrances at the Silverhills colliery. I was pointing out that if that permission had been forthcoming and if smaller scale picketing had been allowed in the first place, all the scenes that hon. Members deplore would probably not have occurred. Does not the Minister of State understand that when in the House last Thursday the Home Secretary appeared to be recommending six pickets, not four, some of us were entitled to be concerned?
  Mr. Hurd: My right hon. and learned Friend has always made it clear that peaceful persuasion by pickets is permitted by law, and there can be no difficulty about that. Instead, we have the considered decision by those managing the strike to run it on the basis of large numbers, with all the intimidation which follows. If the police had not used the power, which is now criticised, the force of numbers of which I am speaking might have closed a pit, a coking plant or the steel mill at Scunthorpe.
  What would have been the situation then? The constituents of hon. Members who had listened to the arguments and decided to work would have been prevented from doing so not by a ballot in which they had been outvoted and not by peaceful persuasion on the picket line, but by force.
  Whatever may be the view of a few hon. Members—not in the House at the moment—about that, I cannot think that the hon. Member for Wentworth would have been proud of that outcome, and I think that most of us and the country would have been deeply ashamed. Yet that is what could and probably would have happened if this police power to forestall breaches of the peace, which is consistently criticised by the Opposition, had not been used.
  Lamentably, this has been a long and inevitably controversial operation. In those circumstances, incidents are inevitable, and from time to time there are bound to be different versions of what occurred. That is why, from the very beginning, my right hon. and learned Friend has said that all complaints against the police arising out of this operation should be investigated and dealt with.
  However, we must be clear about how these incidents and this situation have arisen. The deciding factor is not the existence of the strike. We are all familiar with strikes.
  804
  Most strikes run their course without any need for police operations such as this. The root of the problem has been the decision to run this strike on the basis of mass picketing and intimidation.
  Sadly, the casualty figures have to be updated from time to time. Between 14 March and 17 July, 512 police officers were injured in performing their duties in connection with the dispute, and 33 of the injuries were serious. It is not only the police who suffer. Last night, at half-past eleven, 40 men attacked the house of a working miner in Shirebrook in Derbyshire. Stones were thrown. The single policeman who was first on the scene was attacked, and three arrests were made after further police arrived. That is the latest in a series of incidents with which those who have to read these reports day by day are sadly familiar.
  I have listened to the argument for an inquiry, but I do not believe that it has been made out. One of the items in the early-day motion refers to complaints about police behaviour. There is a complaints procedure laid down by Parliament, and it is being used to the extent that I have described. On the other hand, if we are talking about the police having exceeded the powers granted to them by Paliament or derived from the common law, such complaints can be tested in the courts. If what is in question is Government policy, that policy has been tested, argued and justified in the House.
  I take seriously what I believe to be the main driving force behind the proposal. The hon. Member for Wentworth has referred to the poison which is seeping into relations between the police and his constituents. I agree that that poison exists. However, the source of that poison is no secret. It is the attempt to run this strike by violent means.
  I regret some of the things that the hon. Gentleman has said, but I have no complaint to make about his action in bringing the grievances of his constituents before the House. We all have a right to do that. However, I hope that he and the Opposition Front Bench will understand that they have no monopoly of indignation. Hon. Members on the Government Benches feel increasingly strongly about what has happened, what we see and what we are told about by eye witnesses. I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks from experience and with sincerity on these matters. However, if he and the Opposition Front Bench are to carry conviction in their appeal about relations between the police and the public, they must use their influence with the leaders of the strike and persuade them to change their bullying and undemocratic tactics. There is the taint. There is the poison. The whole House must agree about that. For heaven's sake, let us try to drain the poison out of the situation. That can happen only if those who took the fatal decision to run the dispute on the basis of violence are brought to reverse that decision.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o' clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Financial Management Initiative
  Financial Management Initiative
  Mentally Disordered Offenders
  Mentally Disordered Offenders
  Video Works
  Video Works
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  Church Commissioners (Duties)
  Church Commissioners (Duties)
  St. Wilfrid's, Brighton
  St. Wilfrid's, Brighton
  Churches (Demolition)
  Churches (Demolition)
  Advisory Board for Redundant Churches
  Advisory Board for Redundant Churches
WALES
  Financial Management Initiative
  Financial Management Initiative
  Neonatal Care
  Neonatal Care
  European Year of Music
  European Year of Music
  National Health Service (Funding)
  National Health Service (Funding)
  Felinheli Bypass
  Felinheli Bypass
  South Wales (Industry)
  South Wales (Industry)
  Housing Association (Sales)
  Housing Association (Sales)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Glasgow Procurator's Office
  Glasgow Procurator's Office
  Procurators Fiscal Offices
  Procurators Fiscal Offices
  Financial Management Initiative
  Financial Management Initiative
THE ARTS
  South Bank
  South Bank
  Museums and Galleries Commission (Discussions)
  Museums and Galleries Commission (Discussions)
  Museum Services (Metropolitan Counties)
  Museum Services (Metropolitan Counties)
  London Events (Responsibility)
  London Events (Responsibility)
  Arts Council (Government Funding)
  Arts Council (Government Funding)
PRIME MINISTER
  Ministerial Advisers (Cost)
  Ministerial Advisers (Cost)
  Polygraphs
  Polygraphs
  Common Market Anthem and Flag
  Common Market Anthem and Flag
  Local Authority Finance
  Local Authority Finance
  Intervention Food Stocks (Gateshead)
  Intervention Food Stocks (Gateshead)
  Public Inquiries
  Public Inquiries
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Royal Prerogative of Mercy
  Royal Prerogative of Mercy
  Anti-apartheid Demonstrations (South African Embassy)
  Anti-apartheid Demonstrations (South African Embassy)
  Parole
  Parole
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Woolwich Prison
  Woolwich Prison
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Civil Defence College, Easingwold
  Civil Defence College, Easingwold
  House Searches
  House Searches
  Manchester Prison
  Manchester Prison
  Persons on Remand
  Persons on Remand
  Liverpool Prison
  Liverpool Prison
  Embassies (Demonstrations)
  Embassies (Demonstrations)
  State of Emergency
  State of Emergency
  Naturalisation
  Naturalisation
  Fire Precautions
  Fire Precautions
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisons (Drugs Expenditure)
  Prisons (Drugs Expenditure)
  Government Publications (Foreign Languages)
  Government Publications (Foreign Languages)
  Mr. Bill Bush
  Mr. Bill Bush
  Mr. Robin Walsh
  Mr. Robin Walsh
  Cremation Orders
  Cremation Orders
  Racial Attacks (Prosecutions)
  Racial Attacks (Prosecutions)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Black Committee (Report)
  Black Committee (Report)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  North-West Thames Regional Health Authority
  North-West Thames Regional Health Authority
  Financial Management Initiative
  Financial Management Initiative
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Animal Experiments
  Animal Experiments
  Consultant Grade (Resources)
  Consultant Grade (Resources)
  Hospital Construction (Newport, IOW)
  Hospital Construction (Newport, IOW)
  Mobility Allowance (Appeals)
  Mobility Allowance (Appeals)
  Newcastle Industrial Dispute
  Newcastle Industrial Dispute
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  Resource Allocation
  Resource Allocation
  National Health Service (Contracted-out Services)
  National Health Service (Contracted-out Services)
  Secure Units
  Secure Units
  Mentally-Handicapped Persons
  Mentally-Handicapped Persons
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Government Publications (Cost)
  Government Publications (Cost)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Special Hospitals
  Special Hospitals
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Pharmaceutical Prices
  Pharmaceutical Prices
  Mental Health Act 1983
  Mental Health Act 1983
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Poll Cards
  Poll Cards
  Growth Rates (GNP)
  Growth Rates (GNP)
  Prices
  Prices
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Savings (OECD Statistics)
  Savings (OECD Statistics)
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  Spending Programmes
  Spending Programmes
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Consumer Spending
  Consumer Spending
  Reserve and Contingencies Funds
  Reserve and Contingencies Funds
  Child Care Costs (Employers' Contributions)
  Child Care Costs (Employers' Contributions)
  Council House Tenants (Tax Concessions)
  Council House Tenants (Tax Concessions)
  Argentina
  Argentina
  European Year of Music
  European Year of Music
  Remuneration and Management Fees (Taxation)
  Remuneration and Management Fees (Taxation)
  Excise Duties
  Excise Duties
  Black Economy
  Black Economy
  National Debt
  National Debt
  Pension Schemes (Lump-sum Payments)
  Pension Schemes (Lump-sum Payments)
  Government Publications (Cost)
  Government Publications (Cost)
  Extra-statutory Concessions
  Extra-statutory Concessions
  Exchequer (Income Loss)
  Exchequer (Income Loss)
  Japan
  Japan
  Miners' Free Coal
  Miners' Free Coal
  Meal Vouchers
  Meal Vouchers
  Extra-statutory Concessions
  Extra-statutory Concessions
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Computing Careers (Girls)
  Computing Careers (Girls)
  Further Education Staff College, Coombe Lodge, Bristol
  Further Education Staff College, Coombe Lodge, Bristol
  European Year of Music
  European Year of Music
  British Geological Survey
  British Geological Survey
  Geological Sciences (Budget)
  Geological Sciences (Budget)
  Geomagnetic Data
  Geomagnetic Data
  Geomagnetic Research
  Geomagnetic Research
SCOTLAND
  Tobermory (Jetty)
  Tobermory (Jetty)
  European Year of Music
  European Year of Music
  Health Care
  Health Care
  Pupil-teacher Ratio
  Pupil-teacher Ratio
  School Closures
  School Closures
  National Health Service (Equalisation Formula)
  National Health Service (Equalisation Formula)
  Blackburn-Orlit Houses (Edinburgh)
  Blackburn-Orlit Houses (Edinburgh)
  Hydro-electric Power
  Hydro-electric Power
  National Health Service (Funding)
  National Health Service (Funding)
  Parole
  Parole
  Special Units
  Special Units
  Housing Associations (Sales)
  Housing Associations (Sales)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Televised Proceedings
  Televised Proceedings
  Leukemia
  Leukemia
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Sittings Statistics
  Sittings Statistics
  Financial Management Initiative
  Financial Management Initiative
  Electricity Supply
  Electricity Supply
ENERGY
  Nuclear Generation
  Nuclear Generation
  Select Committees (Overseas Visits)
  Select Committees (Overseas Visits)
  Coal Gasification
  Coal Gasification
  Coal Stocks
  Coal Stocks
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  "Financial Management in Government Departments"
  "Financial Management in Government Departments"
  Vehicle Emissions
  Vehicle Emissions
  >EC (Loans and Grants)
  >EC (Loans and Grants)
  Electricity Generation (Coal)
  Electricity Generation (Coal)
  Gas Prices
  Gas Prices
  Electricity Demand
  Electricity Demand
  NCB Employees (Redundancies)
  NCB Employees (Redundancies)
  Energy Production Statistics
  Energy Production Statistics
  Gas Sales
  Gas Sales
  Coal Consumption
  Coal Consumption
  Sizewell B Inquiry
  Sizewell B Inquiry
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Smokeless Fuels
  Smokeless Fuels
  Anthracite
  Anthracite
  Coal Production (Cost)
  Coal Production (Cost)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ministerial Visits
  Ministerial Visits
  European Development Fund
  European Development Fund
  Port Stanley
  Port Stanley
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands Development Corporation
  Falkland Islands Development Corporation
  Uganda
  Uganda
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
  St. Helena (Report)
  St. Helena (Report)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Investment
  Investment
  British Telecom (Licence)
  British Telecom (Licence)
  Industrial Output
  Industrial Output
  Hearing Aid Council
  Hearing Aid Council
  Regional Assistance
  Regional Assistance
  South America (Exports)
  South America (Exports)
  Patents
  Patents
  Booker McConnell
  Booker McConnell
  Departmental Operations
  Departmental Operations
  Mortgage Lending
  Mortgage Lending
  Government Publications (Cost)
  Government Publications (Cost)
TRANSPORT
  M25 (Essex)
  M25 (Essex)
  Belfast Pilotage Authority
  Belfast Pilotage Authority
  SEA Group Report
  SEA Group Report
  London Regional Transport Board
  London Regional Transport Board
  Taxicards
  Taxicards
  Ports
  Ports
  A5020 Barthomley Link
  A5020 Barthomley Link
  A34
  A34
  Heathrow Airport
  Heathrow Airport
  Airline Failures (Customer Protection)
  Airline Failures (Customer Protection)
  Malaysia (Flights)
  Malaysia (Flights)
  Manchester Airport
  Manchester Airport
  MOT Test
  MOT Test
  Microlight Aircraft (Airworthiness)
  Microlight Aircraft (Airworthiness)
EMPLOYMENT
  Oldfield Furniture Workshop
  Oldfield Furniture Workshop
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Average Wages
  Average Wages
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Travel-to-Work Areas
  Travel-to-Work Areas
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Agriculture (Labour Statistics)
  Agriculture (Labour Statistics)
  European Year of Music
  European Year of Music
  Youth Training (Fatal Accidents)
  Youth Training (Fatal Accidents)
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Young Persons (Statistics)
  Young Persons (Statistics)
  Hull Fishermen (Redundancy Fund)
  Hull Fishermen (Redundancy Fund)
  Government Publications (Cost)
  Government Publications (Cost)
  Youth Unemployment (Job Creation)
  Youth Unemployment (Job Creation)
  Young People
  Young People
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People
  National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Romania (Amnesty)
  Romania (Amnesty)
  Drugs (Illegal Importation)
  Drugs (Illegal Importation)
  African National Congress
  African National Congress
  Arms Control and Disarmament Unit
  Arms Control and Disarmament Unit
  Gibraltar-Spain (Cross-border Relations)
  Gibraltar-Spain (Cross-border Relations)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Port Stanley
  Port Stanley
  Argentina (Arms Sales)
  Argentina (Arms Sales)
  Brazil (Ministerial Visit)
  Brazil (Ministerial Visit)
  Argentina
  Argentina
  Mr. David Calcutt, QC
  Mr. David Calcutt, QC
  Argentina (Books Imports)
  Argentina (Books Imports)
  Entry Visas
  Entry Visas
  EC (Breaches of Obligations)
  EC (Breaches of Obligations)
  Embassy Staff (Nationalities)
  Embassy Staff (Nationalities)
  Defence Equipment Sales (Suspension of Licences)
  Defence Equipment Sales (Suspension of Licences)
  European Year of Music
  European Year of Music
  EC (Anthem)
  EC (Anthem)
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
  Falkland Islands (Berne Talks)
  Falkland Islands (Berne Talks)
  Senegal (Dakar Airport)
  Senegal (Dakar Airport)
  Mr. Arthur Angell
  Mr. Arthur Angell
  Mr. Robin Walsh
  Mr. Robin Walsh
  British Citizens Abroad (Deaths)
  British Citizens Abroad (Deaths)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Cereals
  Cereals
  UHT Milk
  UHT Milk
  Food (Health)
  Food (Health)
  Grain Exports
  Grain Exports
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Cuba (Butter Imports)
  Cuba (Butter Imports)
  USSR (Butter Imports)
  USSR (Butter Imports)
  Straw Burning
  Straw Burning
  Milk
  Milk
  Fishing Vessels
  Fishing Vessels
  St. Helens (Food Storage)
  St. Helens (Food Storage)
  Cattle (Artificial Insemination)
  Cattle (Artificial Insemination)
  Council of Agricultural Ministers
  Council of Agricultural Ministers
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  European Year of Music
  European Year of Music
  National Health Service (Funding)
  National Health Service (Funding)
  Housing Association (Sales)
  Housing Association (Sales)
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Housing and Building Control Act 1984
  Housing and Building Control Act 1984
  Urban Programme (Brent)
  Urban Programme (Brent)
  Green Belt
  Green Belt
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  European Year of Music
  European Year of Music
  National Building Agency
  National Building Agency
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Planning Permission (Abuse)
  Planning Permission (Abuse)
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Development Commission for England
  Development Commission for England
  Land Disposal
  Land Disposal
  Local Government Contracts
  Local Government Contracts
  Pollution Control
  Pollution Control
  Housing Associations (Sales)
  Housing Associations (Sales)
  Ronan Point, Newham
  Ronan Point, Newham
  Housing Associations (Rents)
  Housing Associations (Rents)
  Parliamentary Commissioner (New Towns)
  Parliamentary Commissioner (New Towns)
  "Brixton Cares for Kids"
  "Brixton Cares for Kids"
  Jordan (USSR Aid)
  Jordan (USSR Aid)
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
DEFENCE
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Research
  Research
  Russian Military Exercises
  Russian Military Exercises
  Civil Helicopters (Air Safety)
  Civil Helicopters (Air Safety)
  NATO Naval Forces
  NATO Naval Forces
  Trident
  Trident
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Departmental Police
  Departmental Police
  Sidewinder Missiles
  Sidewinder Missiles
  Study Group on Censorship
  Study Group on Censorship
  Falklands Airport
  Falklands Airport
  King's College, London (Study)
  King's College, London (Study)
  Harrier Aircraft
  Harrier Aircraft
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Royal Air Force (Tristar)
  Royal Air Force (Tristar)
  Victor Tanker Force
  Victor Tanker Force
  Type 42 Destroyer
  Type 42 Destroyer
  Sir Galahad
  Sir Galahad
  Royal Navy (Technical Officers)
  Royal Navy (Technical Officers)
  Brabant Island
  Brabant Island
  Captain Belt and Sergeant James
  Captain Belt and Sergeant James
  Sapper David Mead
  Sapper David Mead
  Tanker Refuelling
  Tanker Refuelling
  RAF (Air-to-air Refuelling)
  RAF (Air-to-air Refuelling)
  Argentina
  Argentina
  Carmache Hospital
  Carmache Hospital
  Falklands Hospital
  Falklands Hospital
  Israel
  Israel
  European Year of Music
  European Year of Music
  Royal Navy (Magnetic Field and Variation Information)
  Royal Navy (Magnetic Field and Variation Information)
  Aldermaston Air Base
  Aldermaston Air Base
  Recruitment (Scotland)
  Recruitment (Scotland)
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Service Discipline
  Service Discipline
  Departmental Land
  Departmental Land
  Service Vehicles (Leicester)
  Service Vehicles (Leicester)
  Emergency Powers Act
  Emergency Powers Act
  Queen's Regulations
  Queen's Regulations
  Low-flying Training
  Low-flying Training
  Target Aircraft
  Target Aircraft
  Tornado Aircraft
  Tornado Aircraft
  Mr. Robin Walsh
  Mr. Robin Walsh
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff

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

Schools' Curricula: Political Studies
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to publish guidelines for schools on the political bias in the classroom, with particular reference to peace studies.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science set out the Government's views on these matters in a major speech in March of this year. He has repeatedly made it clear that what is provided in schools should always be education and never indoctrination.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is there not evidence to suggest that parents whose children are taught political studies in school are still worried to some extent about the political slant which is given to those studies? Have there not been 60 complaints on that score recently? Would it not he a good idea if the Secretary of State for Education and the local education authorities could come to some agreement on what curricula would be appropriate, which would relieve our anxieties about many of our state schools?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I have no doubt that some parents are concerned about the possibility of bias in the teaching which their children receive. My right honourable friend has received a number of letters from parents on this matter since his speech in March, and he is also considering some material given
2
to him earlier this month by a deputation led by Lady Olga Maitland. He has made it clear that he hopes that parents who believe that they have grounds for complaint will not hesitate to take the matter up with the school and, if necessary, with the local education authority and the Secretary of State himself. My right honourable friend has also made it clear that he intends to publish broadly agreed objectives of the curriculum as a whole and of various aspects of the curriculum in particular, later this year.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Cleveland Education Authority, as one example, has already complained about receiving unsolicited material from the Ministry of Defence in support of nuclear arms? Is he further aware that it is at least reported that the Ministry of Defence has been conducting a recruiting campaign through an illegal radio station? If that is correct, is it not as well that children at school should be given another version or interpretation of the issue of peace and war?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I remember something about the Cleveland authority, but I think that it took place quite a long time ago; we had quite a number of questions about it, and I cannot remember the details now. I know nothing at all about the illegal radio station. However, I think it is quite right to give children a balanced view—that is the whole point of education—as long as both sides are put forward in all cases.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is one of the cherished traditions of this country that schools should not be used for purposes of political indoctrination? Could he give some indication as to whether, in view of the growing body of evidence of concern about the use of peace studies for political purposes, the Government might be considering formalising the criteria outlined by the Secretary of State in the excellent speech which he made on that topic earlier this year?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I would entirely agree with the sentiments expressed in the first part of the supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lady Cox. However, when she speaks about

3
"formalising", that worries me a little because I can see great practical difficulties about any legislation along these lines; and this is surely a matter for the professional responsibility of teachers and not for legislation. So far as concerns my right honourable friend's speech, which I mentioned in my original Answer, it has been distributed to local education authorities and at present we have no plans to issue any further guidance.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that it would be unfortunate if the impression were given that the teaching profession in this country is unreliable? Would he also agree that we are very fortunate as regards the overwhelming mass of dedicated men and women who serve in our state schools, and no doubt in the private sector as well? Would he further agree that to try to catch those people who fall below professional standards—and there are people in every profession who do that from time to time—by formalising the situation would, as he very wisely indicated, be a great mistake and would upset an honourable profession?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, for that supplementary question. I think he is right. I do not think that peace studies are taking place to as large an extent as some people imagine. The great majority of our teachers have very high moral standards of responsibility which they apply in their teaching.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it not a long-established principle of our education system that Secretaries of State and Governments do not interfere in matters of the curriculum? In having a discussion such as we are having at the moment—with noble Lords and noble Baronesses on the other side suggesting that the Secretary of State should do various things—is there not a great danger that we are embarking on a road which would lead to totalitarian control of the education in our schools?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not think that we are having a discussion. This is Question Time, and I am answering questions put to me from all sides of the House. I do not think that, through me, noble Lords opposite should start arguing with noble Lords on my side of the House, or vice versa. I think that that is a very good point.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, will the noble Earl find it convenient, either now or later, to tell the House the authority which the Government have to issue the guidelines about which he spoke in replying to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Gridley?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, my right honourable friend made his speech back in March at a conference which was organised by the National Council of Women of Britain, and I believe that on such an occasion he had every authority to say what he thinks.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that it is more desirable for children to have peace studies than war studies?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not think it matters very much whether you have peace studies or war studies: it is how they are conducted that matters.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, I wonder whether we have not reached the stage where we would hope that the schools would not be used for party political issues. The schools are there to educate children in the fundamentals which they require in order to make their contribution in due course, and I would hope that we could trust the teaching profession to fulfil the obligations which they have always undertaken with reasonable satisfaction, and ignore a minority who are only a nuisance.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, has really summed up what I have been trying to say all along. As my right honourable friend has said, it must be education and never indoctrination.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, the noble Earl the Minister has not answered my question as to what statutory authority the Government have for issuing these guidelines.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend needs any statutory authority for making a speech. If every politician who made a speech on a subject had to have political authority, there would never be any political speeches—which might not be a bad thing.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the Minister not agree that schools are not the only environment where children receive their education, and that if parents are not entirely happy about the balance of education that their children receive it is up to them to talk with their children and to convince them otherwise?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords. As I have said before, if parents have any complaints they should make them to the school, and if they get no satisfaction there they should complain to their local education authority. In the event of receiving no satisfaction there, they should then complain to my right honourable friend himself.

Drug Abuse
2.46 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many local authorities have reported on the local levels of drug abuse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, health authorities have been asked, in a circular issued on 6th June, in consultation with local authorities and others, to review the

5
prevalence of drug misuse locally and to report back by 22nd December on the scale of the problem and their plans for tackling it. No reports have been received to date. A copy of the circular has been placed in the Library.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Is it not a fact that between 1982 and 1983 addiction in Britain has increased by over 29 per cent.? I appreciate the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to eradicate this menace, and particularly those of Her Majesty's Customs, who seized £6 million worth of heroin on the black market on 6th June this year. But is that not the tip of the iceberg? Has my noble friend seen the article in last Saturday's Daily Telegraph in which it was reported that a Russian ship, destined for Britain but which was diverted to Hamburg in view of the dock strike, was seized and found to be carrying heroin worth £2 million on the black market —heroin which was destined for this country? Does this not illustrate the menace that is facing us now, and highlight the actions that we must take in order to prevent this type of smuggling continuing?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that this is a very serious matter. But because drug misuse is largely illegal, prevalence is difficult to measure and the main indicators available relate to seizures and to notifications to the Home Office. In 1983 seizures were the highest ever recorded, and, as my noble friend said, notifications were up by 29 per cent. on 1982. I think my noble friend will be aware that both the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security have taken a number of steps to try to meet this very serious problem.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, having seen the statistics of new notifications of drug addicts published by the Home Office, which show a 50 per cent. increase in the number of new addicts in 1983 compared to the figure in 1982, will the Government not agree that they must accept some share of the responsibility for what is now a plague of epidemic proportions: first, by their own decision to cut back on the number of Customs officers, which, happily, they have now rectified; and, secondly, by the totally inadequate financial provisions made available to health authorities for treatment centres? In most parts of the country there is no place where drug addicts can be treated.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as regards the Customs, as the noble Lord will know the uniformed branch was not achieving the results which ought to have been achieved. That is why it has been necessary to re-target these people to the intelligence world, if that is the right word to use, which might meet the problem rather better. But, as it is, the Home Office has doubled our contribution to the United Nations fund for drug abuse control; it has provided another £1 million for rural development programmes and £180,000 to strengthen law enforcement efforts in Pakistan; it has posted a British Customs liaison officer to Karachi; it has posted a senior British police officer to the Netherlands; and it has decided to ratify the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which, of course, extends controls to synthetic drugs. So far as
6
DHSS work is concerned, much depends, of course, on the responses to the report on treatment and rehabilitation from the advisory council. We get these in December. But we have made over £7 million available for pump-priming grants for drug misuse projects which of course helps to solve the problem to which the noble Lord referred.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, do the Government intend to put guidelines out to local authorities so that education departments can have good and proper information for parents and children on the terrible problems of heroin addiction and other serious drugs?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the purpose of the circular to which I referred was so that the health authorities could liaise with the local authorities on just that type of problem; and so, yes, they will be involved.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, in view of the fact that some of us would be interested to know whether the levels of drug abuse are higher in areas adjacent to ports, when the answers to the circular come in would it be possible to have a copy of the document placed in the Library?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I am sure that will be possible. That sort of thing will be taken into account and I shall see that that is arranged.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, before the report comes in, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he would watch for the notional price of drugs on the black market? As he is aware, there is an anxious situation now in which young people appear to be getting drugs at very much reduced prices, and are thus getting hooked early. Would the Minister watch for the notional price which is being charged, especially in the port areas, to see how serious this situation is?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I shall certainly make sure that that is looked into. I was not aware that there was a variation in price in the way that the right reverend Prelate describes; but I shall look into it.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the scale of this problem of the peddling of narcotics is a gigantic, international one? Would he further agree that the efforts made by Her Majesty's Government to pursue it in diplomatic and other means through the agencies concerned are of great importance?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I share my noble friend's view. In response to the prevention report from the advisory council, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has set up an interdepartmental group chaired by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office to develop the Government's overall strategy in the fight against drug abuse, and I am sure this will prove a great success.
Lord Somers: My Lords, the Government have spent a great deal of time in their campaign against smoking. Would the noble Lord agree that drug taking is a far more insidious disease and is likely to be a great deal more dangerous?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I entirely agree. It is a terrible business, and that is why we are taking the action which we have embarked upon.

European Parliament: Electoral System
2.53 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the electoral system used for the European elections has produced a fair representation of British political opinion in the European Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this week the Government will be formally condemned by the president of the European Assembly for having used an electoral system of advantage to themselves which has seriously distorted the political balance of the Assembly? Is he aware that of the 54 parties in the Assembly, only one—the British Conservative party—is greatly overrepresented, and that this is directly due to the actions of a Conservative Government?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it remains the fact that in every constituency contested there were more people who wanted members of other parties to represent them than members of the noble Lord's party.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the present general election in Israel indicates the ineffectiveness of proportional representation as a method of electing members and a government?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I make it a rule not to discuss the affairs of other countries from this Dispatch Box.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Question deals solely with the recent European election. Therefore would it not be advisable for those who want a change of system to say clearly what change of system they want? If they want strictly proportional representation, does not that entail a list system with power to the party bureaucracies? If they want a single transferable vote, does not that mean large constituencies with contact with communities virtually non-existent? Does it not also mean giving first preference votes to second, third, or fourth or more preference voters? In other words, to the least favoured candidates?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my answer to that admirable supplementary question is the same as my answer to the substantive Question: yes, my Lords.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, does the Minister realise that nothing astounds us less on these Benches than the coalition between the Conservative and Labour parties on this matter? Is he also aware that what surprises us is that a Minister of the Crown should say that he regards a fair representation of political opinion in the European Parliament as meaning that 20 per cent. of people in this country have no representation at all? Is he aware that there are arguments against electoral reform, but that there is no conceivable reason for saying that it results in a fair representation in the European Parliament? Does the Conservative Party really want to find itself arm in arm with the Labour Party and on the record by this quite monstrous Answer?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on coalitions, the noble Lord's party has more experience than does mine. As to the matter of representation, I have always understood that the art of parliamentary representation was that, regardless of his party affiliation, a parliamentary representative—and presumably a European parliamentary representative—represented all his constituents.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, when the noble Lord says that he does not know which system the Alliance supports, will he consult his noble friend the noble Viscount, because of course we support the system introduced in Northern Ireland by the noble Viscount himself? We oppose the Israeli system and we oppose list systems. We have made our position completely clear, and we have the noble Viscount on our side in this matter.
Lord Elton: My Lords, your Lordships have almost answered that question without my assistance. I think it is fair to say that the system we now have produces people who represent those who elect them including those who have voted against them. The last exchanges have served to show that there is a wide range of different methods of PR. To ask the bald question: Do you want PR or something else?" is not to ask a question susceptible to a single answer.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, does that answer mean in simple terms that since the war all governments have represented a majority of people who did not vote for them?
Lord Elton: My Lords, since the war all governments have been composed of parties elected by people in constituencies who outnumbered those who wanted to elect other parties. Ever since 1922 they have been founded on a system which noble Lords who sit in the far left-hand corner opposite have deplored because it has not returned them to power.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, is not that statement very inaccurate? Since the war there has never been a government which had a majority of those who voted in the election. That is a statement of fact.
Lord Elton: My Lords, both of us are stating facts, and both of us are correct.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the levity with which he and his colleagues on those Benches treat these questions indicates their contempt for the will of the people—the traditional contempt of the Tory party for the will of the people?
Lord Elton: No, my Lords, it shows a certain attitude we have to the will of noble Lords who belong to the party to which the noble Lord belongs, because we believe that what they propose is something which was rejected by 70 per cent. of the people who elected the present Government in the last election.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, if the Minister holds that all Members of the other place represent all their constituents, why does the Conservative Party bother to have general elections at all? Surely the answer is that they can quite well be represented by the Labour and Alliance Members of the House of Commons?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am slightly surprised that the noble Lord, who has been a Member of another place, should ask me why I think that Members of another place speak for all their constituents, because I should have thought that that was what he did. As to generation of policy, our system produces an opportunity for electors to choose between parties with policies and they know which person they want to be Prime Minister. The noble Lord's system produces a number of small groups who have to be sorted out after an election so that the party programme can then be decided and the Prime Minister chosen.

Disabled Persons: Employment Code of Practice
3 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: 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 the Manpower Services Commission have yet completed their work on a new code of good practice on employing disabled people and on ways of making existing quota legislation for the employment of disabled people more effective>
Viscount Long: My Lords, work on the code of good practice is almost complete and the Manpower Services Commission will be considering a draft code on 26th July. The commission was originally due to consider a draft in June, but the timetable was extended in order to take account of some important suggestions.
Quite separate consideration is being given by a working group to suggestions for making the existing quota legislation more effective. The group will submit its report to the commission later this year.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount the Minister for that reply. I should like to congratulate the MSC on its progress towards completing the draft code in three days' time. May I
10
ask the Minister whether we shall be allowed sight of this draft code so that we can comment on it? Further, why is it that work on ways of making the existing quota legislation more effective was not completed in June, as he forecast it would be when I last raised this question shortly after Easter?
Viscount Long: My Lords, if I may, I shall reply as quickly as I can because a great deal went into this report. I should also like to join the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in congratulating the working party on being so patient in dealing with such a technical subject. As I stated in my original reply, the work on this matter is being undertaken separately from that on the code of practice. It was not due to be completed in June.
The working group is currently examining suggestions for improving the effectiveness of the quota scheme within the framework of existing legislation. In the light of the broadly differing views about the quota held by those represented in the group, a timetable allowing a number of meetings has been necessary so that a full exchange of ideas can take place. I understand that the group will shortly consider the final text of the report which, once agreed, will be put to the commission later in the year.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, can the Minister indicate whether the code of practice might be suitable for being made the subject of legislative enforcement? Can the Minister confirm that the employment interests of the disabled will require legislative protection?
Viscount Long: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, it would be much better if it was all voluntary.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in his persistence in raising this Question? It is three months since he raised it last time. I commend the MSC on its progress towards producing a code of conduct perhaps on a quota basis. Is it also not a fact that over the last few years history has shown that, unless we make the proposals mandatory on employers, their response will not be as generous as noble Lords in this House would wish? Would the Minister not also agree— that, unless there is a substantial increase in the economic situation as a whole, with a corresponding reduction in unemployment in general, quotas or even mandatory proposals on behalf of the disabled in this country regarding unemployment would mean very little?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I agree that the subject is extremely serious. As I have just said to the noble Baroness, we would like to see it dealt with more on a voluntary than a mandatory basis, though in the end it will have to become mandatory in the future once the working group has all its facts together.
As regards unemployment, since the introduction of voluntary registration for employment at job centres in October 1982, regular statistics on the unemployment of disabled people have been available only for those who choose to register at job centres and

11
careers offices. However, it is also intended to compile statistics from sample surveys and the labour force survey being conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys should begin to provide information on these matters from the first half of 1985.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that, as numbers of potential employees who are disabled at present do not register, as my noble friend mentioned, the quota system so far has been most unsatisfactory and should be replaced as soon as possible—we are very hopeful of what will come out—by a very much better system which would seek the co-operation of employees rather than to threaten them with penalties which must be obsolete, whatever anybody says, when integration is our target?
Viscount Long: Yes, my Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right, but we must wait for the working party to complete its findings. Having done that we shall know where we are going.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, would not the most constructive way forward, following the remarks of both noble Baronesses, be for the Government to drop the concept of registration of disabled people in relation to employment? Is it not the mere fact of registration that makes it so difficult for this legislation to be implemented? If the code of practice, whether voluntary or mandatory, were embodied in legislation would not that be a very satisfactory way of making progress?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am grateful for the constructive way in which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is trying to put this together, because it is, as I said earlier, very technical. The Manpower Services Commission recommended in 1981 that the quota legislation be replaced by a statutory general duty linked to a code of practice. However, because the response to this proposal was mixed, the Government decided to retain the quota scheme for the time being. At the same time they asked the commission to look further at ways of improving the quota scheme within the framework of existing legislation. The commission is currently doing this through the working group it has established and it would not be appropriate to consider changes in the quota scheme until the recommendations are known.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of where the statistics of the OPCS to which he referred are to be published?
Viscount Long: My Lords, in the report.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, as the only Member of the mobile Bench who has not yet spoken today, may I ask the Minister what efforts are being made to inform employers of the availability of grants for the adaptation of premises and for aids to employment and of the job introduction scheme?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I think we are going a little wide of the original Question.

Dinner
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time of 7 o'clock.

Business of the House
3.8 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the Summer Recess so far as is necessary to give Her Majesty's Government power to arrange the order of business: and that Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the same period.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, before the House agrees to the Motion, might I ask the Lord President whether he feels able to express an opinion on an aspect which seems to me to be unfortunate, in so far as this House is concerned, particularly in view of his well-known and well-recognised attitude concerning the position held by your Lordships' House in Parliament?
The Motion refers to business in this House and asks that Her Majesty's Government be given power to arrange the order of business until the Summer Recess. Might I ask the Lord President whether it is correct that on Wednesday in another place a debate on the report of the Civil Aviation Authority is to take place? If so, could the business in our House be adjusted accordingly?
Secondly, if the Secretary of State is to make a Statement on this report in another place on that day, should it not be made here also. As it is a matter of great interest it may be that such a Statement is to be repeated here. I ask the Lord President to realise that having looked at the business in another place I recognise that the possible debate about which I am speaking might arise from the Consolidated Fund Bill. We former Members of another place realise that subjects selected for debate on that occasion only necessitate a Government Minister being responsible for the subject concerned. While the noble Lord as Leader of the House cannot be held responsible for the Consolidated Fund Bill in another place, I suggest that a Government Statement is another matter. I wonder whether I might ask the Lord President to consider whether it would not be quite wrong to deny your Lordships' House the opportunity of a debate and a Statement at the same time as another place? Many of us here would wish to give our views so that the Government could weigh opinion of both Houses, not one in advance of the other. I suggest that such a course of action would be most valuable to the Government.
Finally, as the report is of such interest to the country, to the future of the civil aviation industry, to the taxpayer and to travellers, I very much hope that

13
the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will be able to take some action on our behalf, in particular concerning any Government Statement.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I recognise at once the importance of the subject that she has raised and I recognise, too, the importance that this House should be fully involved in this particular subject. I understand that it is likely that in another place during consideration of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Wednesday there will be such a debate. That is entirely a matter for the other place, and they will make their decision as to whether or not they have it. For our part, I understand that an Unstarred Question is to be asked today week when this subject will certainly be discussed.
As for the question of a Statement, if there is to be a Statement—and I cannot confirm that at this stage—of course it will be open to the Opposition to decide whether they wish to have it repeated in this House. I would suspect, though it would be nothing to do with me, that a Statement of this importance would very naturally be requested for repetition in this House; and the Government would be only too pleased to respond to any such request.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Committee for Privileges
3.12 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report of the Committee for Privileges on Parliamentary Privilege and the Mental Health Legislation be agreed to.
On 6th December last, on a Motion of the Leader of the House, the House referred to the committee the question of the effect on the privilege of peerage of the powers under the mental health legislation to detain persons suffering from mental disorder and asked the committee to recommend whether any action should be taken to clarify or amend the law. The committee has held three meetings and has carefully considered an opinion received from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Diplock, Lord Scarman and Lord Bridge of Harwich, and evidence received from the Attorney-General, the then Lord Advocate, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the Department of Health and Social Security.
Although the committee respectfully concur with the interpretation of the law favoured by the noble and learned Lords, having regard to the importance of parliamentary privilege, they have unanimously agreed on the two main recommendations of their report. The first is that although they make no recommendation for immediate legislation, they consider that for the avoidence of doubt on a future occasion when cognate legislation is introduced, the Government should consider the inclusion of a clause to provide expressly that Members of the House of Lords are liable to be detained under the mental health legislation in the same way as other citizens, and that in such circumstances they are disqualified from sitting or voting in the House of Lords or for receiving a Writ of Summons.
14
Secondly, they recommend no change in Standing Order No. 78, which governs the privilege of freedom from arrest for Members of your Lordships' House unless and until legislation has been enacted. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report of the Committee for Privileges on Parliamentary Privilege and the Mental Health Legislation (H.L. 254] be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.]
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the committee for their report, which, speaking on behalf of this Government, I am happy to accept. Your Lordships will understand that I am in no position to commit our successors. Your Lordships will also, I am sure, in agreeing to this report wish to place on record our appreciation of the work done by the noble Lords who served on the committee.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, perhaps I may say, on behalf of my noble friends, that we accept the conclusions of the report in the same terms as the noble Viscount has just indicated. We endorse the tribute which he paid to noble Lords on the committee for the very careful and patient thought that they gave to this difficult matter.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I rise on behalf of these Benches to express our appreciation and to concur.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill
3.15 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Commencement and termination of interim provisions]:
Lord Evans of Claughtonmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("an").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would ask that with Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, which is the substantial part of the proposal, be also considered.
Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) An order under subsection (1) above may appoint different days for such different purposes of Part II of this Act as may be specified in the Order, and any such order may make such modifications in any provision of that Part as appear to the Secretary of State to be required in consequence of any of its provisions coming into force in accordance with an order made by virtue of this subsection.").
I find myself in a somewhat ambiguous position, since I am moving this amendment at the request of members of the Merseyside Metropolitan County Council—a proportion of them known as the Conservative group—and, due to the absence of a fair electoral system (which we were discussing earlier) they find themselves without a single Conservative Member of Parliament in another place and, for a different reason, they have no Member to represent them in your Lordships' House. So they have come to me and I am very glad to speak for them on this

15
amendment which they wish to have discussed. I gather that they have discussed the amendment with the noble Lord the Minister on a number of occasions and I believe that some concessions have already been made.
They seek to convince your Lordships and the Secretary of State that Merseyside has special problems, and I suspect that Members on all sides of your Lordships' House will not need much convincing of that. The immediate future and the medium term, so far as Liverpool is concerned, is so obfuscated that there is a strong case for the Government retaining a certain amount of flexibility to deal with the upredicated and special cases which may well arise in an area such as Merseyside during the passage of the legislation following this interim Bill. The group believe that with will and ingenuity the problems arising from hybridity—having different orders for different parts of the metropolitan counties—can be avoided. They want the Government to retain, and, in fact to extend, their liberty to bring various parts of the country under the effects of the Bill, when it becomes law, at different times. This is sought because of the differing problems in various parts of the country. The problems confronted by perhaps the West Midlands Metropolitan County Council may be different from those encountered on Merseyside. In the past, before the county councils legislation was passed, the City of Liverpool was sufficiently powerful and rich to meet very many of the regional needs which are at present taken care of by the county council, and I am thinking of such things as the arts generally, music, the Philharmonic Orchestra, the opera, and many other amenities. In the past days of its greatness as an exporting port, Liverpool was able to provide such amenities for the whole areas, but I suspect that now, in the present circumstances, it could not do so; nor would it be fair to ask it to accept that kind of burden which had been taken on very successfully by the county council. In addition to that, Merseyside has very special problems and (to use the word of those instructing me) "peculiarities". That is not the word I would have chosen to use, but it is the word to which I have been asked to draw your Lordships' attention. Merseyside has a very long established ferry service, which is a great money loser. It has a very expensive railway system, which is also a money loser. It has two road tunnels under the Mersey which, despite tolling, are money-losers. It has the Merseyside Development Corporation, and a highly unprofitable airport. I gather it has the most expensive police force in the country outside London, and a very expensive fire service.
The purpose of this amendment therefore is to make it quite clear that the Secretary of State may, if he wishes, make orders at different times applying to different authorities, if the Bill at present being proposed becomes law. As I have said, it would widen the Secretary of State's powers to provide for unforeseen or unpredictable circumstances. It may be that that power already exists under Clause 1(4). There is some uncertainty. The parliamentary agents and those asking me to move this amendment are not clear whether the power already exists. If the power does already exist then of course the amendment is
16
unnecessary; but in case it does not, I thought that, out of consideration for the very sincerely held views of the Conservative members of the Merseyside metropolitan county council, I should put this amendment forward so that your Lordships could at least give the matter a full airing. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I must confess that I am rather puzzled by the amendment, and I should say first of all to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that my advice is that the power does not exist. I am puzzled because if the intention is to allow different treatment of certain metropolitan county councils, then I should point out that the amendment is defective because it differentiates between the purposes of Part II, which are to cancel the 1985 elections, to extend the terms of office of existing GLC and metropolitan county council members, and to give the Secretary of State power to alter the quorum in any of those councils. The amendment does not differentiate between areas or between individual councils. Since the three purposes of Part II are inextricably interlinked, there would be no purpose in bringing them into effect at different times.
As to the intention of the amendment, although I know the circumstances of the authority concerned to which the noble Lord draws our attention—I do not know it as well as he does, or indeed as well as one or two others in your Lordships' House, but I know it well enough—I do not think that we should in any way seek to treat it as a special case. The reasons for proposing abolition are clear and apply equally to all seven authorities concerned. Clearly at this stage the noble Lord would not thank me for reiterating them. We have done it in the past and we shall certainly be doing it again in due course. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will agree with me that to accept the two amendments would lead to some confusion, not to say uncertainty. The basic reasons for seeking abolition are the same and should be dealt with on the same date; and it is towards that end that we have introduced this Bill.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I will not keep your Lordships long. I should tell your Lordships that I have not been made aware of the amendment that has been moved; and in view of the fact that it has been put forward by the Conservative group on Merseyside county council, I suppose I should not be surprised at that. But I know that they are of this opinion and I am concerned only to ensure that some of the problems on Merseyside in the context of this Bill and of the Bill which would follow are properly considered.
I listened fairly carefully to what the noble Lord the Minister said. One of his points was that there is no difference between what is being proposed for Merseyside and what is being proposed for other metropolitan county councils. If we look at the Bill purely as an academic Bill, of course there is no difference between what is being proposed; but the whole point of the plea being made by the noble Lord, Lord Evans—if I understand it correctly—is that there are some things different on Merseyside that should be taken into consideration when applying the Bill.

17
I do not know the technicalities of the position at Report stage but I know the following simple truth: that of all the metropolitan county councils being abolished, Merseyside county council occupies a unique position in the life of this nation because of the decline in its fortunes caused by events outside its control, the most important of which is the moving away of the international trade structure which was the cause of the foundation of Merseyside. If we apply a strict timetable and say that Merseyside must be treated like all other areas, we ignore that fact and we ignore it at our peril, because the real truth about Merseyside is that there are no solutions to its problems unless those problems are considered within a national context. If you imported all the good men and women in the world into Merseyside, and if you imported all the good intentions and removed some of the despair that is affecting politicians in Merseyside, if you did all that, the solution still could not be found in Merseyside. What strikes me as appalling is that, despite the long procession of Ministers—not just of this Government, let us face it, but over 25 or 30 years; throughout my experience in local government over 30 years I have seen Ministers come and go and pay lip service to the fact that Merseyside faces unique problems—when they come down to this legislation, what do they do? The Government's proposal is that the authorities should all be lumped together, should all be seen against their imagined background of problems inside the metropolitan county councils and that they should all be abolished.
My plea is that the Minister should find some way to differentiate in order that the timescale of the effect of this Bill on Merseyside can be altered. It may well be that the abolition of some things on Merseyside within the same timetable as all the others may remove completely any attempt by this Government to do something about Merseyside to which they have pledged themselves so publicly and so often. My appeal to the Minister is that, if technicalities prevented that, could he not at least during the final stages of the Bill come up with some idea to give that flexibility?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, we are in the final stages of the Bill. This is the Third Reading. I know exactly what the noble Lord is saying; and the fact that in the past few years the Government have put in £650 million is an indication of their concern. I am not suggesting in any way that that is the whole of the answer because had it been so, we would not have some of the problems that are there now—far from it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, perhaps more than anyone else in your Lordships' House, will understand that. Indeed, he has just said that waving a wand is not the answer. What we are concerned with today with this amendment is the attempt to suggest that there be a differentiation. If one leaves aside the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, the first point I made is valid: that the amendment as drafted would not even achieve the intention of allowing Merseyside to be treated as a special case because it differentiates between the purposes of Part II of the Bill rather than between areas. Since all these purposes are inter-linked, there is no need to bring them into effect at different times.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, this is a sensible amendment and I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, if he has considered this matter. The wording of the amendment seems sensible in that it gives him far greater flexibility in dealing with these complicated matters, which have been so well described by my noble friend Lord Evans and by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. At the same time, it imposes no obligation on him to make the orders at different times but provides much greater flexibility, which I should have thought desirable in a complicated issue of this kind.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, over the last observation perhaps I may smile, because constantly in this, and indeed all other, legislation, the Government are accused on the one hand of being too rigid and inflexible and then suddenly they are accused of not being willing to accept a greater flexibility. I think it only highlights the great dilemma which is always there in legislation, of trying to hold a balance between those two situations. Of course, if you feel about one rather more strongly than about another, you will feel that it is not going your way. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful than that.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, it is obvious from what I have said and from the support I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, and my noble friend that there is a strong feeling that the special case that the Merseyside Conservatives have produced has some merit and is worthy of some consideration. My only sorrow is that, because of the rather frequent changes and additional clauses that have been put down during earlier stages of the Bill, it was not practicable to put this amendment down earlier so that one could have gone away and considered what the Minister said and returned to it at a later stage if necessary. Now, of course, there is no later stage; and the advice I have received conflicts with that of the noble Lord the Minister, in that I am advised that this amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to bring in various metropolitan counties at different times if he wished. That is precedented, I am told, by Section 109(2)(a) of the Control of Pollution Act, 1974.
However, I do think that, if nothing else, this debate has underlined that, with the abolition of the county councils in some cases and in some areas—and I speak as one who was always opposed to the concept of metropolitan counties—during the passage of the years since 1972–73, the need for such an organisation as Merseyside and the particular problems of somewhere like Merseyside, with an overall responsibility for a region in decay and in difficulties, has become very apparent to people of all political persuasions. I hope that this will be very carefully considered by the Government in preparing their legislation for the next stage of the abolition of the counties.
With some regret, and in the knowledge that I cannot pursue the matter any further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Birkmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 1, after ("may") insert ("and in the event that a Bill for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan County Councils and for the transfer of their functions has not received Royal Assent by the end of the next session of Parliament, shall").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I think I must briefly explain that amendments to this effect were moved during the Committee and Report stages. At Committee stage, the amendment was criticised by the Minister for not including a date by which the abolition Bill should have failed in order to trigger off the repeal of the paving Bill. At Report stage he similarly criticised the amendment for putting in a date which, as the Minister said, on 16th July at column 1213,
"would prejudge Parliament's consideration of the main Bill",
by setting a deadline.
In taking the amendment back, I said that I would look further at it, particularly at the date, because I recognise there was merit in the noble Lord's reservations about the date which was put in there. In turn, the Minister undertook to read what had been said and to consider it. Since then he has very kindly written to me. In his letter of the 19th July, he points out that,
"to include a specific date by which the Bill must be repealed by order would, by setting a deadline, prejuduge Parliament's consideration of the main Bill".
I think that now we have got round that by using the words:
"Royal Assent by the end of the next session of Parliament,".
The noble Lord then went on to say, in what I thought was a thoughtful letter:
"Nevertheless, I do fully understand your concern. I always have it well in mind that this is, after all, a paving Bill and that it must therefore stand or fall with the main Bill.".
He then goes on to refer to the Long Title, having explained "pending a decision by Parliament". However, the amendment now before us seeks to do no more than require the repeal of the paving Bill if the main Bill is not enacted by the end of the new Session of Parliament. I should have thought that would really satisfy everyone and every objection, because Clause 2 of the Bill as drafted dates the period of extension of the terms of office of the existing county councillors to 1st April 1986.
There is really some irony in the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, as to this amendment prejudging Parliament's consideration of the main Bill. Indeed most of the provisions in the Bill for the setting up of a staff commission, laying down development plan reviews, temporarily controlling expenditure and contracts and disposal of land—all these assume that Parliament will pass an abolition Bill we have not yet seen and will redistribute functions in a way we have not yet agreed, to a time-scale we have not yet set.
Clearly, however, the Government are making these assumptions and the paving Bill does so too; yet on the face of the Bill there is nothing to prevent these provisions continuing for ever. That, I think, is the important point. While its Short Title may call it an "interim provisions Bill" and its Long Title refers to interim arrangements "pending a decision by Parliament" in respect of the authorities concerned,
20
there is nothing in the body of the Bill which obliges the Secretary of State to repeal it if he fails with his main Bill. The Minister repeated on Report, at column 1213, that,
"should the main abolition Bill fail, the Secretary of State will exercise the power [in Clause 1(2)] to repeal the paving legislation and restore the status quo as soon as is practicable."
He therefore described the amendment as unnecessary, and I hope today that he will not do so again because all that Clause 1(2) provides is that the Secretary of State may by order repeal the paving legislation, and it goes on to say,
"if such an order is made".
It does not even say the Secretary of State "shall by order repeal" this. I would point out that a promise by a Secretary of State who may not be the Secretary of State in the next parliamentary Session—and in any case this is permissive and not mandatory—is quite different from a statutory obligation to repeal, which is what this amendment seeks to impose.
The Government in this Bill have set their sights on 1st April 1986 as abolition day, but they have to get their abolition Bill through in the next Session to have any hope of achieving that date, quite apart from the practical difficulties of transfer, which have been referred to many times before. Enough notice has been given that the abolition Bill is in for a difficult passage, and if it does falter or is delayed, it is imperative that the quite exceptional provisions of this Bill—and I think this is agreed all round whether one agrees with them or not—which include letting councillors stay on unelected and imposing central controls on expenditure, contracts and land disposals, should be wiped off the statute book if the main Bill does not achieve the date set. The Bill itself should make that clear. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I really must—and indeed I do—compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her tenacity in attempting to find a working formula for making a repeal order mandatory should the main abolition Bill fail. This is the third and, I would say, the most ingenious version we have seen during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that the amendment is no more acceptable than were its predecessors. As I said I would at Report Stage, I have myself given much thought to ways in which we might meet the understandable concern which prompted this amendment. As the noble Baroness has kindly said, I wrote to her about that. But, frankly, I come back to the same conclusion: that there is no way within the Bill to tie a mandatory repeal order to a specific date or event without either introducing ambiguity or pre-pledging Parliament's consideration of the main Bill.
This amendment would introduce an unprecedented and undesirable provision. It would set a deadline on what Parliament would do in another Session. It would, in effect, attempt to bind Parliament, and that must be unacceptable. The amendment is also ambiguous, because it gives no indication of when the order must actually be made; it could be at any time after the end of the Session.
It is all the more unacceptable because, although the noble Baroness disagrees, I have to say that it is not

21
necessary. This is, as the Long Title makes clear, a Bill,
"to make provision … pending a decision by Parliament".
This is a paving Bill, and it must stand or fall with the main abolition Bill. The real assurance that these really are interim measures lies in the very existence, right from the very first print of this Bill, of the repeal order power itself. It has always been the Government's intention, if the main abolition Bill failed, to repeal this Bill and restore the original situation as quickly as practicable. Parliament will have an opportunity to debate the repeal order fully, because it is subject to affirmative resolution.
I have explained why there is not a satisfactory way of including that assurance in the Bill itself, but that assurance is none the less firm for that. I hope that the noble Baroness, with that in mind, if perhaps not totally satisfied, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, it appears to me that this would be a sensible amendment to accept, and I am disappointed that the noble Lord the Minister cannot bring himself to accept it. It seems to me that, if the main Bill falters and fails, it will be a resigning matter for the Government, and then, having resigned, they will not be able to carry out their promise to repeal this Bill, which will go on hanging about perpetually in limbo. Therefore, I would have thought it sensible and a good idea to have accepted the noble Baroness's amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend but I must support this amendment very strongly. At the moment we seem to be giving an open-ended commitment as to when an abolition Bill might be presented to Parliament, and I do not believe that this is the purpose of a paving Bill. The paving Bill has been supported by my noble friends on this side of the House on the understanding that we are going ahead and doing something about the abolition of the various councils. That is fair enough. But if we are going to do so, let us get on and do it. I do not think we ought to have an open-ended commitment whereby the Government can just pass a paving Bill. I feel that this amendment has a certain degree of sense about it. The whole paving Bill and the abolition measure are like a red rag to a bull to noble Lords opposite, but I feel that if we can go some way towards suggesting some sort of pill sweetener it is not a bad idea for my noble friend to give serious thought to accepting this amendment, because it does no harm and it could do a great deal of good.
Lord Monson: My Lords, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I strongly support the Government's proposals to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils—certainly in their present form. Unlike the noble Baroness speaking for the Labour Party, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, speaking for the Alliance, I also support the Government's plans to prevent a possible extravagant spending spree by these councils in advance of their abolition. For that reason, I wholly endorse the present Clauses 7, 8 and 9 and, for what it is worth, will almost certainly support the Government in all the later amendments this afternoon.
22
Having said that, I am extremely worried about the long-term threat to democracy—and I do not think I am exaggerating—if this present amendment is not agreed to. It is one thing to suspend elections for 11 months. Many of us are not very happy about it, but, as was pointed out at earlier stages, it has been done before. Furthermore, the argument that suspension for this relatively short period will save taxpayers and ratepayers £3 million is a very powerful one. However, it is a very different matter to suspend elections for two, three, four or five years, as could very well happen if this amendment is not agreed to.
My noble friend Lord Perth pointed out last Monday that there was no reason why the main Bill should not pass quite speedily through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament during the next Session. With his great experience, I am sure he is right and that the Government therefore have nothing to fear from this amendment. But, of course, Parliament may well change its mind, and I am thinking now, in particular, of Back-Benchers from all quarters in both Houses.
It is, above all, noble Lords on the Conservative Benches who ought to think very carefully before opposing this amendment, because if at some future date an extremist Government of a very different political persuasion from their own were to come to power and to propose, for reasons of administrative convenience or whatever, that general elections be suspended for two, three, four or five years, the Conservative opposition of the day would not have a moral leg to stand on if their predecessors had opposed this amendment.
The noble Baroness has compromised: it is true that the amendment she moved last week was a little too finely drawn. It is possible that the main Bill will not have received Royal Assent by July. By amending the wording in the way she has, it allows for the faint possibility that the Bill will not receive Royal Assent before August, or possibly even October, 1985. I hope very much, therefore, that this amendment will find favour with your Lordships.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson. It was particularly significant that what they were concerned with was what could arise as a result of this amendment not being included in the Bill. They did not discuss the substance of the Bill itself, except that the noble Lord Lord Monson, made it quite clear that he was in favour of the great substance of the Bill, but was very concerned about the question of the date. I cannot agree with the Minister that the amendment is not necessary. I think it is absolutely necessary, and that has been spelled out by other noble Lords. I shall not go over that again.
In replying, the Minister seemed to think there was a query about the Bill not receiving Royal Assent by the next Session. But there is no problem at all there, because if it had not received Royal Assent by the end of the next Session of Parliament then the abolition Bill itself would fall. But it would not necessarily follow, acccording to the way the legislation is at present drafted, that the provisions in this Bill would fall, because—and I must refer back once again—subsection(2) reads:

23
"The Secretary of State may by order repeal Parts II to IV".
The danger of this sort of thing being built into the constitution and into parliamentary procedure, whatever Government happens to be in power, is a very real one. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, was not only correct but performed a service in pointing this out. In the circumstances, I intend to divide the House on this amendment.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, by leave of the House, I want very briefly to make one observation, and I shall not repeat anything that I said before. It ought to be made quite clear that, all else apart, this amendment would commit the Government to abandoning abolition if the necessary legislation had not received Royal Assent in the next Session.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, by leave, I waited to see whether the Minister wanted to come in again after the other speakers, and as he did not, I spoke. As to what he has said, this is the whole point. It would not mean that at all. If it fell, it would fall, anyhow. Then abolition would have to be reintroduced in the new Session. This is how the parliamentary system works if a Bill falls by the end of a parliamentary Session, and that is absolutely correct. I do not think there is anything more to be said about it, so I shall proceed to divide the House.
3.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 127.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

George-Brown, L.

Amherst, E.

Gosford, E.

Ampthill, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ardwick, L.

[Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Grey, E.

Aylestone, L.

Grimond, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hampton, L.

Beswick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Birk, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Blyton, L.

Hayter, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hooson, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hunt, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jacques, L.

Collison, L.

Jeger, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

John-Mackie, L.

David, B.

Kaldor, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Denington, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Diamond, L.

Lawrence, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Listowel, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ennals, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Longford, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Ezra, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Falkland, V.

McNair, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Mais, L.

Gallacher, L.

Mar, C.

24

Mayhew, L.

Stallard, L.

Milford, L.

Stamp, L.

Minto, E.

Stedman, B.

Mishcon, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Monson, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Mulley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Oram, L.

Stone, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Strabolgi, L.

Phillips, B.

Strauss, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

[Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Raglan, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Underhill, L.

Rea, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Rochester, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Sainsbury, L.

White, B.

Seear, B.

Wigoder, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Serota, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hood, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Atholl, D.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Auckland, L.

Inchcape, E.

Avon, E.

Ingrow, L.

Bellwin, L.

Jessel, L.

Beloff, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Belper, L.

Killearn, L.

Belstead, L.

Kilmany, L.

Bessborough, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Bolton, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Long, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Broxbourne, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

McFadzean, L.

Caithness, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marley, L.

Chelmer, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Chelwood, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cockfield, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Coleraine, L.

Avon, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Merrivale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Middleton, L.

Cox, B.

Milverton, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Molson, L.

Croft, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cromartie, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Daventry, V.

Newall, L.

De Freyne, L.

Norfolk, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Northchurch, B.

Denning, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Orkney, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Perth, E.

Dudley, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dudley, E.

Portland, D.

Eccles, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Effingham, E.

Reay, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Reigate, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Romney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Gisborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Glanusk, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Glenarthur, L.

Sandford, L.

Gormanston, V.

Sandys, L.

Gowrie, E.

Selborne, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gridley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Haig, E.

Sharples, B.

Hailsham of Saint

Sherfield, L.

Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Soames, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Southborough, L.

Henley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hives, L.

Strathspey, L.

Home of the Hursel, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

25

Terrington, L.

Vivian, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Watkinson, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Westbury, L.

Trenchard, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Trumpington, B.

Wynford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 7 [Control of general expenditure Powers):
3.59 p.m
Baroness Birkmoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 8, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (6) of this section").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment tries to cut down the areas in which expenditure incurred by a local authority—the Section 137 point in connection with the promotion of industrial, commercial or economic development—shall be affected by Clause 7. The Government have stated that there is concern about the funding of enterprise boards as a possible opportunity for asset stripping, but no evidence has been produced to substantiate this claim. Disposals of land and property are severely circumscribed by Section 123 of the Local Government Act. Any disposal below market price already requires the consent of the Secretary of State.
The funding of economic development constitutes the major use of Section 137 powers. The clause threatens activities which could cost literally thousands of jobs. Of £22 million spent under Section 137 by the six metropolitan councils in 1983–84, 19–5 million was devoted to employment initiatives. At column 1283 of the Official Report on 16th July the Minister conceded that enterprise boards do useful work. He went on to say:
"We accept that enterprise boards can help to forge a vital partnership between the public and private sectors".
If this is the Government's view, it is incumbent upon them to explain why they now propose to introduce a very serious brake on economic development initiatives in the absence of any evidence to justify it.
The metropolitan areas and the Greater London Council include the major industrial regions of the country where any long-term economic regeneration must begin. In the metropolitan areas, activities under Section 137 include offering small grants or loans to start or establish small firms and co-operatives, business advice courses, support for training courses, job incentive schemes and financial assistance to technical colleges for product development. A large number of these activities are funded concurrently with the EEC or with agencies of the Government themselves. The GLC's activities cover an enormous range. If this clause is passed in its present form, it will mean the difference between the employment of thousands of people and unemployment.
The formula which we have devised is extremely simple. It removes the industrial and economic activities which form the largest part of the Section 137 grants and help to keep business and industry going. The problem about this clause, in addition to the wrongfulness (if I may put it that way) of the way in which it is drafted at the moment, is that directly the
26
Bill receives Royal Assent—which, alas!, I fear it will next week—the cuts will be made immediately. If the Clause 7 proposals for controlling Section 137 are being introduced, as the Minister said, simply in the context of abolition, why curtail the employment and business initiatives which are being undertaken in the metropolitan counties and London—or is that curtailment to be a consequence of abolition? If not, then this is an amendment which, without stretching their philosophy on this Bill, the Government could accept with very little pain. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, surely we are talking here about Amendment No. 7; it goes with Amendment No. 4.
Baroness Birk: Amendments Nos. 4 and 7.
Amendment No. 7: Page 5, line 32, at end insert—
(" (6) This section shall not apply to any expenditure incurred by a local authority for a purpose in connection with the promotion of the industrial, commercial or economic development of its area or some part thereof.").
Lord Mottistone: Surely if the councils wish to spend money sensibly for a purpose stated in Amendment No. 7, the Secretary of State would agree. I do not see any point at all in these two amendments. If the proposal is not sensible, it is just as well that he does not agree. It is as simple as that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am quite concerned by this amendment and wish strongly to oppose it. I think those who speak of the initiatives taken under Section 137 fail to realise that real jobs are not being created by, for example, the Greater London Enterprise Board. Indeed, all sorts of things are being done in the name of this so-called initiative. Only today it was decided by a committee that the Coin Street site—a multi-million pound site—should be given on a 125 lease, for £1, to the Coin Street community builders, and later they will be financed by the Greater London Enterprise Board to buy the freehold and meet all the expenditure. I think this is a quite ridiculous situation. We all know that the creation of a long lease devalues a freehold to a low figure. Presumably that is being done so as to fit in with the financial limits that are provided further on in this Bill. It is a terribly bad thing when money that is supposedly being used for employment initiatives is just being taken from the ratepayers and thrown away in this haphazard fashion. I oppose the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I very much hope that the Government will find a way to consent to this amendment, as well as the one that follows. The new pattern that is emerging of local activity based on a mixture of statutory and voluntary effort is one of the really encouraging signs of the times; but it has had a douche of cold water because of the difficulties which the MSC has had in relation to the community projects. A great many voluntary organisations have been discouraged from relying on public funding. I know that the MSC is doing the best it can to put this right; but it is putting back the voluntary-statutory collaboration, which is the most important growth point that we have. If this goes through, it will be seen as yet another undermining of the position of the

27
voluntary organisations and a discouragement to them to go further. I hope that the Minister will find a way of accepting this amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am less clear than I should be, and I think some of your Lordships may be, too, as to which amendments we are speaking to at the moment. As I understood it, the noble Baroness moved Amendment No. 4. I did not hear her make any reference to any other amendments.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I must apologise to the House. Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 go together, and I should have said in moving it that No. 4 is really an introduction. The substantive amendment is No. 7; I apologise.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness, since there are on the Marshalled List a number of amendments which have some connection with this issue. It is clear from my intervention that we are taking also Amendment No. 7.
I have only one comment to make, which is that faced as we are—and I am referring particularly to London—with the continuance of the GLC for a further period, the Government would seem to me to be very much at fault if they did not secure powers to control expenditure. Some of the statements that have been made at County Hall by the leader of the council and others indicate a wholly irresponsible attitude towards expenditure, and given their behaviour over expenditure in recent years, those threats seem to me to require to be taken seriously. When, as the Bill originally stood, there would have been an early transfer of power at County Hall, the matter was less urgent; but now that we are to expose the ratepayers of London to the continuance of the GLC for a further year, many of us feel that the solution put forward by the Government, involving continuing for a further year. simply will not be acceptable unless there are firm and adequate controls.
The noble Baroness referred to various worthy expenditures. If they are worthy and respectable, no doubt the Minister will be prepared to authorise them. If he refuses a worthy and respectable one, he can be challenged in either House. But not to have the power, as the amendment suggests, would seem to me to be very dangerous, and I hope your Lordships will reject the amendment.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as usual, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter puts it very explicitly. The fact is that these amendments are wholly unacceptable. They would strike at the very root of Clause 7 by giving the councils a free reign to channel funds to their enterprise boards. The funds could then be used for the kind of purposes which must not, and shall not, be tolerated; in particular, asset stripping of holdings acquired on the ratepayers' behalf and at their expense.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I of course accept that Section 137 expenditure may well, in the event, be intended for worthwhile industrial, commercial, and economic purposes, whether by
28
enterprise boards, or in some other way. But as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, if the Secretary of State is to act sensibly and responsibly, he must satisfy himself as to whether the intended purposes are genuinely beneficial. and he must not have his hands tied by these two amendments.
It must surely be proper for the Secretary of State to take an interest when he hears of, for example, million being spent to meet the administrative costs of the Greater London Enterprise Board. Let me say at once that perhaps these costs are justified; perhaps they do represent good value for money. But the very amount of money at issue surely justifies the Secretary of State wanting to establish whether or not it is expedient for the GLC to spend money under Section 137 on GLEB at the present rate, let alone at the increased rate which they have promised for next year. Surely the Secretary of State owes it to London ratepayers to see to it that the assets for which they have paid are not stealthily siphoned off to a body over which they exercise no control. The Secretary of State owes it to the ratepayers in the metropolitan counties to ensure that there is no scope for their county councils attempting to follow suit on London.
As has been said, there are a number of like issues coming up for debate very shortly, and I wish to reserve some of what I have to say for those debates. For the time being, so far as this amendment is concerned, in that it affects this particular board, I hope that I have explained that, for proper uses, no one need have any fears. But for it to be said that the Secretary of State should not have any powers to examine these matters for the period in question, in the light of what is happening in other ways, would be wholly irresponsible.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has indicated that there is no evidence that jobs are being saved or that jobs are being created by the Greater London Enterprise Board; and the noble Baroness nods her head in assent at my interpretation of what she said. I have received from the Greater London Enterprise Board, and I am sure that the noble Baroness has received the same information—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, if I may be allowed to intervene, I was speaking of real jobs; not just jobs but real jobs that are to continue.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am sure that the persons who hold those jobs consider them to be real. The noble Baroness of course introduces the pejorative interpretation which she wishes to place on the nature of the jobs, and that is rather sad. The jobs which have been saved were real jobs before GLEB took an interest and saved them. There has been much scurrilous talk without any foundation. I am not saying that there is no foundation to such remarks, but what are the facts? When people cast aspersions on the integrity of councillors and on their political motivation, we are entitled to some substantiation at least.
Let me substantiate my claim that although there may be some activities which Members of this House might question, a great deal done by the GLEB has

29
been very well done and was money well spent. In the Borough of Mitcham, £150,000 was spent on the steel construction firm of Moughan and Macken, with 80 jobs created, rising to 130. In Hounslow, £900,000 was spent on Magnatex Holdings, who handle motor components, saving 200 jobs. Metropolitan Foods, food importers in Newham, have created 12 jobs, rising to 31. In Wandsworth, £4·5 million was spent on the London Production Centre, which covers various light industrial enterprises, to create 100 jobs, rising to 200. At AMD Engineering in Richmond, £½ million was spent for 40 jobs, rising to 56. In Islington, £200,000 was spent on Lithosphere Printing Co-op for 10 jobs, rising to 32. In Tower Hamlets, £100,000 went to Whitechapel Computers, to create 20 jobs, rising to 70. Victoria Shoes in Tower Hamlets received £137,000 to save 30 jobs. In Ealing, the bookbinding firm of Leighton Straker received £100,000 to save 48 jobs. In Greenwich, Binisa Oriental Foods have created 28 jobs, rising to 44. In Newham, Bassett (1983) Limited (Workwear) received£½ million for 94 jobs. In Enfield—which is an area that may not be as well known to the noble Baroness as it is to me—£½ million was spent on Walter Howard Design Limited, furniture manufacturers—and I know them well—for 95 jobs, rising to 130.
The House may consider that these are piffling numbers of jobs related to the amount of money spent; but in my view, every job is a real job until the people who hold them tell me that they believe they are skiving or that what they are producing is of no value to the national product. It does the House no good, and it does the Government's case no good, to plead in aid, in general sweeping terms, that these jobs need to be questioned. Can the Minister tell us whether the kind of work that the GLEB has been doing is the kind of work that he would frank? If these projects landed on his desk and he was asked to approve them or disapprove them, and if he were to say—subject of course to receiving more details—that they represent the kind of work he would allow to continue, there would be a great deal of easement in the minds not only of the GLC but also of the people holding down those jobs and the management concerned. The Minister is entitled to be specific and frank and not to generalise.
The Minister stated that there was evidence of asset stripping. When the Minister replies, I would ask him to give the House chapter and verse of the assets which have been stripped and which he fears are being stripped. Not generalisations such as, "We expect … We anticipate … We understand … We believe … We know". I am told by the GLC that there is no evidence which the Government can produce—and the Minister will now have to produce it—of assets having been stripped or being earmarked to be stripped.
First, all the assets which are being bought, sold or transferred have been transferred at a proper market price. That is not the hallmark of an asset stripping exercise. Secondly, the price has been validated in each case by independent valuation. That is not the hallmark of an asset stripping exercise. Thirdly, the sales have been advantageous to the GLC in each case, in their effect on the revenue account. Fourthly, where property has been subject to the GLC mortgage, the
30
mortgage has been repaid. Fifthly, such transfers have been justified both by GLC criteria and those of the GLEB in terms of a potential for commercial product development. Also, they have been small in scale and constrained by the overall funds available.
Let us examine the other generality. Some Members of this House have pleaded in aid, but in ignorance, the substance of what has been happening in London. But let us go further afield. Let us examine the situation in the West Midlands. There, the West Midlands Enterprise Board has invested a great deal of money—more than £4 million. It has not been giving grants but has been investing in British industry—which is something we all like to see. The board has been investing in Arden Brick, Armalloy, Butler Foundries, Norman Butter, Fairne Textiles, Hi-Ton, Kirby's Rockdove, Sage Aluminium, Welding Robotics, Cannings, Dudley Foundry, and Herbertson.
What are the areas in which those companies are involved? They include specialised brick manufacturing, manufacturing automatic and robotic welding equipment, manufacturing men's overcoats and other clothing, manufacturing box-making equipment, designing and producing high-technology welding robotic systems, engineering, and foundry work. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, may say that those are not real jobs. We are saying, the people who are doing those jobs are saying, and the people who are taking the decisions are saying that they are providing work which in the view of us all, and in the view of their local communities, too, represents money very well spent.
In pressing against these amendments, the Government are simply pursuing their vendetta against the GLEB and the other enterprise boards because those boards are doing the kind of things which the Government ought to be doing, in providing real jobs for real people.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is it in order for two noble Lords from the Opposition Front Bench to speak both before and after my noble friend on our Front Bench, thereby encouraging my noble friend to speak twice on the Third Reading of a Bill? Would it not have been suitable if the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, had spoken before the Minister, which would be the normal way for all the rest of us, if he had something to add, so that the Minister could reply to all the speeches? The Minister would then be followed in the normal course by the noble Baroness who moved the amendment. It is inappropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Graham, if I might say so, to call upon the Minister to make two speeches, when, by Third Reading rules, he should not make more than one. Perhaps in future that would be the way it should go.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say how grateful I am to my noble friend for his concern about the wear and tear on my clothing in bobbing up and down. Nevertheless, I am sure he has made an important point. The least I can do is not to talk at great length for a second time, but to say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that I

31
cannot comment on the number of instances of investment that he read out because I do not know any of the details of them. I know of one instance in the West Midlands which he did not mention—the Meriden co-operative—which made a substantial loss running into hundreds of thousands of pounds. However, I would not make the Government's case on such an instance. That does not make the case, because in making investments one is not going to get everything right. I would not belittle the scheme for that reason any more than I would claim great success for schemes in the short time they have been going. Nevertheless, I am not going to make a case on that at all.
We are absolutely entitled to say this in the circumstances as they now are following what is going to happen in the next period of time, and not least in view of what has been said by various people—not by Ministers, and certainly not by me, but by members of the GLC and others. They are on record as saying the kind of things that they propose to do to make quite sure that they obstruct, and all the rest that goes with it.
As regards property being sold to enterprise boards at market value, and the instance given earlier by my noble friend Lady Gardner, which sounded horrific, I make no comment because I do not know of it. However, we object to a device whereby an enterprise board can be granted a mortgage by the authority and then receive Section 137 money in order to service the mortgage payments. That kind of device, at the very least, in these circumstances and for this interim time, needs to be supervised. That is all I am suggesting—not that we would stop anything, but that in the circumstances the Secretary of State should have the right to look at proposals first. That cannot be anything other than a prudent measure. Indeed, I said a few moments ago that not to do that would be grossly irresponsible. That is why the Government so strongly object to the amendments.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in replying to the debate on this amendment I must again apologise for not having made clear immediately that Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 go together.
Nothing that has been said so far against the amendment is relevant to the amendment itself. Noble Lords are, on the whole, talking about grants under Section 137. The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, were far more relevant to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 than to Amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 7, which was not put down in Committee, states very specifically:
"This Section shall not apply to any expenditure incurred by a local authority for a purpose in connection with the promotion of the industrial, commercial or economic development of its area or some part thereof.".
It is on that basis that I was quite surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who always very carefully explains his connection with the CBI, did not think this very important from an industrial point of view. The fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, opposes it came as no surprise to me; I would have been very surprised if she had supported it. However, the noble Baroness the Leader of the Liberal Party
32
supported it very strongly with, I thought, very good reasoning, and extremely powerfully.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, referred to obstruction and the need for supervision. That is rather extraordinary because Section 137 has been in existence for a long time and the Government brought in their amendment only at the Committee stage. If they were so worried about supervision, why did they not do something very much earlier? As my noble friend Lord Graham pointed out, the replies that the noble Lord gave were again very general and did not really apply to this specific amendment but just to grants under Section 137. In considerable detail my noble friend explained very well the positive way in which Section 137 is used in the industrial, economic and commercial field, which saves me having to go over that once again. Therefore, I ask noble Lords to support this amendment when I divide the House.
4.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 150

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hunt, L.

Amherst, E.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jacques, L.

Attlee, E.

Jeger, B.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Barnett, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bernstein, L.

Kaldor, L.

Beswick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Birk, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blyton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Listowel, E.

Bottomley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Caradon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McNair, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mais, L.

Collison, L.

Mar, C.

Cudlipp, L.

Mayhew, L.

David, B.

Milford, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mishcon, L.

Denington, B.

Mulley, L.

Diamond, L.

Northfield, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Oram, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Ennals, L.

Phillips, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Raglan, L.

Ezra, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Reilly, L.

George-Brown, L.

Rochester, L.

Gifford, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gosford, E.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hayter, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

[Teller.]

33

Stone, L.

Walston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

White, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Wigoder, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Underhill, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kinross, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kitchener, E.

Ampthill, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Annan, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Atholl, D.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Avon, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bellwin, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Beloff, L.

McFadzean, L.

Belper, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bessborough, E.

Mancroft, L.

Birdwood, L.

Margadale, L.

Boardman, L.

Marley, L.

Bolton, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Brookeborough, V.

Avon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Middleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Milverton, L.

Caithness, E.

Minto, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Molson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monson, L.

Chelmer, L.

Morris, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Newall, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cottesloe, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cox, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Croft, L.

Onslow, E.

Cromartie, E.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Daventry, V.

Pender, L.

De Freyne, L.

Perth, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denning, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone,

Dilhorne, V.

L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Portland, D.

Eccles, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Redesdale, L.

Elton, L.

Reigate, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Glanusk, L.

Romney, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Gormanstom, V.

St. Davids, V.

Gowrie, E.

Saltoun, Ly.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sandford, L.

Gridley, L.

Sandys, L.

Haig, E.

Selborne, E.

Hailsham of Saint

Selkirk, E.

Marylebone, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Halsbury, E.

Sharples, B.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Sherfield, L.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Soames, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Somers, L.

Hood, V.

Southborough, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Stamp, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathspey, L.

Inchape, E.

Swinfen, L.

Ingrow, L.

Swinton, E, [Teller.]

Jessel, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Terrington, L.

Kilmany, L.

Teviot, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

34

Trefgarne, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Trenchard, V.

Watkinson, V.

Trumpington, B.

Westbury, L.

Ullswater, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wynford, L.

Vivian, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.35 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughtonmoved Amendment No. 5.
Page 5, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) Consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and shall in any event be extended to the incurring of expenditure where the recipient person or body is for all or part of any one financial year in receipt concurrently of funding from moneys voted by Parliament including Urban Programme, the grant-in-aid to the Manpower Services Commission, or funds administered by the Department of Industry, or in receipt concurrently of funding from the European Social Fund, or Regional Fund, or in receipt concurrently of funds provided by any registered charity.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to exclude from the operation of the clause funding arrangements currently entered into with Government bodies, the EEC, other local authorities and charities. Before I speak further to the amendment, let me say that I do not belong to the school of thought that thinks that there should be no limitation on local authority powers under Section 137. I believe that some local authorities are deliberately provocative and will pursue policies, now that they have an extra period in office, to flout the Government's wishes. I do not belong to the school of thought which says that the provision is a grotesque limitation of the liberty of local authorities. Some local authorities have behaved—and there is every reason to expect that they will continue to behave— irresponsibly in the dying period of their lives.
Some very provocative things are done. I have already today spoken about Merseyside County Council. As a ratepayer in the area I find it provocative that my money should be used to provide funds for striking miners. I do not think that that is any part of a local authority's duties. I do not belong to the total "give it away" school of thought. But in my opinion this is a different matter, and it is a simple amendment. Section 137 powers are being used extensively by local authorities to assist, supplement and give local incentive to funding proposals by other bodies. Very often the other bodies are Government agencies, particularly the MSC, and involve support for training schemes, urban programme funding for voluntary organisations and job creation schemes.
It seems to me that what the Government are doing is superimposing a whole new layer of monitoring on work that has already been monitored by other agencies of which they approve. It seems to me that local initiatives in the creation of jobs and work by other agencies will be put through another level of bureaucracy. By the time it gets through, what might have been a worthwhile initiative may be too late. There will be duplication. Specialist judgments have already been made by responsible and expert agencies in the kind of fields that I am talking about. To jeopardise them by further delays would be extremely irresponsible, particularly in areas of high

35
unemployment, which are the main areas with which the amendment seeks to deal.
The amendment would give the Government an opportunity in advance to exclude several categories of funding and to cut the endless bureaucracy and red tape that they are creating with these clauses. As with existing grants to voluntary organisations, I cannot see how the Government can talk seriously about their fears of asset stripping. Surely the noble Lord the Minister does not seriously believe that the MSC (his own agency) and other agencies would involve themselves in asset stripping. Surely he does not think that there are a series of moles in Whitehall assisting the wicked authorities which he keeps attacking to asset strip. I hope that when he comes to reply he will deal with these points and not just set up a miasma of suspicion about money wasted on way-out proposals. By definition, these are all serious schemes, seriously entered into by serious Government departments, voluntary bodies, the EEC, other local authorities, and so on.
I know from my period as a member of Merseyside County Council that many of the job creation and training schemes at present being undertaken by metropolitan counties, in particular, are concurrently funded by the Department of Industry, the Urban Programme and the Manpower Services Commission. Joint EEC funding of environmental and social projects and schemes providing specialist training may well be at risk if this clause is agreed to unamended.
There are schemes undertaken by the metropolitan county councils in partnership with the local boroughs and districts. Very often the boroughs and districts may be Conservative controlled while the county councils may be Labour controlled; but joint schemes are still going through. They would seem to be the kind of schemes which the Government would wish to encourage, and therefore in my opinion would not need to be re-examined by the Secretary of State. During the course of our debates, the Minister has often said that the controls should be seen in the context of abolition. In this case controls which could actually hinder the development of schemes involving lower tier authorities together with county councils would seem to be even more incongruous in the light of the statement of the noble Minister.
Finally, it would seem entirely reasonable to exempt schemes entered into jointly with charitable organisations. Once again, I ask the Minister whether these joint schemes and charities are really likely to give rise to any disposal of assets of which the Government could, under any circumstances, disapprove.
This amendment highlights the scope of the clause that the Government have brought in and the evident haste with which it has been constructed. It is difficult to see how any of these types of joint schemes that I have mentioned could give rise to the action that the Government seek to prevent. Yet each of them is potentially to be subject to a further layer of bureaucratic examination to obtain approval. Powers under Section 137 are already limited, both in their application in the interests of some or all of the local area and in their amount—the product of a tuppeny
36
rate. Joint schemes have further to meet the criteria of both funding bodies. In these circumstances, it seems to me extraordinary that the creation of a further layer of approval is necessary. It seems to me that this is one case in which the Government could say, "Yes, we have gone too far in proposing these further protections". In the cases that I have set out I feel that the Government would lose themselves no money, lose the ratepayers no assets and gain very considerably in reducing bureaucracy by accepting this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I accept that Amendment No. 5 is intended as an attempt to build reassurance into the Bill itself. To some extent I sympathise with the reasons why it has been moved. It would, for example, be nonsense for the Secretary of State to give approval to a particular item of expenditure under one heading, say the urban programme, and then to reconsider that approval because that expenditure relied on Section 137 for its vires. Clearly, a means of avoiding that kind of duplication should and will be put in place.
But Amendment No. 5 goes far wider than the avoidance of needless duplication. It proposes the removal from the scope of the Secretary of State's control any body which at any time during 1985–86 had received Government approved or European Community grant or was funded by a registered charity. This gives rise to a fundamental objection that the proposal ignores a practical reality. A body may well for perfectly legitimate purposes be in receipt of assistance originally voted by Parliament, given by the European Community or given by a registered charity. But such a body could at the same time be prepared to carry out unreasonable and undesirable activities for an abolition authority. This risk is underlined by the fact that a body may radically change its character or object within the space of a very short time indeed. So it is essential for the Secretary of State to retain his discretion to grant or withhold his consent in respect of particular expenditure, as the circumstances require.
There are two further features of Amendment No. 5 to which I ought to draw attention. First, there can be no quarrel with the proposition that the Secretary of State should not withhold unreasonably his consent to proposals for expenditure under Section 137. There is already a legal requirement that the Secretary of State should act reasonably, and alleged failure to do so would be ground for an action against the Secretary of State in the courts.
Secondly, the amendment covers only Section 137 payments made by the authorities to persons or bodies. Hence it does not deal with other expenditure under Section 137, for example, the purchase of land or goods by or the provision of services for the authority for use on projects such as the urban programme. The amendment would therefore fail to achieve a large part of the objective which the noble Lord, Lord Evans, sets for it.
However, my main criticism remains that the amendment is too widely drawn and would exempt expenditure from the Secretary of State's scrutiny which may well deserve very careful examination. That is our basic reason for our objection to it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister realises the trouble that is going to be caused by this additional layer of inspection. It is a question of delay. Those of us who have struggled with getting grants for various organisations know that you can be given a verbal go ahead in February and not see a penny by July. I am quoting actual cases. Small organisations which are struggling to do a good job cannot live with this kind of uncertainty. One is always extremely grateful to the SF but it is nothing to have to wait until after your project has finished before you see the colour of their money, welcome though it is when it comes. If we are going to have a further layer of approval, people will not enter into projects because in doing so they will be bankrupt before the money comes.
There is a further point. We are told it is going to be approved by the Secretary of State. This means that it is going to be approved by the civil servants in the Secretary of State's department. A great many of the projects about which we are talking are the kind of projects which, to put it quite bluntly, civil servants do not understand. The idea that they are going to do the vetting of these local projects being put forward by a variety of people who really know what they are doing in local government seems a most retrograde action on the part of the Government.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the noble Baroness would allow me to say so, she does not seem to appreciate fully the anxiety which exists among the ratepayers in the metropolitan areas as to what these authorities may do by way of financial activity during the further year which, as a result of the decision of this House, they were given. There is very deep anxiety among ratepayers. In those circumstances, even if delay results to perfectly respectable projects, it seems to me essential for the Government to obtain proper control of local authority spending over that period.
In this connection, to accept this amendment as it stands would drive not so much a coach and horses but a 50 ton tank through the controls. Under this amendment all that you have to do in order to evade control is to attach whatever payment you decide to make to some payment, however small, from one of the innumerable bodies specified in the amendment. You could have a purely token payment from a registered charity. Maybe the local authority has connections with a registered charity. Once you have a token payment from that, under the amendment as it stands—at any rate as I read it—there is no limit to the amount of expenditure which the local authority may add to that. Therefore it does not suffice. With very great respect, it is not a sufficient answer to complain that there will be bureaucratic delays, and that some perfectly good causes will no doubt suffer delay as a result of these provisions and as a result of the general temporary transition situation.
On that, and on a slightly broader aspect, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, on an earlier amendment, was full of the wonderful work creation schemes and the amount of jobs created by the GLC. Your Lordships should have in mind when listening to this type of argument, as to that of the noble Baroness,
38
that the GLC, in creating these jobs, is not using its own money. It is using money taken compulsorily from the ratepayers, over half of whom are themselves businesses employing people. It is therefore not possible to say that you have created x jobs unless you allow, on the other side of the ledger, that you have made the operation of a great many genuine private businesses the more difficult by reason of the heavy rate burden that you have imposed.
Your Lordships will know that offices are leaving the Greater London area now because of the burden of rates. I wonder whether someone allows for the people who lose their jobs as a result of that. It is extraordinarily naive to say "Isn't it wonderful, we have created all these jobs in Camberwell?" if you ignore those people working for self-respecting private businesses who have been deprived of their jobs because the burden of rates has been such that their employers could no longer sustain employment in the London area.
I hope very much that my noble friend appreciates, as I am sure he does, that this amendment, although undoubtedly very well-intentioned, would wreck a major sector of the control that has to be exercised during the mercifully short transition period while we have the GLC and its friends with us.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, once again generalises without giving any specific examples. The jobs created by the GLC and the metropolitan councils to which my noble friend Lord Graham referred, he dismisses as being partly paid for by the ratepayers. What the noble Lord fails to see is the amount of work that is generated by these schemes, both by the local authorities and by the local authorities in partnership with other bodies, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Evans. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has probably completely forgotten about the enterprise zones where special arrangements are made and where payment of rates is excused.
The noble Lord talks the whole time, as, unfortunately, at times does the Minister, as though this was a completely one-sided effort. In fact, employers derive a great deal of benefit from these schemes and welcome them very much. It is no good the Minister saying, as he did on the last amendment and again on this amendment, that anything that is good or well thought of can go to the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is absolutely right. As we all keep saying, even if this does happen the amount of delay can be absolutely destructive of social effort, of industrial effort and of commercial effort. That is the trouble. If this is really what the Government want to do, we are reaching the stage where the question has to be asked, "What is the point of having local government at all?" Every power, every right, every duty, and every opportunity is being taken away from it. It does not seem to me to make much sense for the Government, on the one hand to be arguing for local government, as they do from time to time, and, on the other hand, to be putting it in such a stranglehold that it cannot give proper services to the people it is meant to serve nor generate wealth in its own community.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to oppose the amendment. Grants have been handed out in some cases by the Greater London Council—I am thinking particularly of the women's committee—in such haste that no one has had time to consider where the money is going. Indeed, there has been quite a detailed report recently on this subject. Although, therefore, I accept that this could cause some degree of delay, I feel that whatever the grounds that are given, it is public money that is involved and this should be handled well. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned that local authorities would be unable to give anything. I understand that Section 137, in respect of other normal local authorities, is not affected at all.
In the local council of which I was a member for 10 years, there was a body set up to examine every grant application. We looked at applications, not in relation to the next five minutes or the next week, but to the next year. We were always looking ahead. There was a rolling programme. One year, bodies that were well deserving of a grant would be funded. By the following year, there might have been a falling-off in public demand for what that body was doing, or those administering it might no longer be trying to give a service to the public. Those obtaining the grants therefore varied from year to year. There was none of this question—I have not seen it anywhere except in the Greater London Council—of people being able to run in and have their money in five minutes without any questions asked. I do not believe that that should be the situation.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that some fairly rapid processing will take place, and I have sympathy with groups that might have to wait overlong. That would be a great pity. However, the present handling of ratepayers' money is so much at risk that we must have this restriction.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I thank my noble friends for their observations, which are very apposite. I say at once that we recognise that a considerable number of bona fide organisations rely for their continued existence on Section 137 funds. We have every intention of seeing that proposals in respect of such bodies are approved—and approved speedily. These powers will not be cumbersome. They will not be time-consuming. They will not be intrusive into those many bodies in the voluntary sector which have no reason to fear the Secretary of State's intervention. While readily giving that assurance—we are talking now of consents and so on, and that has to be worked out—I am not prepared to see that we write out the kind of blank cheques that some people press upon us. We cannot and will not do that.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, this is the perfect dilemma. On the one hand, we have, as I have stated earlier, the local authority that is deliberately provocative. On the other hand, we have a Government that is provoked. I was trying, as we on these Benches always try, to build bridges and to create goodwill all round. I want to find some way whereby the perfectly good causes which, as everyone seems to recognise, will suffer, can be protected, and the extravagant and wasteful causes can be weeded out. As
40
the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, stated—I think that I quote him exactly— perfectly good causes will suffer. It is those that I am concerned about.
I am concerned about the large number of perfectly good causes that will suffer delays that will perhaps bankrupt a proposal. I thought that one had perhaps limited the wording to an extent that would protect worthy objects—those being pursued with charities, with the European Economic Community and with other boroughs. That is, I suppose, where I made my big mistake because "other boroughs" create all kinds of bogies in people's minds. I would have thought that a form of wording could be found that would limit the necessity for bureaucratic intervention only to bad cases and not to the broad majority of schemes generated locally and creating local employment and local wealth. I would have thought that a Conservative Government in particular would wish to encourage this kind of local initiative, local opportunities and so on. I am disappointed. The Minister has said that the good cases will be pursued with enthusiasm and that no delays will take place.
I am only sorry that between Report stage and Third Reading, the Government have not devised something which I would have thought would meet the wishes of people on a broad front and on all sides of the House. I recognise that noble Lords on the Government Benches are genuinely concerned about the frittering away of ratepayers' money, as, indeed, I am. I recognise that this is the view of all noble Lords on all sides of the House. I should have thought that at the same time noble Lords on the Government side, on the Opposition side and on the Alliance side were also anxious that these initiatives, of which we all approve, should go through without any interference from central bodies.
I fear that the problem that we have confronted all the way down the line in considering the Section 137 proposals and this clause, is that we are losing the baby with the bathwater. I really cannot understand why the Government have not tried to come forward with some scheme. We are now at the Third Reading stage. I cannot invite them to do it. Frankly, I do not think that they would do it if we had a sixth or a seventh Reading because I fear that they do not intend to do it. But I do hope and I do wish that I could believe that they are listening carefully to what people on this side of the House and to what a lot of people outside the House are begging them to do.
I feel that it is my duty not only to these Benches and the other Opposition parties, but also to all those voluntary organisations outside who are likely to suffer so much, to test the opinion of the House and to ask your Lordships to divide.
5.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amentment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 154.

DIVISION No. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Aylestone, L.

Amherst, E.

Barnett, L.

Ardwick, L.

Bernstein, L.

Attlee, E.

Beswick, L.

41

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blyton, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mais, L.

Buxton of Coventry, B.

Mar, C.

Caradon, L.

Melchett, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milford, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Collison, L.

Mulley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Oram, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Diamond, L.

Peart, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Phillips, B.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Raglan, L.

Ezra, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Falkland, V.

Reilly, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

George-Brown, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gifford, L.

Samuel, V.

Gosford, E.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

[Teller]

Serota, B.

Gregson, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Hall, V.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stone, L.

Hayter, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hunt, L.

Tordoff, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Walston, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kaldor, L.

White, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller]

Kinloss, Ly.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Listowel, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Aldington, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cox, B.

Ampthill, L.

Craighavon, V.

Atholl, D.

Craigmyle, L.

Auckland, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Avon, E.

Croft, L.

Bancroft, L.

Cromartie, E.

Bellwin, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Beloff, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Belper, L.

Daventry, V.

Belstead, L.

De Freyne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Boardman, L.

Denning, L.

Bolton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eccles, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Elton, L.

Caccia, L.

Gainford, L.

Caithness, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Gisborough, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Glanusk, L.

Chelmer, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Chelwood, L.

Gormanston, V.

Cockfield, L.

Gowrie, E.

Coleraine, L.

Gridley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Haig, E.

42

Hailsham of Saint

Pender, L.

Marylebone, L.

Perth, E.

Halsbury, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone,

Henley, L.

L.

Hives, L.

Portland, D.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Pritchard, L.

Hood, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Reay, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Redesdale, L.

Inchcape, E.

Reigate, L.

Ingrow, L.

Renton, L.

Ironside, L.

Renwick, L.

Jessel, L.

Romney, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Kilmany, L.

St. Davids, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Kitchener, E.

Sandford, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Selborne, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Selkirk, E.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Long, V.

Sharples, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sherfield, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McFadzean, L.

Soames, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Somers, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Southborough, L.

Mancroft, L.

Stamp, L.

Margadale, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Marley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Swinfen, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Swinton, E. [Teller]

Merrivale, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Middleton, L.

Terrington, L.

Milverton, L.

Teviot, L.

Minto, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Molson, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Morris, L.

Trenchard, V.

Mottistone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Ullswater, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Newall, L.

Vivian, L.

Norfolk, D.

Ward of Witley, V.

Northchurch, B.

Watkinson, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Westbury, L.

Onslow, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Orkney, E.

Wynford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughtonmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) No consent shall be required under this section in respect of expenditure incurred under section 137 of the principal Act by way of a payment to any body or organisation where

(a) such body or organisation has been in receipt of a payment under the said section 137 by the local authority concerned within the two previous financial years, and

(b) the payment to be made to such body or organisation does not exceed the total amount so made in the previous two financial years.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would remove the need for consent to payments where either (a) the body concerned had been funded in the previous two financial years or, (b) the proposed payment would not exceed the total paid in the previous two years. As I think noble Lords will realise, the controls on Section 137 spending do threaten, in the eyes of those of us on these Benches, to do an enormous amount of damage to the voluntary sector in metropolitan areas and in the Greater London area.
The original purpose of Section 137 was to give extra funding power to local authorities with intimate

43
knowledge of their areas, and it is this use of the intimate knowledge of the area to deal with the serious problems that would be known only to a local authority with a local knowledge of that area, which of course would be undermined by the provisions which the Government seek to make in this clause. Instead of a critical assessment by local officers and local councillors, there will be a general overview by Whitehall officials, and, as my noble friend Lady Seear said, inevitable delays and uncertainties will strike particularly hard at small voluntary organisations.
This amendment is a damage-limitation exercise. Under the clause as it stands, organisations with established fundings will be under immediate threat from the clause. Negotiations for possible funding in the municipal year 1985–6 would have to be undertaken in the autumn of 1984. Bodies funded to the end of the current financial year would be affected almost immediately. Commitments already made into 1985 and 1986 and promises given to voluntary and other bodies would not be honoured if the consent is withheld. Some groups will perhaps have entered into building contracts or staff commitments dependent on continued funding in 1985–86. The resulting uncertainty will certainly endanger some projects, even if eventually grants are made available, and may in fact prevent some projects from taking off at all.
As at present worded, the clause would require consent to the payment next year and in subsequent years of debt charges to meet capital grants made this financial year, thus in effect, limiting Section 137 grants from the date of enactment. The Government have stated that their concern is not with voluntary organisation-funding but with the possibility of disposals or asset-stripping by the GLC or the metropolitan county councils to bodies funded under Section 137. In my submission, there is no evidence for such fears under the circumstances of the amendment which I move. This amendment gives the Government an opportunity, which I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will take, to clarify their intentions. New arrangements for large funding proposals would not fall within the scope of the amendment; only continued funding operations for the lesser bodies, the smaller voluntary organisations, would be involved.
At the Report stage the Government were challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to state the potential further delays that local authorities would suffer in having this extra layer of bureaucracy. I do not think that the noble Lord the Minister replied to him. The powers under Section 137–and I want to underline this—are already limited both in their application, because they are limited to local areas, and in the amount, the product of a 2p rate. As I have said before, joint schemes have to meet other criteria. Surely schemes of this nature that have already been in operation for one year should be continued, or be put in a position where they can continue, in a second year because, as anyone who has been involved in voluntary organisations, in councils of voluntrary service, will realise, without some kind of knowledge with regard to the taking on of employees or the developing of new schemes, it is quite impossible for organisations effectively to carry out the work which is
44
helpful to a locality and which is known by local authorities to be helpful in that locality.
I know that the noble Lord the Minister will again say that this amendment will give opportunities for irresponsible local authorities to drive a horse and cart through the regulations. I, personally, do not see how that could be done, but I should like the noble Lord the Minister to indicate to us how he anticipates that, by refusing to pass this amendment, there will be dangers of asset-stripping at any level at all. In my opinion, this amendment is merely a charter for local authorities to continue in partnership with voluntary organisations in smaller schemes. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to support the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, and myself. It is true that we have been over this ground before, but I do not think that we can let this Third Reading of the Bill go through when the whole Bill has missed almost a complete stage because of the mess we found ourselves in at the Committee stage and because of the very large amendments tabled by the Government to the Bill throughout the Bill's proceedings.
Once again we come to the criticisms that are always in the general but very seldom in the specific. As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, pointed out, most of the groups about which we are talking here are groups about which no one could possibly find anything to disagree, although whether or not they would want to support them financially is a different matter. Whether one is talking about the GLC or the metropolitan county councils, they cover a great many organisations concerned with people who suffer disabilities, concerned with the homeless, the single homeless, the elderly—like Age Concern—and include the National Council for One Parent Families, the national child care campaign, housing action centres, cancer campaigns, and community centres. One could go on for a long time about this.
The question of the more controversial groups—the organisations which some noble Lords keep pressing should not be supported by local authorities—always seems to be raised. But those noble Lords have never put this into the right financial perspective or into the right perspective in any way. The List of 51 was produced by the Aims of Industry. It sounds all right to say that there are 51 groups about which there may be some alleged doubt, but the important thing to know is what this means in financial terms. If we take the GLC— which, in spite of the Bill's applying also to the metropolitan county councils, is definitely the target which Government and Peers on that side of the House are going for—the total that is spent on grants under Section 137, certainly in the social field, amounts to £47 million. Out of that, a total of £796,000 is spent on those groups which could be described—and certainly would be so described by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—as controversial. The English Collective of Prostitutes, to which the noble Lord has referred many times, receives a sum of £400. In that context of £47 million other groups receive very small sums of money and in spite of the titles, which the noble Lord may not like, these

45
organisations are all doing work which is greatly concerned with welfare and humanity in the area.
I think I have said many times on previous occasions during the passage of this Bill that one does not necessarily have to agree with all the expenditure of central or local authorities; that one has a comeback when one uses one's vote. The essence of democracy is that things are done with which we do not all agree. If not, we should be living in a completely authoritarian state, in a dictatorship. When one looks at these sums it is as well to remember that these organisations include bodies like the Migrants Action Group, and all sorts of organisations which even I would not call controversial, and those dealing with the various homosexual groups also have a right to exist in our society and form their own groups because of the numbers concerned. If this narrow, rigid, and authoritarian view is going to be taken, it is going to be an unhappy day for the whole of our society.
As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, said, this amendment is one that should be accepted on practical grounds alone. The taking away of funds in this abrupt way—and here we are not even talking about the small number of allegedly controversial groups; what we are talking about is all these organisations—from these organisations without their having the chance to get their houses in order and know where they are is going to be tremendously disadvantageous to everybody in the community, and especially to the people in those groups.
I must repeat again—and I make no apology for repeating it and shall repeat it on every occasion that this comes up—that the delays involved will be enormous, and a great many of these charities will have to go out of business, which will be an enormous loss to the community and to people who find a great deal of satisfaction in giving to, and working for, these charities. This is going to close down that outlet entirely. I cannot believe that that is good for our society.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I must at once totally and utterly refute what the noble Baroness says. Frankly it does no good to be scaremongering on that basis. There is not the slightest intention—certainly not the wish—of Government to allow any of the worthwhile voluntary organisations to be adversely affected at all. What we are talking about, as my noble friend Lady Gardner reminded us a few minutes ago, is that out of the 430 or so authorities in the country we are talking about seven authorities. We are talking about something which will operate and last for only one year, and in no way will we permit good, sound, voluntary organisations either to lose grant which they have received or to experience undue delay in receiving it.
The noble Baroness says that she does not apologise and will go on saying it. I do not apologise, and I will go on saying this for as long as it may be necessary, because it is important that people should know that that is the position. We have already debated at Report stage of the Bill this amendment which now reappears as No. 6. I have no intention of detaining your Lordships by rehearsing at length the points I made on Report and which can be found in column 1293 of the
46
Official Report for 16th July. I say only that the effect of the amendment would be to exempt from the Secretary of State's scrutiny bodies which had already received section 137 expenditure grants from the abolition authorities during the current financial year or the last financial year. The exemption would apply up to the limit of the funds received by the body in question over those two years.
That limitation provides a totally inadequate safeguard in an amendment whose basic purpose is unacceptable. We cannot allow expenditure to pass on the nod simply because the recipient has already been grant-aided for the past two years. Nor can we possibly guarantee without examination that expenditure on, say, enterprise boards should necessarily be allowed to continue at the level of 1983–84 plus 1984–85.
Clearly in many cases there will be no difficulty at all over approval. That is precisely the point I have been putting over since this provision was tabled, and which I stress yet again. But I also say yet again that we cannot ignore the likelihood of some body or organisation becoming the means whereby the authorities deliberately seek to frustrate abolition. This is no distant, remote contingency. The evidence mounting literally day by day is that the abolition authorities will not scruple to use any means, and will not hesitate to incur any expense, for just these purposes. We are not minded to aid the authorities by offering to them this amendment on a plate, and that is why I must ask my noble friends to resist this amendment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it seems to me that in responding to this kind of amendment the noble Lord the Minister tries to suggest that there is an open-endedness about these section 137 provisions which simply does not exist. As my noble friend Lord Evans of Claughton said, at the end of the day we are talking about a twopenny rate. It is a large sum of money all together, I accept, in relation to Greater London, and it is Greater London that we are talking about, and to a certain extent the Greater London Council has brought this upon itself by sheer stupidity in the way that it has directed some of this money. But, as the noble Baroness said, it is a small fraction of that money that we are talking about. It is perhaps a little higher than she would suggest because there are one or two other organisations which disguise themselves as community projects which happen to turn out to be the local Labour Party doing its own thing.
Nevertheless, the suggestion by the Minister that somehow the Greater London Council is going to be able to funnel the whole of this £40 million into some narrow field is wrong. I cannot believe that they would be so stupid in political terms as to deny any sustenance next year to all the other good voluntary organisations we are talking about in order to divert all of this into some project of their own. It would be the greatest political folly that the Labour Party could possibly commit in this country if they were to do that.
We are talking about a restricted method of disbursing money. One wonders whether money is saved by the Secretary of State in denying funds to some of the sillier projects. Will the net saving in real monetary terms be greater or less than the cost of administering the bureaucracy which will be necessary

47
to run this scheme? I deeply regret that the Government have nowhere in the course of this Bill on the Section 137 provisions been prepared to tackle the genuine feelings that exist in many organisations, and have always tended to dwell on possibilities (which I do not believe exist) of funnelling vast sums of money into unworthy causes, and certainly to over-exaggerate the amount of money which is being put into civic causes.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister's replies to each of these amendments. As one who has worked in the field of voluntary social service for many years, I am still confused about one particular issue. When one received grant aid—as I have done on many occasions—directly from a Government department one was always told categorically that none of this was to be used in a local context. It appears to me that under this Bill it will be the Government department which will determine what are virtually local monies to be spent by the voluntary agencies. This has not been fully explained. In other words, is it a Government department which will determine whether the Merseyside Council for Social Service can continue?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, we are getting slightly lost in this amendment. It is not a case where the Greater London Council, for example, is a social services authority or a health authority. It has no social services responsibility. Therefore the grants that go to those bodies at the present moment go under a discretion but are not necessarily the responsibility of that council, and we all know that. The danger is that, if the pattern were continued in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, suggests, it would perpetuate the present handout of grants there. Entirely putting aside the controversial items about which I have spoken so often, I do not think it is a good thing for bodies to receive money automatically because they received it last year and the year before that. That is not a sufficiently good reason. As I mentioned earlier, in my own experience of local councils we scrutinised every grant every year to see which recipients had become more in need and deserving and which had become less so. But this provision would perpetuate a system whereby anyone who already had a foot in the door was all right, and no one else could possibly receive any money after that. Even on those grounds it is not right.
There is another aspect to be considered. In the case of the Greater London Council, I am very unhappy about the agency agreements whereby projects are funded that have nothing to do with the Greater London Council. They are funded to enable local boroughs to avoid funding. In those instances the Greater London Council does not even consider whether the money is deserved or not; it simply relies on what the council asking for the money says about it. If I am asking for money I will always say I am asking for it for a good cause.
I think that these agency agreements are quite iniquitous. This is the present arrangement where the GLC has made provisions for the local boroughs to forward on applications. When, as an elected member
48
of a committee, one asks for details about what the money is to be spent on and asks for a Greater London Council officer to answer the query, one is told "Sorry, it can't be answered by one of our own officers because we know nothing about it whatsoever". Such queries will be answered by an Islington officer or a Hackney officer or whatever officer happens to be present. Again, that is not very satisfactory.
To return to the original point, I do not think that because some body have had money for two years they are automatically the right people to get it again. I therefore strongly oppose this amendment.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I am not surprised by the reaction of the Minister in relation to the amendment. It seems to me, summarising it, that the Government are substituting the Secretary of State's opinion for what is good for an area for the opinion of the locally-elected councillors for what is good for that area. That in a nutshell is the Government's attitude. It is totally contrary to my view of democracy. It is a more centralised view than I should have thought Conservative Governments would allow themselves to get involved in.
I take the point once again about the money that is at times wasted on grants. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that even if one takes out all the bogey men, as it were, she believes the Section 137 grants are being spent at too high a level. With all the controls that have been imposed by this Government on local authorities' freedom to finance themselves—rate capping, loss of grant and all the other heavy penalties which local authorities are suffering—there is not a serious danger in the position that would result from this.
One of the things that worry me is the statement, oft repeated by the Government, that the measures in this proposed clause are temporary. What I fear is that the Government, having introduced temporary measures of this nature during the final dying months of the metropolitan counties and the GLC, will like what they see, the control they can employ, so much that they will continue it in future legislation and use this as a precedent for limiting the freedom of local authorities after the reforms go through, if they go through, on this in the Streamlining the Cities legislation.
I was going to list the kind of things that the Merseyside County Council—to get away if only briefly from the Greater London Council—spent its Section 137 grants on. All I wanted to say was that of this projected expenditure of just under £4·5 millions this year, well over half has been spent on things such as industrial development, innovation centres, cooperative development agencies, the Merseyside Enterprise Board, special initiatives for the low-paid, financial assistance to small enterprises, financial assistance to co-operatives, helping victims of crime, apprentice training schemes etc. One item that some of your Lordships might find objectionable is a grant being made to the Britannia Adelphi Hotel in Liverpool, but that is to ensure that Liverpool has sufficient hotel space. Overwhelmingly as far as Merseyside is concerned these monies are being spent to create employment, jobs and wealth. I am sure that this is true of the other authorities concerned.

49
Though we have managed each time we have divided to increase our vote by one or two, unfortunately the Government have managed to increase their vote by five or six, so, rather than continue the numbers game, I beg leave, but with a very heavy heart, to withdraw this amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved].
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, I wonder whether I could have an answer to my question? If I could just emphasise—
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, the amendment has been withdrawn, if the noble Baroness is referring to Amendment No. 6. There is no further Motion on Amendment No. 6.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I meant Amendment No. 7.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendment No. 7, the Baroness Birk is not moving. Does the noble Baroness wish to move it instead?
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, no; I thought I spoke before she withdrew it.
5.37 p.m.
Baroness Birkmoved Amendment No. 8:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Regulations for consents under ss. 8 and 9.
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations prescribing the matters he is to take into consideration in granting or refusing his consent under sections 8 and 9 of this Act.
(2) No such regulations as are referred to in subsection (1) of this section shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) No consents shall be required under sections 8 and 9 of this Act until such time as the regulations referred to in subsection (1) of this section have been made, and sections 8 and 9 shall be read subject to the provisions of this section.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the criteria on which he would base his granting of consent to disposals.
Incidentally I should be speaking to Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 11 and taking them together.
Amendment No. 9: page 5, line 33, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of section (Regulations for consents under ss. 8 and 9) of this Act").
Amendment No. 11: page 6, line 14, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of section (Regulations for consents under ss. 8 and 9) of this Act").
The regulations would be subject to affirmative resolution of each House. Until the regulations have been approved no consents would be necessary to disposals or to contracts. No criteria of any kind have been set out in the new clauses on disposals and contracts contained in Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill. The Secretary of State is to take new and unprecedented powers with no indication at this stage of how they will be exercised. Local authorities, in reaching decisions on sales of land or entering of contracts, have to take detailed criteria into account before approval is given. These criteria are an important part of the process of
50
public accountability since they ensure that decisions on expenditure of public money are taken in a cost-effective and consistent way.
Under the clause as drafted the Secretary of State must be subject to no such constraints on his decisions. There would be an outcry if a Labour Minister were to take control of contracts reached by Conservative authorities without even publishing and seeking approval for the basis of his decisions and it would be quite wrong for Parliament to give blanket approval to the exercising of these powers without retaining some control.
These clauses, if there are no criteria introduced at this stage, will come into effect immediately after the Bill receives Royal Assent. There will be no pause whatsoever. Assuming that the Government get this Bill on time next week, the Secretary of State will be exercising a complete power of veto over all land disposals and all medium and large contracts. Not only the authorities themselves, but also the major contractors need to know where they stand. Many organisations, such as chambers of commerce, professional federations and many others, are not even yet fully aware of the implications of these new restrictions. Perhaps the Secretary of State himself is not. There is probably some truth in that.
For instance, will he include disposals by superannuation funds? Will he exclude contracts entered into in pursuance of the statutory obligations of authorities? Will he include annually renewable contracts, like window cleaning or vehicle maintenance? What about all the small disposals of surplus land acquired for things like road widening schemes? Some of the metropolitan counties have a policy of selling off surplus police houses. Will every one of these disposals need the Secretary of State's authority? Will the Secretary of State be ready to give both detailed and general consent by next week?—because that is when the axe will fall. If not, what is going to happen to these contracts and to the figures involved? Are approvals to be in addition to those already required for many large undertakings? For example, the Home Office has to give approval for building police stations and for buying fire engines. Does it mean that now we are to have a double bank of necessary consents and approvals?
These questions need answering, and the local authorities, the contractors and everyone else involved need to see proper statutory criteria so that they know exactly where they stand. This is a very important point that acts as an introduction to the other amendments that are being moved—those on the disposal of land for contracts. Until we know that there are some criteria, everyone is moving around in the dark.
I can make a number of suggestions on the disposal of land, and on a number of criteria which are intended to be indicative. In each case they seek to exempt disposals where the consent of the Secretary of State would be unnecessary or harmful, and cut across current practice. I suggest, for example, that no consent should be required for the disposal of any interest in land or building for the purposes of the promotion of employment or industrial or commercial development. Both the GLC and the

51
metropolitan counties have long suffered from declining industry and failing job opportunities. At the same time, valuable inner city land lies derelict. There ought to be no delay and no problem in consent not being required in this type of area. The need to obtain consent over £250,000 will jeopardise the timing of these programmes. In 1984– 85,the GLC has programmed 17 schemes which would provide 634,000 square feet of lettable space in 530 units, with the creation of over 2,000 jobs.
Just two examples of schemes which would be seriously affected right now, as it happens, would be first, the Wandsworth gas works, which the GLC is developing with the Carroll Group and where it is spending something like half a million pounds on estate road access to a new industrial estate. Secondly, there is the Renwick Road, Barking, scheme, where a £1 million estate road scheme is planned to improve access to industrial areas. Looking across at the list of projects in hand in the metropolitan counties, one finds exactly the same problem arising there. One example particularly is in the Greater Manchester area. Then there is the disposal of any interest in land or buildings to "properly constituted voluntary organisations;" and the disposal of any interest in land or buildings specifically held for superannuation fund purposes. All these should be among the criteria set out before the Government embark on the proposals we are now getting into the clauses again, with the very draconian restrictions.
To look at contracts briefly, contracts with district or borough councils in connection with the provision of facilities and services under concurrent powers held by both councils should be made exempt from these consents, and they should be included in parts of the criteria laid down. There would seem to be no reason to subject other authorities to an extra layer of bureaucracy, which is what this would do. Contracts should be exempted; for example to supply other local authorities with materials. As we know, the GLC supplies department has contracts with all London boroughs and with ILEA, and provides a central purchasing organisation for all of these authorities.
Then there are contracts undertaken in performance of statutory duties, such as the provision of educational and school meal facilities. There are a great many other examples which show how very serious is what the Government are proposing to undertake. I repeat that there is no certainty, even at a timing of 11 months; and, even if there were, the amount of harm that can be done during that time when these things are put forward in what I am afraid can only be called an extremely sloppy and ill-advised way means there is nothing firm against which they can be measured.
Therefore, what this amendment seeks to do is to set out the making of regulations prescribing what is going to be taken into consideration, so that there are (as should be generally understood) proper criteria laid down. I think I would want to have some answers from the Minister to the questions I have put to him as to whether, with the criteria that they have not got in mind—and perhaps the Minister will say they have—they can put out immediately or have ready the
52
regulations which will deal with this problem. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do not wish to repeat what I said at Report stage about the need for the new clauses providing for controls on disposals of land and the entering into of major contracts by the GLC and the MCCs, to which these amendments relate. But this is still relevant because the effect of these amendments will be to undermine the controls and thus remove the protection which they are intended to give successor authorities and ratepayers against obstructive or irresponsible actions by the outgoing authorities. Let us be quite clear about this. Let me try briefly to explain why.
Sub-section (1) of the new clause introduced in Amendment No. 8 requires the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the matters he must take into consideration in granting or refusing his consent under Clauses 8 and 9. Subsection (2) prevents the regulations from being made before drafts have been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. Subsection (3) prevents consents from being required until such time as the regulations have been made. In other words, no consents can be issued until the regulations have been made. And the regulations themselves cannot be made until they have been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. drafts having been laid beforehand.
My first reason for saving that the amendments would undermine the new controls is a practical one. Given the present parliamentary timetable, there is no way in which, if the amendments are adopted, the necessasry regulations can be laid before Parliament rises. No debate can take place before mid-October at the earliest. Since consents cannot be required until the regulations have been approved in both places, the controls cannot begin to operate until well into the autumn. By then the horse will have well and truly bolted.
But there are other objections. I have been unable to find a precedent for requiring my right honourable friend to make regulations prescribing the matters he must take into consideration in granting or refusing his consent. The Housing Act 1957, the Local Government Act 1972, the Community Land Act 1975–all of these statutes had provisions requiring Ministerial consent to dispose of land in certain circumstances. None of them—and the Community Land Act was a Labour measure—set out the matters to which the Secretary of State had to have regard in exercising his discretion.
Perhaps this would not matter, or would matter less, if the circumstances of the case were nonetheless such as to justify specifying these matters. But we must also bear in mind the purpose of the new clauses agreed to at Report. This is to prevent the abolition authorities from prejudicing the position of their successors, and doing so at the ratepayers' expense.
Although we believe we know the main areas in which obstruction could take place, we do not, as yet, have a precise picture of the likely forms. Whilst we can therefore say that, in considering whether or not to give his consent the Secretary of State will have regard to the risk of obstruction as a primary consideration, we cannot, by definition, say to what other matters he

53
will have to have regard. There is even a danger that if we were to try to be so specific any authority which was so minded might feel itself encouraged to indulge in forms of obstruction which were not specifically referred to in the legislation.

I understand very well the argument that the new clauses on disposals of land and contracts, as they stand, do not define the factors which my right honourable friend will take into account in granting consents. But the clauses need to be wide enough to enable him to deal with the variety of forms that obstruction may take. At the same time, my right honourable friend is empowered to issue general consents. I say again, as I have said before, that these will be used so as to enable these authorities to go about their proper, usual business. I cannot emphasise too strongly that if this is all the authorities concerned do, they have nothing to fear. I understand very well the argument that, as they stand, the new clauses on disposals of land and contracts do no define the factors which my right honourable friend will take into account in granting consents, but the clauses need to be wide enough to enable him to deal with the variety of forms that obstruction may take, and at the same time my right honourable friend is empowered to issue general consents. I say again that these will be used so as to enable these authorities to go about their proper, usual business. I cannot emphasise too strongly that, if this is all the authorities concerned actually do, they have nothing whatever to fear.
Perhaps I may conclude by putting a question to the noble Baroness. Does she consider that the new clauses are needed, or not? If they are, then I have tried to explain why these amendments will undermine them. But if she feels that the new clauses are not needed, perhaps she will explain the grounds upon which I could defend a failure by the Government to take contingent, protective action, in the event that the ample threats which these authorities have been making to fight abolition to the death are realised. Every day, my Lords, you can open your papers and find another series of things being done right now, even as we sit here today, to frustrate abolition. You might say that that is perfectly in order, and in law it may well be, but what is not in order is to do that at the expense of the successor authorities. The fact is that in time there will be a very severe price to pay.
As I said on Report, the Government consider it their duty to provide some protection in case it is needed against obstruction. If it is not needed, no one can cavil at that. But if it is needed, the effect of the amendments, whatever their purpose, will be to undermine this protection and thus enable obstruction to go unchecked. I cannot believe that that would be right and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able not to press the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I wish to draw attention to the concern which the churches in London feel in connection with Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill in so far as they apply to the Inner London Education Authority. I hope this is the appropriate point at which to express that concern.
54
On 16th July, at columns 1312 and 1313 of the Official Report, in reply to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, the noble Lord the Minister spoke as follows:
"I hope that my noble friend will be willing to withdraw his new clause upon the absolute assurance, which I give him, that the Government will be taking steps to ensure that neither the education service of Inner London nor any of the other services which stand to be affected by the counter-obstruction measures will be unnecessarily impeded by the operation of these new but essential controls. I am absolutely in accord with my noble friend's concern about the working of these controls, and I ask him to accept that we shall look particularly closely at the position as regards the ILEA in terms of the consent position".
In view of the defeat of that amendment which was moved at Report stage by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, it was not competent for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London to put down an amendment at this stage, but I feel justified in reminding the noble Lord the Minister of the undertaking that was given, albeit in rather general terms, in that reply. The action that we hope might be taken by the Government is that general consent orders under Clauses 8(2) and 9(4) of the Bill will be given in respect of schools—and not only voluntary schools—in the ILEA area.
The reason for which I express such a hope is quite simple. Clauses 8 and 9, which refer to transfers of land and the making of contracts, require the giving of consent by the Secretary of State for the Environment to all such transactions after the passing of this Bill. However, under the provisions of the Education Acts it is already necessary for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to have approved all such proposals to do with school transfers and contracts. The possibilities for duplication and delay in requiring the sanction of two departments are obvious. They were cogently argued by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in the previous debate which has been referred to and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will still take them seriously into consideration when trying to ensure that the education service of Inner London will not, in his own words, be,
"unnecessarily impeded by the operation of these new but essential controls".
I am aware that these clauses do not affect voluntary aided schools in cases where the governors or promoters enter into the contracts or land transactions where the land is vested in school trustees. In respect of aided schools, therefore, only internal maintenance contracts where the sums involved exceed £100,000 are affected, and were Amendment No. 12, and following amendments to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to succeed, as I hope they will, this ceiling would be raised. All contracts relating to voluntary controlled schools would be affected, but there are very few of those within the ILEA area. However—and this is of great importance—the clauses would affect land transfers where the land is currently in the ownership of the GLC and awaiting transfer to voluntary school trustees. I understand that there are a considerable number of such transactions pending in respect of both Anglican and Roman Catholic schools.
Since building contracts exceeding the limits of this Bill will almost certainly have required publication of notices under the Education Acts, it appears to us quite unnecessary to have a separate and additional

55
consent procedure which would be obstructive to school building programmes and wasteful of time and money. The same considerations apply to the land transfers which will surely already have been authorised by order of the Secretary of State for Education and Science or be required by one of the Education Acts.
Perhaps I may therefore request the noble Lord the Minister to give practical expression to the assurances which he previously gave, either by agreeing that a general consent Bill should be issued to the GLC when acting as education authority for the Inner London area under Clauses 8 and 9 of this Bill—that is the option that we should prefer—or, if he is not willing to give such an undertaking, by at least agreeing to the issue of such a consent applying to school building contracts for all schools and school site transfers in respect of voluntary schools. We believe that such a measure of flexibility would avoid needless complication and a certain amount of unnecessary ill-feeling.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with the leave of the House may I say that I shall want to study carefully what the right reverend Prelate has said, and may I add that in principle I should not want to take back anything which I said in responding to my noble friend Lord Alport, despite the fact that he eventually divided the House. We are cognisant of the points which the right reverend Prelate made and indeed the points which my noble friend espoused. We wish to do nothing that would harm or delay any worthwhile projects, and even any transactions, and it is not our intention to do so. I shall want to consider carefully what the right reverend Prelate has said. I shall certainly be in touch with him about the matter, but in no way does it affect our objection to this amendment as such. I take the points that he made and, for myself, I am confident that there will not be the problems to which attention has, quite properly, been drawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am only sorry that the Bill and the controls will not come into effect until it receives Royal Assent. I am sorry that today's date is not inserted, instead of the phrase the "passing of the Act". For that reason, I very strongly oppose the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, which quite clearly seeks to delay the controls.
I found it ironic when she said that we are not really aware of the amount of harm that could be done. I think of those words and of the amount of harm being done at the moment, almost minute by minute, and that is why I should have liked to see today's date inserted in the Bill. Indeed, on Friday I seriously considered putting down an amendment, but then I felt that Royal Assent would be given fairly soon and therefore not too much damage could be done. I do not think Members of your Lordships' House realise—the Minister certainly cannot yet fully appreciate it—the degree of deliberate obstruction that is definitely intended and which will, I am sure, take place.
Last Friday I went to a meeting where a contract was let—a forward contract going right to the end of next year—for an additional £3,500,000. The papers were
56
not even produced in time for us really to consider this matter. The Council's opinion on it was not available when the meeting started. We had to ask for the meeting to be adjourned so that we could read the papers. And there we were, making this decision on £3.500,000! Today six committees of the Greater London Council are meeting—six special committee meetings, not scheduled for today—and again on Wednesday of this week various committee meetings are taking place. When the clerk of those meetings was asked: "What are these meetings for? We do not seem to have had any agenda papers", he said, "There are no agenda papers." The next question was: "Why is that?" and the answer was, "Because we do not know yet what is going to be on the agenda." When you then ask about that further, they say: "Oh, we are going to consider relevant matters".
At the moment "relevant matters" concern what is the latest and quickest way to shed a few more millions somewhere else before this Bill gets the Royal Assent. That is why, of all the amendments before us today, none frightens me more than this one because, if accepted, it would mean that the whole matter could be delayed and deferred. I am concerned even at the money we are going to see go down the drain between now and the end of the month, when I believe that Royal Assent will be received; but even a day's delay would be a great financial loss to the ratepayers of London. I really do think that this amendment is to be opposed.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, without this amendment, if we look at the beginning of Clause 8 it says:
"Neither the Greater London Council nor a metropolitan county council shall after the passing of this Act dispose of any land except with the consent of the Secretary of State."
In Clause 9 the same applies to contracts. This means, as I said when I moved the amendment, that from the moment Royal Assent takes place everything comes to a standstill. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, seems to think that this is a very good idea and she only wishes it could have been done yesterday, so far as I can gather—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Today!
Baroness Birk: No, my Lords, that is too late for the noble Baroness she would rather have had it yesterday, not today; and when the noble Baroness is talking about contracts, and so on, she does not seem to make any distinction between whether they may be good or bad schemes. What she does not seem to realise is that everything comes to a complete halt and it does not only affect the authority or the Government but it affects a great many other people: contractors, workers and everybody else.
The Minister asked me whether I thought the new clauses were needed. My answer is that the new clauses are not needed, because the whole Bill is not needed. He asked whether I thought it would not be a failure on the Government's part if they did not take action against the opposition that was being built up in the GLC (and presumably he means the metropolitan counties as well). All I can say is that the Government have got themselves into this mess. They have created an atmosphere of very sharp conflict between themselves and the GLC, and now even with the metropolitan councils.

57
Having got into that position, what have they done? The Minister asks me, and I must answer his question. They have taken this Bill, for which the mandate has really rather spurious origins in the areas of the Greater London Council and all the metropolitan county councils. Regarding voting on the mandate and that 7½ lines that we are discussing on this Bill, the great majority in London and in the metropolitan county councils voted against it, because they voted against the Conservatives in those areas. So either the mandate was not relevant or, if they accepted this as part of the mandate, they indicated that they did not like it.
Therefore the Government are in great trouble over this Bill. We have seen what has happened during its very chequered passage through this House; and at Committee stage, the Government ended up with cuts on Section 137; and on Report they brought in these other clauses on the disposal of land and contracts. What they are doing is to build a series of more and more destructive and stultifying edifices, one upon the other. Then they turn round and ask: "What else could we do?" The answer is that they should not have started there at all. If they wanted abolition, they should have started in an entirely different way, with much more consultation, and they should have handled it in one main Bill and not in this Bill at all.
Having had this Bill put before us, it is up to us in this House—and certainly on this side of the House—to do what we can to improve it. This is what we are trying to do. We are trying to save some of the more destructive elements in it, and by asking for criteria that is what this amendment does. It is such an important amendment, prefacing the ones that come after it on Clauses 8 and 9, that I must divide the House on this matter.
6.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 150.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ezra, L.

Amherst, E.

Fitt, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gallacher, L.

Attlee, E.

Grorge-Brown, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gifford, L.

Beswick, L.

Gosford, E.

Birk, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Blyton, L.

Grey, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hall, V.

Bottomley, L.

Hampton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hanworth, V.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hayter, L.

Collison, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hunt, L.

David, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jacques, B.

Denington, B.

Jeger, B.

Diamond, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ennals, L.

Kaldor, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

58

Lawrence, L.

Rochester, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, of Hastoe,

Ross of Marnock, L.

B.

Seear, B.

Longford, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Serota, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stallard, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stedman, B.

McNair, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Mais, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Mar, C.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Melchett, L.

Stone, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Molloy, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mulley, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Underhill, L.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Walston, L.

Peart, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Phillips, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wigoder, L.

[Teller.]

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Raglan, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Haig, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hailsham of Saint

Aldington, L.

Marylebone, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Halsbury, E.

Atholl, D.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Auckland, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Avon, E.

Henley, L.

Barber, L.

Hives, L.

Bellwin, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beloff, L.

Hood, V.

Belper, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Belstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bolton, L.

Inchcape, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ingrow, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ironside, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Jessel, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kilmany, L.

Broxbourne, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kitchener, E.

Caithness, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cathcart, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Chelwood, L.

McFadzean, L.

Cockfield, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Colwyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mancroft, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Margadale, L.

Cox, B.

Marley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Crawshaw, L.

Avon, L.

Croft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Middleton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Milverton, L.

Daventry, V.

Minto. E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Molson, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Morris, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Eccles, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Norfolk, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Northchurch, B.

Elton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Onslow, E.

Fortescue, E.

Orkney, E.

Gainford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pender, L.

Gisborough, L.

Perth, E.

Glanusk, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Pike, B.

Gormanston, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone,

Gridley, L.

L.

59

Portland, D.

Spens, L.

Pritchard, L.

Stamp, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Reay, L.

Strathspey, L.

Redesdale, L.

Swinfen, L.

Reigate, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Terrington, L.

Renwick, L.

Teviot, L.

Romney, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Trefgarne, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trumpington, B.

Saltoun, Ly.

Ullswater, V.

Sandford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Selborne, E.

Vivian, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Shannon, E.

Watkinson, V.

Sharples, B.

Westbury, L.

Sherfield, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wynford, L.

Southborough, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 8 [Control of disposals of land]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
6.14 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughtonmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 35, after ("land") insert ("of which the consideration exceeds £500,000").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to insert a consideration for property transactions. As the Bill stands at present, all property transactions entered into by the authorities will be subject to ministerial approval and it would seem, particularly in the case of education authorities and, even more particularly, in the case of the Inner London Education Authority, that this will have a very severe effect on the rolling programme of these authorities.
I should particularly like to draw attention to the question which was touched on by the right reverend Prelate, that under the 1946 Education Act education authorities are required to transfer sites to voluntary schools, usually at a nil cost. In that case, I assume, as matters stand at present, that all such transactions would have to receive the consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment, in addition to the Department of Education. It seems to me that this is an absurdity and that a consideration of some kind—perhaps not £500,000—should be inserted, because of the very numerous transactions of this kind that local authorities, particularly education authorities, have to undertake. What this is seeking is a reasonable exemption from the provisions of Clause 8 for local authorities and, in particular, education authorities. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I support the case that has been so reasonably made by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton? We are really accepting the fact that the Government intend to try to put as tight a grip as they possibly can on the control of ratepayers' money. What we are asking the Government to consider is whether, in their haste to enact these amendments to the Bill, they have got it
60
right. In another place on 16th July the Secretary of State for the Environment was asked,
"how many civil servants in his Department he anticipates being employed on work associated with processing financial transactions over £100,000 arising from the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils".—[Official Report, Commons; col. 56.]
The ministerial reply was "Enough". That shows a contempt for the parliamentary procedure and it also shows that the Government have failed to think it through.
If we are told that these are matters of great moment and that care needs to be taken to scrutinise them, then it clearly needs to be done properly. Either a number of civil servants will have their attention diverted from what they are now doing on to this new work, or, if there is sufficient slack in the machine at the moment—your Lordships can believe that, if you like—they will be able to pick up this additional work without any extra burden. What we are saying to the Minister is: let us be reasonable in the context of the imperatives of the Government.
I have a list here of GLC property disposals programmed in 1984–85 which fall over the £500,000 figure which this amendment seeks. The disposals total nearly £28 million out of a capital receipts target of £30 million, so they are within the programme of capital receipts that we want. They still include the major disposals planned for the year, but exclude some £2 million of small or very small disposals. I have a list here of some of the items, which I do not want to weary the House with, but I shall be happy to show it to other noble Lords. What we are saying here is that it is not only the GLC which will be affected. In the West Midlands, for example, 61 contracts would still have to be submitted to the Secretary of State, as distinct from 118 if a lower limit of £100,000 applied. The Minister may say that the Government want to see all of the 118. We are saying that if there were constraints, if the new figure were adopted, the Minister would still have substantially complete control over the major items. In Greater Manchester 19 contracts, worth 45 per cent. of the capital spending, would still be caught by a limit set at £500,000. When one looks at the number one sees that the greater volume, in capital terms, would be caught in this way. We are therefore asking the Minister to reflect upon this point.
The amendment may not be correctly worded. There has been little time to do other than put it down. However, because of their haste to enact that which they want to enact, we believe that the Government ought to accept this figure. We have evidence to show that the figure which we have produced would still give to the Minister and his colleagues effective control over the major portion of the capital which is at stake. I have pleasure in seconding the amendment.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, was absolutely right to refer to the reasonable presentation of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton. It always is reasonable, as is the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton's own presentation. I never have any complaint about that—or very rarely. The amendment would have the effect of confining the controls on disposals of land to disposals where the consideration exceeds £500,000.

61
I have to confess that I am not quite clear about the purpose of the amendment. As it stands, it introduces a threshold, but not its corollary—a provision which stops the threshold from being evaded by the device of splitting one disposal which would be caught into several smaller ones which would not. There is such a provision in respect of contracts in Clause 9(3) of the Bill. If the amendment is serious—and I assume that it is—there should be a similar provision here.
There is a more basic objection. The import of the amendment is that no disposal of a piece of land for less than £500,000 could possibly be obstructive or prejudicial to a successor authority. I find that proposition very difficult to accept. While I acknowledge the levels of land prices in some of the local authority areas with which the Bill is concerned, I cannot believe that the sale of, say, a small, but strategically valuable, piece of land might not be very much regretted by the authority which came to develop the adjacent site so as to discharge a function that it had inherited from its predecessor upon abolition; for example, a small strip of land giving access to a much larger site.
Moreover, there is a distinction between contracts, where the Bill already provides for thresholds, and disposals of land. In the case of a contract, the authority concerned receives something in return for its consideration. But land disposals are, so to speak, final. Moreover, the value of a piece of land to a successor authority may be much greater than its market value; for example, the recreational value of a piece of land in the green belt. In other words, the two kinds of transactions are basically dissimilar.
None of this need prevent the Secretary of State, if he decides that it is right, from giving general consents in respect of disposals of land of particular types above certain specified values. It might be that this will be necessary, or at least desirable, if the legislation is to be effective. I certainly take that point. But in so deciding, the Secretary of State will have to be able to satisfy himself that this can be done without risking danger to those the legislation is intended to protect. Any such consents will be based upon experience, rather than upon theory. I am sure that this is the right approach. I opened by saying that both noble Lords who raised this point are always so reasonable in their presentation, and I feel that equally they will understand the reasonableness of my response.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, when disposing of an interest in land, one should also take into account the disposal of a lease of land. Earlier this afternoon I referred to the Coin Street site which in 1981 was valued at £12 million, but which is probably now worth about £30 million. I mentioned that that land had been leased for 125 years for a rent of £1. That property would not be caught because it would be well under the £500,000 mentioned in this amendment. It is an absolutely classic, and immediate, example of how a very important site could be disposed of, though at the moment only as a leasehold property. But that so devalues the freehold that the freehold would be saleable for almost a nominal sum if somebody had a 125 years lease for almost no rent. There are many ways, therefore, in which very dangerous procedures would be opened up
62
if the figure of £500,000 which is set out in the amendment were included in the Bill.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, in this attempt to be reasonable, which is brought about partly by the hour and the number of important debates which are to take place, I am going to ask for leave to withdraw the amendment. I ought to point out that because of the way the Government have gone about their legislative programme in this House, we are putting down at Third Reading amendments which in the normal course of events would have been put down for the Committee stage, when they could have been reconsidered and looked at again. They might then have been put into a perhaps more acceptable form. This is the great difficulty which we have drawn to your Lordships' attention ever since the Government put down amendments at this very late stage.
Having said that, I think no useful purpose would be served by pursuing the matter any further. As I have said, I am concerned about the disposal to voluntary organisations for a nominal consideration, or a nil consideration, of land used for educational purposes. Perhaps the Minister will write to me about that matter; I do not believe that he dealt with it in his speech. In all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Control of contracts]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Ezramoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 20, leave out ("£250,000") and insert ("£500,000").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 12, which I should like to take in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 13 to 16, raises a matter of degree, not a matter of principle.
Amendment No. 13: Page 6, line 23, leave out ("£l00,000") and insert ("£500,000").
Amendment No. 14: Page 6, line 25, leave out ("£100,000") and insert ("£500,000").
Amendment No. 15: Page 6, line 28, leave out ("£100,000") and insert ("£500,000").
Amendment No. 16: Page 6, line 32, leave out ("£100,000") and insert ("£500,000").
The matter of degree is whether the threshold, which is stated in the Bill, beyond which contracts cannot be entered into without reference to the Secretary of State is, in all the circumstances, a desirable threshold. In fact, as I understand it, about 80 per cent. of all the expenditure which the local authorities concerned will be involved with at this time would be caught by this provision. The difficulty that one foresees with the very large number of contracts which will be affected is whether there will be undue delay and a major hiatus in the way in which they are dealt with. I have been advised that in the 1974 local government reorganisation, when central Government intervened in a similar way in the clearance of contracts, a considerable amount of delay was involved.
I must say that the bodies I have consulted, in particular the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, have expressed the very gravest concern about this. They have pointed out that with the very large numbers of contracts which will be caught under

63
this threshold, those of their members who would tend to suffer most would be those in medium and small-sized businesses. They would be affected by delay in a vital ingredient of their business operations; namely, the flow of cash.
Furthermore, there is reason to suppose that even after the interim period when the successor organisations take over, there could be further delay before they get their system working. Therefore I should like to plead with the Minister that in the circumstances there should be taken into account not only the main objective of Government to control expenditure during this period, but also the impact of this on third parties. And those third parties are the very commercial organisations which we should be seeking to support at the present time—the small and medium-sized concerns which employ labour. They are going to be very seriously affected.
If the proposition put forward in this series of amendments were to be accepted, a very large number of small contracts affecting this particular segment of the construction contracting industry would escape and could be dealt with properly, and a very substantial sum could still be under the control of Government, but it would relate to a much smaller number of contracts. That would have the added advantage that it would reduce the load on the civil servants because they could be dealing with a smaller number of contracts with a larger scope, and at the same time the smaller contractors could get on with the job. Therefore—I do not wish to prolong this debate; I have made my point—I should very seriously like to ask the Minister whether. in wider interests than those that have apparently been addressed in this clause, he would be prepared to reconsider the threshold. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I do not think there is any need for me to go into any further detail by way of explanation of this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, did it so admirably, and covered all the ground so well, that all I think I need say is that we on these Benches, who have our name to the amendment, certainly support it absolutely and hope that we shall get some satisfaction from the Government, as indeed the noble Lord asked.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, may I say at once that I recognise the concern that the new controls will impose additional administrative demands on the outgoing authorities as well as on the department; and also the concerns expressed about the industry to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred. Of course, the number of applications will depend upon the decisions made by the authorities and upon the number and scope of the prior general consents issued. But what I can say, first, is that all applications received will be handled expeditiously, not least bearing in mind what the noble Lord has just said. I think this really goes without saying, but I should like to repeat it because I want to stress the importance of our acceptance of the point that he is making. We recognise what he is saying about this.
Secondly, as many consents as possible will be issued on Royal Assent. We are actively considering
64
ways in which these can be framed so as to ease the overall administrative burden. One idea might be to give automatic consent to applications which cover projects already approved by a department. There are some other ideas, too, at which we are looking very urgently. Thirdly, of course, there is no reason why authorities should wait until the last possible moment before applying for consent. Indeed, on the contrary, they can help themselves as well as the department and industry by applying at an early stage in order to keep the timescale to a minimum.
In a word, what I am saying is that all these controls can and will be ready to work without in fact imposing a great burden on those who are affected. The points that the noble Lord made are absolutely valid. If they were to have the kind of adverse effect that he mentioned. then it would be a real burden on those concerned. We shall take considerable pains to ensure that this is not so, because we recognise the importance of the point that is being made.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 16 not moved.]
6.25 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkesmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 7, line 5, at end insert ("or purpose").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my reason for moving this amendment is because I attended a committee meeting of the Greater London Council last Friday at which there was considerable discussion on the matter of the words used in line 5 of page 7 of this Bill, which refers to many things:
"goods, services, vehicles, plant or apparatus of the same or a similar description"—
and that is where I seek to add the words, "or purpose". Counsel's opinion has been taken on many issues. and in particular on the issue of the awareness campaign, which was under consideration, as to whether another £3,500,000 of forward contracts should be let for that campaign.
As I mentioned earlier this afternoon, we had not received counsel's opinion at the time; in fact, we had not received any of the papers until about half an hour before the meeting. But the Conservative majority were so upset by this decision, to pass the £3,500,000, making it £10·267 million for the awareness campaign, that they have requisitioned a special council meeting. We still do not know when that will be, but the contracts have already been let, and, therefore, it is too late to do anything about that. I think compensation would now be payable, even if the whole council reversed it. As we discussed earlier in this Bill, the Minister can have no control over what has already happened. That is one of the horses that have already bolted.
But counsel's opinion was then discussed, and the statement made to the council by the legal adviser was that, because only the word "description" was used, and not "purpose", it was so loose and so wide that publicity, for example, on a number of different things, could not necessarily be described in the same way, although it would be for the same purpose. It seemed to be the opinion of everyone at that meeting that if the word "purpose" was not included in the

65
clause, it would make it very possible to wriggle around it or to find loopholes to get through.
I would ask the Minister for his views on this. I put the amendment down because there was not time to seek an opinion before the meeting of this House today. This all happened very quickly, between last Friday and today, and I have therefore put the amendment down to see what the views of the Minister and of his officials are on this.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I fully understand the reasons that have prompted my noble friend Lady Gardner to table these amendments. However, I have to say that the Government do not believe they are necessary, and perhaps I can briefly explain why.
Subsection (3) is the provision designed to prevent disaggregation of contracts—disaggregation with the aim of circumventing the thresholds set out in subsection (1). My noble friend Lady Gardner is concerned that the reference in subsection (3) to,
'goods, services, vehicles, plant or apparatus of the same or similar description"
is not sufficiently precise. In Amendment No. 17 she proposes referring not only to a similar description but also to a similar purpose; and Amendment No. 18 would make the same change to subsection (4).
My noble friend has explained that omitting any reference to the purpose for which the goods, services, etc., are intended might open up some scope for avoidance of the controls. It might be argued, for example, that advertising on one campaign serves a different purpose from advertising on a different campaign. So it does. But that argument misses the point of Clause 9. It is the goods, services, etc., themselves, not the purposes for which they are intended, which must be of the same or similar description.
The amendments, which seek to add a reference to similar purposes, therefore add nothing to the effect of the provisions. I am advised that the services of, for example, advertising agents are of the same or similar description whatever the purpose for which the advertisements are to be inserted. The amendments are, we feel, unnecessary. I hope that this clarifies the position and that, in the light of what I have said, my noble friend may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that answer, which satisfies me. On those grounds, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Disqualification for contravention of sections 8 and 9]:
Baroness Birkmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 7, line 31, leave out from ("council") to end of line 33, and insert—
("provided that—

(a) no such order shall be made unless the court is satisfied that the person acted unreasonably or in the knowledge that the disposal or contract was being authorised in contravention of section 8 or section 9 as the case may be; and

(b) no period of disqualification shall extend beyond 31st March 1986").

66
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with the disqualification clause which was put into the Bill at Report stage, which is extremely worrying because, again, it is something which is unprecedented in the form in which it has been put in the Bill. It means that the GLC and MCCs may be forced into a breach of statutory duty by the Secretary of State withholding consent, and yet may be faced with elected member disqualification if they act without this consent notwithstanding that it may be to comply with a statutory duty.
The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 imposed capital expenditure controls on local authorities, empowering the Secretary of State to prescribe capital allocation annually per authority which was not to be exceeded, However, an authority that did exceed its allocation was not automatically acting ultra vires. Before a local authority and its members can be placed in an illegal position by additional capital spending, the Secretary of State must first issue a formal direction to them not to enter into further contracts involving them in further payments.
Not so with this clause, which imposes automatic sanctions if the consent of the Secretary of State is not obtained to what is a lawful act. The sanction of elected member disqualification is novel and disturbing because, unlike existing provisions about disqualification, it does not depend upon an unlawful item of account resulting in a loss to the ratepayers. If a loss were to result, the ordinary surcharge provisions affecting councillors would apply in any event and therefore the clause would be quite unnecessary. But what the clause does is to impose a disqualification sanction on elected members even when there has been no loss to the ratepayers at all. The disqualification would be purely for failure to obtain the Secretary of State's consent.
That the courts should disqualify in these circumstances, even though they are only empowered and not obliged to do so, is the purpose of the new clause. Incidentally, there is no time limit set; it is left entirely to the court—which, again, is not usual practice in this type of case, and some limit should be inserted in any case.
The purpose of this amendment is to seek to impose some limits on the totally open-ended clause as it now stands. Disqualification simply for failure to obtain ministerial consent to an already lawful act can, under this clause, be for life; be from any public service; and is subject to no defence for the unfortunate councillor. Given the number and complexities of the land and contractual arrangements which these seven authorities will have to continue to enter into, is it not right that some element of reasonableness should be taken into account by the courts? As the Minister said more than once when introducing these draconian powers, they are only being brought in,
"in the context of abolition".—[Official Report, 3/7/84; col. 265.]
If that is so, then let the disqualification, if it is to be imposed, run only during the run-up to abolition, and be only for membership of the authority that is to be abolished— which is what is proposed in the amendment.

67
That is the threefold purpose of this amendment. If the Government do not accept it, then Clause 10 will appear extremely vindictive—giving the prospect of a permanent ban from public office on any councillor with whom the Secretary of State disagrees. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, this amendment seeks to limit the High Court's discretion to make an order of disqualification if Clauses 8 or 9 are contravened; and to limit the penalties if such an order is made. The question of whether a responsible person has acted unreasonably or in deliberate contravention of the provisions in Clauses 8 or 9, or whether he has acted in all good faith, is already one for the High Court to weigh. I should point out that there is no express defence of "good faith" where a contract or disposal above the relevant threshold has been made without the required consent. However, since the High Court will have complete discretion whether or not to impose any sanction, "good faith" would undoubtedly be a powerful plea in mitigation. So, where a disposal had been made or a contract let in the honest but mistaken belief that no consent was required, or that it had already been obtained, I am sure that would weigh very heavily with the court, which will judge each case on its merits.
From that point of view, this amendment is unnecessary. But it is also undesirable, because it unfairly places the burden of proof on whoever brings the action. That person will have to prove that the person responsible for contravening the provisions —once contravention had been determined—had done so knowingly, or had acted unreasonably; rather than the burden being where it should be, on the person responsible for the contravention having to show that he had done so in good faith.
So in the way that it interferes with the High Court's discretion, this amendment is unnecessary and undesirable. In the way that it limits penalties, it is simply unacceptable. As it stands, the Bill allows the court to disqualify the person responsible from being a member of the GLC or relevant MCC, and from being for a specified time a member of any other local authority. That is a perfectly sensible maximum penalty for someone in a position of power and responsibilility who has wilfully ignored or flouted an Act of Parliament. Indeed, some may argue that it is rather lenient.
But this amendment would limit the penalty to disqualification from the GLC or relevant MCC up until the day they are abolished. That hardly constitutes a reasonable deterrent to those who are determined to obstruct and impede the policies, and who in some cases have threatened to resign anyway from their councils—no doubt after they have done the maximum amount of damage. If the provisions of Clauses 8 and 9 are to be effective, we must have penalties which will at least make irresponsible factions think twice. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendent.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister's reply was very unsatisfactory. After all, we did not put in this
68
clause. The clause is so widely drawn and so open-ended that I cannot see that people are very likely to receive the justice we would expect them to receive in this country—and particularly in our courts.
The court will be tied by the legislation that is contained in the Bill at the moment and not by what we are saying here and what is reported in Hansard. To leave matters in that way is something which many lawyers and academics in local government, and others outside this House, find quite extraordinary. It is not something they, or any of us, have come across before or have seen in any local government legislation. This amendment is really very mild. It says only that no order shall be made unless,
"the court is satisfied that the person acted unreasonably or in the knowledge that the disposal or contract was being authorised in contravention of section 8 or section 9".
and that,
"no period of disqualification shall extend beyond 31st March 1986".
We have been told whenever we have moved amendments all the way through the Bill that this is only temporary and will be only for the next 11 months. But now we are being told that the disqualification period could be much too short for somebody contravening, as we and the Minister have pointed out, not the main abolition Bill—and I do not believe that anybody yet knows what is going to be in that—but a paving Bill. The Minister refused to accept my Amendment No. 3, to repeal this Bill if the main Bill did not go through by a fixed date, but now he is talking about this situation continuing beyond the date we have put down.
This is very unsatisfactory. The tragedy is that these clauses have not been properly thought out. One gets the feeling that people were in a complete muddle and did not really know what they were doing.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I should like to make just one observation on the second part of the amendment. I refer to the extraordinary proposition that the period of disqualification should be limited to 31st March, 1986–that is, about 20 months from now. There may be such deliberate defiance of the law by members of one or other of these authorities that a court, left to itself, might feel that such a person was unfitted to take part in local government for a great many years. That is at least a possibility. If the offence brought before the court is more modest then perhaps a fairly short period of disqualification will be imposed. But to say in advance that, however gross the breaches of the law and however provocative the behaviour of the authority member concerned, he should not be disqualified for more than 20 months is simply asking for trouble.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—and I assume that he has not—I would point out that this was something that the Government put into a temporary Bill. It should be looked at in that way, and it is only applying to those authorities concerned in this matter. This is not a political point. It seems to me wrong on any ground to make those penalties so penal, which they are, in this Bill. It is not the right place. If the Government want anything else, they should wait for the abolition Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, on the basis that I had not sat down I should like to say only this in reply to the noble Baroness. Yes, the Bill is a temporary Bill; but the offence —and this is a point the noble Baroness has not dealt with—may be so gross that a court—and this is a matter for an independent court and not for your Lordships—may feel that such a person would be grossly unsuited for any local government office for a number of years to come. Now to say, however gross that is, that because the penalty arises from a temporary Bill he cannot be put out for more than 20 months is to make a fool of the court and a fool of justice.
On Question, amendment negatived.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before the House agrees this Motion, may I say a few words? I have listened with—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, perhaps the noble Countess will allow me to make my remarks and then, of course, she can speak.
We have had long, interesting, and at times partisan debates, on the background of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. I do not imagine that I will be able to persuade noble Lords, on the Labour Benches, or other noble Lords opposite, of the superfluity of these authorities, and that abolition is necessary if we are to have genuinely accountable local government, with local decisions being taken locally. But in any case, as I reminded your Lordships at Second Reading, this Bill is not about abolition as such. It is about preparing the way for abolition by providing for a number of things which must be done now if abolition is to be achieved on 1st April 1986. And I have also explained, this will be done without prejudging Parliament's ultimate decision in the matter.
The Bill as it now stands is somewhat different from that which was presented here on 24th May. This reflects the operation of your Lordships' will and the Government's response. But the Bill's essential purpose remains the same. It is needed first of all because of the elections which are due to be held next May. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said so aptly at Report stage, what could be the issues at such an election, other than abolition itself. And as the abolition Bill would be going through Parliament at the same time, clearly it would be absurd to allow elections to proceed. The Bill now proposes that the present members of the GLC and metropolitan county councils should continue in office until abolition.
But the Bill is also needed for other reasons. If the interests of staff are to be properly protected the Staff Commission must be set up as soon as possible. If the successor authorities are to begin to prepare for their new responsibilities they must be enabled to do so right away. Above all, if the outgoing authorities are going to realise the threats which some of them are
70
making to disrupt abolition and make life difficult for their successors, the necessary protection must be in place for these authorities and for ratepayers.
We have had more than one long debate on Section 137, including some today. We have had some hard arguments about the need for these controls, and for those on land and contracts. But in the light of some of the things we see happening at the moment, I suspect that, in their hearts, those who are anxious, as they have expressed it today, about what we have in the Bill will, in all fairness, when they look at the millions of pounds involved and having listened to what my noble friend Lady Gardner told us earlier, wonder whether they really are so dubious about these controls.
I do not propose to make a long speech, but I cannot let the Bill leave this place, without saying a brief word of thanks to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale for the help he has given in sharing the burden of presenting the Bill to your Lordships. Perhaps I could also thank noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, and on the Alliance Bench. The noble Baroness Lady Birk, as ever, was a doughty opponent, to say the least. I said earlier that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, always presented, their cases reasonably— and that, they do—but also darned effectively, if I may say so. There were more moments than usual when the temperature was raised and the passions flowed, but almost always there was the courtesy and fairness for which your Lordships' House is so properly renowned.
Not for the first time, indeed as ever, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his splendid and, if I may say so, his always compelling contributions. Likewise my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes who is so knowledgeable on the subject of the GLC; and of course my noble friend the Leader of the House for his wise counsel and his masterly presentation of Clause 2. There have been notable contributions from the Cross Benches. It is invidious to single out particular noble Lords, but I should just like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for his realism and his constitutional acuteness; and also the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, with his noble friends the noble Lords, Lord Spens, and Lord Shaughnessy, for raising the commencement order question, which was so helpful. Finally, I am grateful to all who have taken part in our proceedings.
My Lords, the Bill as it now stands, is a product of your wishes, as well as the Government's intentions. In particular, the continuation of the present GLC and MCC memberships for a further 11 months, with the regrettable, but unavoidable, corollary of further controls, is a direct result of your proceedings in Committee. Your Lordships' House has played its proper part as a revising, and certainly not as a denying, chamber. The Bill reflects the fact, as well as our determination, to secure abolition on 1st April 1986.
Finally, on a personal note, may I say that while it has been a far from easy Bill to pilot through, I am deeply grateful for the support of all my noble friends and many noble Lords on the Cross-Benches, as well as for the tolerance and great courtesy, which, as ever, has epitomised the very best of all that which your

71
Lordships' House represents. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bellwin.)
Lord Molson: My Lords—
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I think, with respect, that it is the custom for the Front Benches to speak first.
May I first reciprocate what the Minister said about courtesy. On the whole, although passions were high, quite rightly, during this Bill the Minister was always very courteous and I think that the arguments on a personal basis were always kept that way. When we turn to the Bill I do not think I can be quite as courteous or as flattering as I am to the Minister. The whole Bill is a legislative monstrosity which, frankly, should never have seen the light of parliamentary day. It is—and I say this very seriously—a Bill of which we as Members of the whole of Parliament in both Houses should feel greatly ashamed should be going on our statute book.
If the Government wanted to abolish the GLC and the MCCs the proposal should have been properly thought out, properly drafted and included in one Bill. We may not have liked it and we may have opposed it, but constitutionally and as a parliamentary exercise it would have been the way to do it. Whatever the discussions may be on mandates for the abolition Bill, there is certainly no mandate for this paving Bill, which indeed is now an extremely different animal from what it was when it arrived in this House.
After the Government suffered a major defeat in Committee on a fundamental amendment, they should either have accepted that large defeat—because it was a large defeat—with good grace or had the Bill recommitted, since after that defeat the Bill was a very chewed up document. But that did not happen. As has been pointed out by me and other noble Lords, we were dealing with an almost entirely new piece of legislation and we have missed out one stage of it, which has been proved by the problems that have arisen even up to this last minute on Third Reading.
In addition, the Government tabled new clauses on local government expenditure on Report, which again changed the Bill's already very unsavoury character. As the Bill leaves us now, the House of Lords will still be by-passed, since the order to cancel elections and extend councillors' terms will be made before the House of Lords has dealt with the main Bill; the order can still be made after Second Reading of the main Bill in the Commons; and elections will still remain cancelled. As the noble Viscount the Leader of the House conceded on Report, there is no precedent for extending the terms of office before the main piece of legislation has been decided.
We believe that the date to which the terms are to be extended is totally unrealistic. In spite of the efforts made right up until today, there is no provision in the Bill for what happens after that date; and that date will be the earliest for the real successor bodies—for those quangos, joint boards, and so on—to be set up. They cannot be set up until that date, and then that has to be worked out. The timetable looks a little on the ridiculous side at the moment. As Ministers well
72
know, the financial controls suddenly brought into this Bill will take effect immediately and will create not only hardship but economic and industrial chaos. On those measures we could not get any "give" at all today.
The genesis of this measure leading to abolition is appalling and has been appallingly handled. In order to get rid of the GLC bathwater which the Prime Minister finds malodorous, a number of healthy babies will be drowned in the process, including the structure of London as a capital city, the metropolitan counties, which have been pulled in as part of the scenario to get rid of the GLC, and, above all, our proper parliamentary procedure, which is being bulldozed by the majority in another place.
The Government still have time, even when this dreadful apology for legislation is on the statute book, to rethink abolition and use their repeal powers in the Bill—and the Minister has drawn my attention to those powers many times—to repeal it and start again. That is the proper thing to do, the parliamentary thing to do, and the democratic thing to do.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister and the Leader of the House in particular for the way in which they have presented the Bill and the sensitive way that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has realised that some of us on this side of the House do not go all the way, or indeed even a small part of the way, with him on the legislation put forward. I should like, too, to thank noble Lords on my side of the House. Strangely enough, the noble Lords I am thanking are not the same as those whom the Minister was thanking. I have been greatly helped on the constitutional issues by my noble friend Lord Hooson and have also had great support from my noble friend Lord Diamond.
The Bill is a constitutional issue and not just another local government Bill. I believe that it was conceived in haste and with scant respect for constitutional propriety. At one stage it was rightly rebuffed by your Lordships and at another stage very nearly rebuffed. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I am only sorry that your Lordships did not amend the Bill further to insist on elections taking place, as is right and proper in a democracy.
Almost worse than that, the Bill has been materially changed during its progress through this House by Government amendments. We have had scant, or virtually no opportunity to consider the entirely new and draconian financial control measures which the Bill introduced very late, at the Report stage. I feel that that is an extemely bad precendent, and I hope that it will not be followed in the future by this or by any other Government.
I shall wind up my very brief remarks by quoting a well-known northern Conservative county councillor who, in order to protect his future, must remain nameless. He said to me:
"The Government seem mesmerised with their own proposals and are far from clear what they are doing and why. There appears no evidence that the Government have ever applied themselves to the countrywide implications and long-term political consequences of their proposals, nor costed the burdens and bills which they are now picking up and will pick up for the taxpayer. The sooner the

73
Government are out of their deep involvement with local government the better for them and their prospects. Meantime, however well-meaning their motives, they seem to be drifting from a position from which the Conservative Party is expected to stand".
That was said by a leading Conservative in my part of the world.
I suspect that in persisting with this legislation the Government have done their case with their supporters more harm than they have done to the future of local government in this country. I believe that whichever Government replace them in the future, there will have to be legislation quickly to get rid of these measures. Otherwise, if such legislation is allowed to continue to remain on the statute book for a lengthy period, and such an attitude to local government is allowed to subsist, there will hardly be any local government for us to take part in in the future.
I have said what I hope are flattering things to the Government. I repeat that the noble Lord the Minister has with a difficult brief done his best to be constructive. I should like to thank him and those advising him.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to many of the debates which have taken place in your Lordships' House during the passage of this Bill. I have wrestled with my conscience for the past week and I have decided that I can no longer remain silent on matters which make me increasingly anxious.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, said at Report stage that the Bill was a totally different one from that originally introduced into this House. The Bill as it now stands has not been seen in the other place at all. Those amendments tabled by the Government and agreed to by your Lordships which deal with Section 137 spending, the sale of land and the control of contracts must be considered with existing controls such as rate capping. They remove from those democratically elected representatives of the GLC and the metropolitan boroughs the last vestiges of power, responsibility and credibility. I am sure that the Government and those who have voted in favour of these amendments have not fully considered those implications.
To leave county councillors almost impotent for a period up to two years will, to put it mildly, create an atmosphere of discontent, not only among those elected but among their support staff, who will suffer a loss of drive and purpose which will lead to an eventual collapse of the whole system. Your Lordships should remember that we are speaking of people who are already demoralised and depressed about their future.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the sayings of Mr. Livingstone and his kind, they were as democratically elected as the present Government. The majority of the councillors on the GLC and MCCs are genuinely concerned about the well-being of their electors. The growth of community projects and welfare amenities, at a time when there is immense hardship, is a clear indication of that. To mistrust those men and women cannot do anything but create a feeling of injustice in the country.
74
The lack of an effective, radical thinking Opposition to the Government is already manifesting itself in the actions of the miners and other groups, who feel that they have no effective means of expressing themselves through Parliament. Should not a large majority on any governing body put upon that body the onus to be, and to be seen to be, scrupulously just? This Bill in its original form was brought in as a precursor to a Bill which is intended to cut costs and to streamline the functions of the local authorities.
We have heard nothing of the costings for keeping several thousand staff within the GLC and the metropolitan counties pushing paper to Whitehall for up to two years and for employing and accommodating the additional civil servants who will be needed to cope with the vast number of applications for permission to spend ratepayers' money. Will these civil servants have a training and the local knowledge to deal with these applications? Will they have the understanding to realise the different specific needs of Merseyside and the West Midlands?
I think if these measures had been proposed by a Labour Government there would have been a hue and cry up and down the country. Newspapers would have carried banner headlines announcing the death of freedom and democracy. We have listened to some very emotive if not inflammatory speeches in recent weeks. We have heard a lot about precedents. I earnestly ask the noble Lord the Minister to ask his right honourable and honourable friends in another place when they consider your Lordships' amendments to give serious thought to the precedents created. We are leaving the gate wide open for an extremist administration in the future.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Molson: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has made the main point. He has emphasised the fact that the objective of abolishing the Greater London Council and the municipal county councils has been achieved. He has not mentioned the fact that the Bill, as it now is, is a completely different measure from what it was at Second Reading. Ordinarily one can deal with the Third Reading of a Bill in quite a perfunctory way because it is virtually the same Bill and in form is the same as it was at Second Reading.
Any lawyer glancing superficially at this Bill as it was at Second Reading and as it is now would assume that it was two entirely different Bills. The Minister has not referred, as he might have done, with congratulation to the Government, to the fact that after a very serious constitutional issue was raised, the Government, to their great credit, recognised that a mistake had been made and at Report stage introduced drastic amendments so that the form and substance of this Bill is now entirely different from what was originally introduced.
Two very important constitutional issues were raised. The first was that it was proposed that this Bill should be triggered off by the Second Reading of a Bill in another place. There was to be no Committee stage, no Report stage, no Third Reading and your Lordships' House was completely ignored. The Bill was not even to be presented to your Lordships. I am bound to say that, having sat in the House of

75
Commons from 1931 to 1961, I do not believe that a single one of those Parliaments would have passed a Bill containing provisions of that kind.
There was also the interim, makeshift proposal that after the Greater London Council and the other councils ceased to exist, makeshift councils should be appointed from among councillors elected for different constituencies and for different purposes, and that for the interim period they were to exercise these powers. I think it is important to draw attention to these very serious constitutional issues that were raised. Your Lordships took a firm line. At Second Reading you gave the Government a warning. At Committee stage you defeated the Government. It is to the abiding credit of the Government and especially of my noble friend the Leader of the House that they recognised that very serious issues were at stake and on Report stage proposed such substantial changes in the Bill that it can be said that what is being passed now at Third Reading is something radically and fundamentally different from what was presented at Second Reading.
I have drawn attention to these things because we ought not to overlook the fact that a very grave constitutional issue was raised by the Bill in its original form. To your Lordships' credit you stood firm upon the issue. To the credit also of the Government they accepted your Lordships' views upon the subject. I congratulate them upon their conversion. Again I should like to repeat that not only the Conservative party but this House owe a great debt to my noble friend the Leader of the House for the firm and tactful way in which he defended your Lordships' constitutional position.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, this may well be the final stage of this particular Bill in this House. The Motion, That the Bill do now pass is an opportunity for the Members of this House to look at the Bill as it has gone through the House in its entirety with all the amendments that have been carried. I look at it and I am as appalled as I was at the beginning. I am horrified. That is not in particular because of its consequences to local government. I think that local government is such a versatile machine that perhaps it could have got over the difficulties. Just as it got over the difficulties inherent in the 1972–74 reorganisation and began to make it work, it would probably get over the difficulties inherent in this Bill when this Bill was followed by the main Bill.
This to me is a halfway stage. What happens next is that the Government bring before this House, if they think necessary, the Bill to abolish the county councils. During the debate we have had on this paving Bill, over and over again we have heard the case argued that abuses here and abuses there, particularly by the GLC, are a good reason for the controls being brought in as proposed in this Bill. I do not believe they are. I believe that what they do is establish a pattern not in local government but in national government, in central government. They lay down a new pattern.
I can well remember, from 1972–74, the promises we had from responsible government Ministers that, although the water authorities were going to be set up, and removed to some extent from local authority control, the Government pledged that there would be
76
an element of local government still contained within the water authorities. That pledge stood good for a few years. What happened in the end? Slowly but surely the pressure came from the water industry itself that the incidence of local government control should be removed.
It would not be too bad if that was an isolated example. But I am old enough and many Members of this House are old enough to remember when local government really meant local government to the people in the areas. Electricity, gas, health and hospitals were all once very much involved in local government. Where are they now? They have gone completely into the hands of a bureaucracy simply because of the fact that that pattern was established.
Now we are in the situation of creating a new set-up. The new set-up is that police, transport and planning—matters that really should be the essence of the planning of a good life in the neighbourhood—are now going to joint committees. Or take quangos—call them what you will—or some other fiction that the Government are going to make! They are to be administered by district councils. So far, so good. What will happen? The complaints will start rolling in. And before we know where we are, the Government will be making further proposals for removing the local government element. That is the pattern being set in this Bill.
The 1972 proposals introduced by a Conservative Government were too hurried and ill-thought out. So are these. I shall not detain your Lordships longer except to give this quotation:
"Until all who are engaged in these present disputes dealing with the relationship between different tiers of administration acknowledge how delicate are the mechanisms with which they tamper and how closely interwoven are their sources of nourishment they will find themselves aiming at the wrong target with the wrong weapons for the wrong reasons."
It concludes:
"A government will pay dearly if it forgets that grass roots democracy is the only antidote to anarchy. At this stage only a full examination by a Royal Commission can save us from further error and that only provided existing local authorities meantime honour the established rules and conventions".
And of course they have not. They have not, partly because of Government restrictions, partly because of the problems facing places like Merseyside, occasioned by Government economic policy. There has been a failure to understand what is going on in the country.
The Government may say that abolition is the right method for getting rid of abuse in local government. I ask this question. What will the Government say when the Liverpool city council, assailed by all the economic pressures of the past 12 months, perhaps come up with some proposal that the Government do not like? What happens then? Do we talk about abolition? Do we talk about further controls? Inexorably, the logic of the Goverment's attitude is that they will. Finally, they will destroy the thing that we have most valued in this country for 250 years. If anyone wishes to wear the medal, it will go, I am afraid upon the chest of those people who supported and pushed this Bill against the advice of local authorities.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: The noble Lord, Lord Molson, ran through the vicissitudes of the Bill from

77
the Second Reading to the present stage and there is no need for me to repeat that. I wish to draw attention to the fact that during those vicissitudes the Bill has managed to offend one major Conservative article of belief after another. We found quite early that the Bill was an affront to the sovereignty of Parliament. We have always supposed that Conservatives had great respect for the sovereignty of Parliament. But the proponents of this Bill had to be pulled up with a very harsh jerk in order to cure the Bill of that defect. Indeed, it has not been wholly cured of it even now.
When, as a result of that major shock, the Government found that the government of London was still going to be in the hands of Labour people for longer than they had intended, they found that it was necessary to introduce a number of financial controls on London and other metropolitan councils that had not previously been in the Bill. That is to say they affronted another Conservative belief—the belief that you should have local government and that you should stand up for the rights of local authorities against over-centralisation. We have had in this Bill, in the clauses introduced in the course of its passage through this House, a striking example of the Government's regard for the judgment of the gentleman in Whitehall. Then we found, as we debated them today, that one of the chief sufferers of these measures would be voluntary and charitable organisations.
Lord Bellwin: Not true.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: Repeatedly, Conservatives have urged on us the importance of voluntary and charitable organisations in the administration of the welfare state and of public welfare generally. But all that has gone by the board. It is voluntary and charitable organisations that will be in danger as a result of some of the measures that we have passed in this Bill.
Why is a Conservative Government engaged in passing a Bill that affronts so many Conservative principles? It is, I am afraid, because of another underlying, deep Conservative belief that local authorities ought to be governed by councils with-Conservative majorities, and that if you have a local authority where Labour majorities are repeatedly returned, there must be something wrong with it. We have had that principle before. We have it in this Bill. Before the major local government reorganisation of the mid- 1970s, one of the most successful types of local authority was the county borough. It was, as a rule, efficient and it evoked local pride in a way that few other local authorities were able to do. Unfortunately, county boroughs had the tiresome habit of returning Labour majorities. So county boroughs disappeared with the reorganisation of local government in the mid-1970s.
The old LCC was an extremely efficient authority, and famous all over the world. But it was persistently Labour, and it was abolished for that reason. That was why the Greater London Council was created —because it was believed that it would be a safe Conservative body. Alas, it proved not to be, and its turn has now come for abolition. You have this repeated theme that if a body is going to be Labour it is in danger of being abolished. My noble friend Lord
78
Sefton said just now that this will be the remedy that Conservatives will employ at any time in the future when they are not getting their own way. We saw it again today when we were debating the financial clauses. We were repeatedly told that all the amendments that we suggested were unnecessary, that if of course, there were any sensible and reasonable proposals, they would get consent, and that that would be that. What is a sensible, reasonable and well founded proposal? It is one that is approved by a Secretary of State in a Conservative Government. That is the lesson that people have endeavoured to teach us during today's debates. The whole thing is a gerrymander from first to last. It is an attempt to alter the democratic verdict of the people at the polls in order to increase the influence of the Conservative Party in local government.
We appreciate the Minister's skill and courtesy. However, let us consider what he has had to say in the course of the Bill. I have been amazed by the manner in which he has kept holding up his hands in horror that he should be meeting what he calls obstruction from the GLC and the metropolitan counties. If the Government were approaching the proposal for abolition following a proper inquiry and study, and with a great weight of evidence behind them, one might perhaps object to obstruction. But what do you expect when you have a scheme for abolition that has no intellectual backing at all and that has to be piloted through Parliament with the assistance of a Bill of this kind? Of course, you will get obstruction. The noble Lord the Minister's wailing about obstruction reminded me of the comments of the French naturalist Buffon on the rhinoceros.
"This creature is remarkably ill behaved. If you attack it, it defends itself."
What did the Minister expect from the GLC? What does he expect from any authority with any spirit? The Government should realise what they have done through a measure of this kind. They have deliberately introduced a rough, gerrymandering element into the process of local government. The purpose of the Bill is to advance the interests of the Conservative Party in local government. They will find that that lesson is not forgotten and that it will be acted upon by people in local government throughout the country.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, this has been a bizarre afternoon—the climax of two months of fantasy. We have been asked in this House—and historians will find this very difficult to conceive—to legislate for a hypothetical situation 21 months hence, plus a number of hypothetical situations which may materialise in between. What kind of legislation are we being asked to pass?
There is a much more important and dangerous element which has been demonstrated yet again this afternoon, as it was on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and again on Third Reading; it is much more dangerous than the bizarre character of the request which has come from the Government to this House. I am referring to the authoritarian, nay, even totalitarian, premises upon which some of the important speeches have been based.

79
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not here because it seems to me that he has been leading on the Bill all afternoon with the tacit consent, given as a PS, of the Minister. But let us consider what has been the argument all the way through the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, right from Second Reading. It really comes down to this: "What I"—that is, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—"or the Secretary of State approve of is, by definition, reasonable; what we do not like is, by definition, unreasonable, irresponsible or extremist. But"—and here I particularly want to come to a point that I wish to put to the noble Lord, Lord Molson—"we shall not give the electorate the chance of judging on our criteria. The electorate are not fit. They are not to be allowed to decide whether to dismiss a councillor or to approve of what he has done. No, we shall decide and we shall prevent the electorate from doing so".
I was very glad to hear this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Monson, apparently convinced of the argument which, as noble Lords who have followed this through will remember, I have put consistently right from Second Reading onwards; namely, that this is a precedent. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed this out very forcefully. It is a precedent for cancelling elections. Whatever one may think about the present political circumstances of this country, we surely know what precedents have been used in other countries when you start cancelling the statutory right of the electorate to elect their own representatives.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, said this evening that this Bill is fundamentally different from the Bill that came to this House when we had the Second Reading. I would beg to differ from him. Yes, it is different; yes, we have amended it. But, as I pointed out on Report, there is a principle within the original draft that came to us which has been preserved all the way through, and that is the very dangerous principle of cancelling elections.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, said, quite fairly, both tonight and on Report, that he considered that the basic objections of the opponents of the Bill had been removed by the Government after the Government had been defeated, and in his absence I drew attention at the Report stage to the fact that some of us do not agree with that proposition. Although we agree that the fears that he and other noble Lords on the other side of the House expressed in Committee about the gerrymandering effect of the Bill, about the changing of the political complexion of council control have been at least modified, the other objection, which involves an equal, if not a greater, principle, of the cancellation of elections has not been removed, and it is still here today. It is for that reason that those of us who have objected to the Bill on principle still object to it as it has been amended here. Let me in parenthesis make to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, the point which I have tried to make previously, and which I have tried to impress upon him; namely, that though the noble Lord accused me of using extreme words such as "gerrymandering", I was in fact quoting his right honourable friend the former Prime Minister, Mr Edward Heath, in another place.
80
Finally, I wonder whether the Government are still talking about their mandate. I believe that my noble friend Lady Birk, has already constantly hammered home this point during the afternoon. Are the Government still standing on their mandate from the last election? If so, how do they explain that they are to stand on this issue which, as the noble Baroness pointed out, is seven-and-a-half lines in a 47 page document? What has happened to the mandate for abolishing the domestic rating system. which was contained in the 1979 election manifesto? What has happened to the mandate for restoring the university vote, which was also contained in the 1979 election manifesto? Why do the Government select what they claim they have been mandated to do, and ignore the things which, on the same basis, they could claim to be mandated to do, but which they have not done and have not even tried to do?
It has become apparent, as many noble Lords have pointed out this afternoon, that whether one judges from the General Election, from the European elections or from the opinion polls, every test of public opinion in London has shown that the majority of Londoners are against the abolition of the GLC; every test of opinion in the metropolitan counties has shown the same result. The country as a whole has always shown, in any test of opinion, that what the Government have been trying to do this afternoon flies directly in the face of public opinion. I hope that when the Bill reaches the other place there will be sufficient noble Lord's friends on the Back-Benches who will recognise the principles involved in it and who will reject it, as we did when we had our vote in Committee.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am sure that the House will acknowledge the kindness and the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in his opening remarks after what have been very tough debates on Second Reading and during all the other stages of the Bill. It was typical of the noble Lord to make such generous remarks.
The noble Lord was absolutely right when he said that this Bill is not about abolition. This Conservative measure is the measure to make the rope to strangle the victim; it is the Conservative measure to sharpen the poignard to plunge into the back of major elected councils in our country. It will be an indelible stain, to put beside many others, in the Conservative record, but I am not concerned about that. What I find disturbing is that it will be an indelible stain on the post-war record of this British Parliament. There has been nothing so vulgar and repugnant.
Many of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, have served for very many years in British local government and I am sure that we are all proud to have done so. Therefore, I find it almost unbelieveable that any Government would have gone down into the sewer to have dragged up this appalling measure which is an affront—and this is what the House has to note—to millions of British people, whose heritage goes back hundreds of years. Those of us whose families go back a long way in these islands used to be proud to say that local government existed before national government, and that it helped national government to become more democratic and assisted the parliamentary system. It is repugnant that under

81
this Administration the parliamentary system is now setting out to strangle the local government principle which helped to give it birth.
My noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham mentioned the measure to destroy the LCC. We all knew, and we all said so at the time, that a grave misdemeanour had been committed by five or six million Londoners. They had exhibited the audacity continually, freely and democratically to elect a Labour LCC, and in the eyes of Toryism that is an offence.
When the introduction of the GLC came about many of us were worried that the measure would be similar to this one. How relieved we were when (as I read out during the Second Reading debate of this Bill) we heard the words of Sir Keith Joseph, who gave an absolute assurance that nothing whatever like what was being said outside the other place at that time would occur. He was right then, but he is wrong now. It has taken place, and it is taking place. He said that that measure would be the subject of a Royal Commission and a White Paper, and the subject of great debates in Parliament. He said that even when the GLC was in being it would still be left to the people of London to decide the sort of policies in which the newly-created council should indulge, and if they did not like it then they would change it.
The victims of the Tory assassins are not the GLC or the Merseyside boroughs: they are the millions of electors who wanted to elect those particular councils. Therefore, I must say that this might well be a triumph for authoritarianism—but over what? First, over the general public of the great metropolitan boroughs and the GLC. This authoritarian measure has also triumphed over Conservative councillors and Conservative supporters of the party in London and the metropolitan boroughs; it has triumphed over the Liberal Party in both Houses and out in the country; it has triumphed over the Labour Party. I do not think that any party can be proud to say, "We have smashed Conservatives, Liberals, the SDP and the Labour supporters".
My noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham said that this was the idea, though it was not nearly so horrendous, in the days of the creation of the GLC; but the Conservative Party cannot claim as their own idea the total abolition of boroughs. That was done 30, 40, nay, 50-odd years ago in some parts of Europe. So it is not their idea.
We hope that the day will come when all parties will realise what has happened, and when those in a position of influence within the great Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the Labour Party and the SDP will band together to ensure that what has happened in this Session of Parliament is put right and the stain that has been left on parliamentary democracy and on our local authorities is removed once and for all.
7.44 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, as a Cross-Bencher, I believe that the Government may regret the passing of this Bill. London needs a voice of its own. This is the view of a Conservative councillor friend of mine on the GLC, and it is also the view of Mr. Robert Mitchell, another GLC councillor, in his letter to The Times of
82
last Monday. Can noble Lords imagine New York without a mayor, or, indeed Paris without a mayor? London needs a voice for London-wide problems. It must be a democratically-elected voice. If the Government do not like the present voice, as they obviously do not, they could have gone out and persuaded the electors of their case in May 1985 and changed the rulers by democratic means. They could have changed the song of the birds singing in the tree without cutting down the tree.
May I, with great boldness, remind your Lordships that it was Oliver Cromwell who introduced the last self-denying ordinance, but the Government have introduced a new self-denying ordinance and are denying themselves the opportunity of changing the leadership at County Hall by democratic means. In addition, they are prolonging the life of the present incumbent for nearly a year. Perhaps even more important than that, they are denying the right of millions of Londoners and others to express their opinion on a major issue that affects them all.
I am not in favour of a referendum—the Government must decide in the end—but I believe that people should have the right to express their opinion on such a major issue. I ask the Government at this late stage: let the elections go ahead. If the Conservatives are successful, the present incumbent will lose his power much sooner than he would under this Bill. If not, at least millions of Londoners and others will not feel ignored. Surely that is what democracy is all about. For whatever happens to the GLC, London will still need its own voice. I very much regret the passing of this Bill.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, when I moved the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, some of your Lordships were kind enough to refer to the courtesy that I have shown throughout the conduct of the Bill, and perhaps even other Bills. I must say that your Lordships put it very much to the test. I have not the slightest intention of dignifying some of the remarks that have been made with a response; I do not think that they merit it. Certainly if one was to measure the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, by the decibel level it reached, I think we would have to be impressed. Frankly, that is the only thing about it that did impress me. It was certainly easy to hear; the noble Lord made sure that no one sleeps on the other side of Bayswater Road.
It is very easy to stand up and be scathing, sarcastic, bitter and twisted about a Bill, but I can tell your Lordships that I feel just as fervently about the points that we have made and the things that we are trying to do. I could go on at great length about the iniquities of some of the things that are happening in the name of local government, and yet I have to sit and stand here and be preached at by some noble Lords opposite on the future and the good standing of local government when it is the members of their party who support what is going on. It is very hard to take—
Lord Molloy: My Lords, let the electorate decide.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I did not interrupt the noble Lord, so perhaps he would do me the same courtesy. It is very hard to take, but I shall not lower the dignity of the House by indulging in the kind of

83
rhetoric to which we have had to listen for the last hour. I have moved, That the Bill do now pass, and I assume that it will now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendments.

Agriculture and the Environment: ECC Report & Agricultural and Environmental Research: Science and Technology Committee Report
7.48 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrowrose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Agriculture and the Environment (20th Report, 1983–84, H.L. 247).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is greatly to our advantage that this evening we can debate these two reports together, one from the Select Committee on the European Communities and the other from the Select Committee on Science and Technology. In my view, these two reports complement each other neatly. I shall, of course, speak only of the European report, and be as brief as I possibly can as the hour is already late and there are well over 20 speakers to come.
The problems of the impact of intensive agricultural practices on the environment, and especially on landscape and wildlife habitat, are attracting considerable interest at the present time, not only from enthusiastic lobbyists and journalists but, more importantly, from a considerable body of reasonable opinion. The media are inclined to represent the argument on both sides as bitter and the conflicting interests as irreconcilable. On the other hand, those who have the time and inclination to study the European report will I believe be struck by the many co-operative forces at work and the general wish of farmers and environmentalists to seek solutions in the general good.
The report from the European Communities Commitee has its origin in a debate in your Lordships' House last year on the socio-structural policy of the Community, and at that time it was felt by many that the environmentalists had not had their fair crack of the whip. An ad hoc committee was therefore set up which included members from Sub-Committee D, which deals with agriculture, and Sub-Committee G, which deals with the environment, as well as others who were judged to be neutral, and in my case were initially uninformed.
The draft regulation issued last year by the European Commission designed to improve the efficiency of agricultural structures in the Community provided a convenient, if somewhat restrictive, peg on which to hang our report. It is, by the standard of your Lordships' House, a long report, but the committee make no apology for that. We believed that it would be useful to discuss fully the detailed and well presented evidence of the highly qualified witnesses who appeared before us and to whom the House must owe thanks. At this point I should also like to thank the clerk of the committee who was new to her task but
84
who behaved excellently, and also our specialist adviser who, for this subject, was rather appropriately named Dr. Rosemary Fennell. The Government departments, MAFF and the DoE were, as always, most co-operative, although at times they must have felt themselves to be an embattled, or even an endangered, species.
The opinions of the committee are given in paragraphs 126 to 139 of the report, and the House will not want me to do more than briefly reiterate some of them. Our objectives in underwriting the inquiry were twofold: first, to examine the draft regulation proposed by the Commission and, if we found it inadequate, which we did, to suggest how representatives of Her Majesty's Government in the Council might ask to amend it to contribute to a more appropriate balance between the claims of agriculture and the environment; and, secondly, to consider the views of witnesses to see how, in a framework wider than the proposed regulation, some of the conflicts of agriculture and the environment might be reconciled.
It was inevitable that conditions in this country rather than in the Community as a whole should have dominated our thoughts. In fact, it is hard to envisage an agricultural regulation of this kind which could be appropriate and acceptable in all the member states of the Community. The Committee were conscious of the pride with which the British regard their countryside. They were also mindful of the achievements of our farmers not only in recent times but over the centuries in which our countryside has been created largely by their handiwork. In paragraph 138 the committee set out six ways in which they think the draft regulation might be usefully amended. The most important effect of these amendments would be that, as an element of the improvement of farming, care of the environment would have comparable status with the production of food.
If the amendments were not made the regulation would allow the present unsatisfactory situation to continue with minimal change, although it must be admitted that the Commission, in its draft, showed welcome signs of recognising that continued emphasis on production of food already in surplus no longer makes sense. The Common Agricultural Policy as at present administered with its high prices and market policies is largely responsible for the pressures on the agricultural industry which have created and exacerbated the environmental problem. The regulation, and hence the report, does not deal with this basic problem, although of course it reflects the anxiety created by it.
Members will see both in the evidence of witnesses and in the opinion of the committee a number of criticisms of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment, which means criticisms of their ministerial direction. These criticisms have attracted attention in the press; and in defence of the departments the committee is very much aware of the financial pressures on them at this time, and we have therefore tried to be fair to all concerned. Nevertheless, the committee conclude that the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment do not work together effectively and are insufficiently responsive to reasonable and widespread public feeling. They protect themselves in some

85
measure by unnecessary legal inflexibility to an even greater degree than the Commission itself.
We gained the impression that the Minister of State, who is himself a farmer of substance, recognised the validity of some of these criticisms. If press reports are correct he may have—and I hope that he has—some encouraging developments to report, and if so I hope he can assure us that these are intended to be effective and not cosmetic. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the final paragraph of the committee's report, the words of which were chosen with care. The burden of this paragraph is that Her Majesty's Government should not wait for a lead from the Community but should take their own initiatives. We do not need the Commission to tell us what to do. The care of the countryside in the United Kingdom is first and foremost a national responsibility, and it goes without saying that this care must go on against the background of a prosperous agricultural industry.
The committee sincerely believes that the Government, by a revision of priorities, by a change in administrative attitudes, and by close co-operation with statutory and voluntary bodies, can achieve, with the present level of funding, a more appropriate balance between the needs of agriculture and other environmental interests. This is asking a great deal but it only requires leadership which, in our view, would evoke an immediate response.
If Her Majesty's Government were to act in this way they would be doing what the majority of people want, farmers and town and country dwellers alike. It would at the same time take a great deal of the debilitating and wasteful heat out of an important national argument; an argument which may eventually develop into a divisive party-political issue, and I submit that we already have enough of these. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Agriculture and the Environment.—(Lord Greenhill of Harrow.)
8 p.m.
Lord Adrianhad given notice of his intention to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on Agricultural and Environmental Research (4th Report, 1983–84, H. L. 272).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to speak about the second of the two reports on the Order Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, has already said that there is advantage in debating these two reports together, and I must say at once how grateful I am to the noble Lord for his agreement on this. But two reports at once is a harsh demand on your Lordships' tolerance, especially at this late hour and I, too, shall do my best to be brief.
My task is to introduce the report of your Lordships' Committee on Science and Technology, and before doing so I should like to thank the members of he committee and the witnesses who came to see us, those who wrote and our advisers, Professors Smith and Harper.
Our terms of reference were to,
"consider the case for greater co-ordination between agricultural and environmental research".
86
At an early stage we concluded that there was no real overlap between our terms of reference and those of the European committee, whose report the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has just introduced. Our remit was a relatively narrow one, though complementary and important, since, unless research can provide appropriate information, policy in this area and its implementation are likely to be flawed.
Our independent inquiries have much common ground. We both agree that agriculture and the environment are inseparable and important and that concern for the environment is not the monopoly of any one group. It is common ground that economic pressures are causing a pace of change in the countryside which is disturbing to many. Both committees view public opinion as being ahead of Government departments which are seen as slow to recognise the strength of feeling for greater control. Finally, both committees emphasise the importance of more systematic co-ordination and co-operation between the agricultural departments and the Department of the Environment.
The Committee on Science and Technology had no great difficulty in concluding that:
"in answer to the narrow question posed by their terms of reference they consider that the case for greater co-operation between Agricultural and Environmental research is made out".
Numerous witnesses pressed on us the need for more co-ordination, but co-ordination is like virtue: we are all in favour of it, but it is a matter of judgment to know when one has had enough of it. So the first conclusion of your Lordships' Committee is that:
"greater co-ordination is needed although that need is not in itself sufficient to warrant radical changes in organisation".
Our recommendations—many of them too detailed to rehearse here—are designed to improve the existing system by emphasising the inter-relatedness of agricultural and environmental research and the importance of a proper concern for the environment in all departments of Government and in the research councils.
Your Lordships' committee was concerned that the organisers of research investigating environmental impacts of agricultural practices have responded to, rather than anticipated, public anxiety, and I include here the anxieties in the farming community itself. Such research may get done eventually, but the agriculture departments are not seen as having an initiating role. This is particularly true of longer-term applied research, often called strategic research. We recommend that the agriculture departments should significantly increase the commissioning of such strategic research. Problems of this kind which have been identified to us include the nitrogen cycle in the United Kingdom, acid rain, and the fate of trace elements from phosphate fertilisers, among others.
It will be hardly news to your Lordships to hear that all research funding is under severe pressure. We are well aware of the constraints which this puts on both Government departments and research councils. But it is particularly in areas which may be construed as the responsibility of another department or of another research council that cuts come first, and are heaviest. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the environmental impact of agriculture is just such a marginal grey area. We have made several recommendations to

87
try to meet this difficulty, both between the customers for such research—the agriculture departments, the DoE and the Nature Conservancy Council—and the research contractors—the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council.
The Agricultural and Food Research Council stated to us in evidence:
"that as work most closely relevant to the environment tends to be applied, the scale and nature of this work largely reflects the Ministry's requirements as a customer".
It goes on to give the MAFF spend with the AFRC for environmentally related research—some £13 million; a not inconsiderable sum. But its statement illustrates what we have called the "closed loop" between the agriculture departments and the AFRC which may, and indeed does, work well in respect of research directed to increasing agricultural productivity, but is seen by many to exclude other legitimate public concerns.
It is for this reason that we have sought to extend the responsibility of the agricultural departments so that it is their clearly stated duty to promote research on the environmental effects of agriculture; effects which include, but go beyond, pollution. The Government have already gone some way towards this in their response to the Seventh Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, where they agree that the initiative for reducing pollution caused by agriculture should rest with MAFF and the other agriculture departments.
In the course of our meetings the agriculture departments announced the setting up of a Priorities Board for Agricultural Research. In our report we note with regret that there seemed to be no intention to represent environmental interests, either directly or indirectly, on it and we recommend such representation. Recently the Government have appointed Sir Hans Kornberg to the Priorities Board. His experience as chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and particularly for the Seventh Report on Agriculture and Pollution, may well go some way to remind the Priorities Board of its wider environmental obligations.
There are two consequences of placing on the agriculture departments a duty to promote research on the environmental consequences of agricultural practices. First, they will need mechanisms to anticipate and identify those consequences. To this end we suggest that consideration be given to supporting or commissioning some specific and targeted monitoring programmes. They should be directed at the ecology of farmland, rather than of particular species, and should perhaps concentrate on the less visible creatures—invertebrates and soil organisms.
Secondly, thought must be given to the relations between the agriculture departments and the Department of the Environment, the research councils and the Nature Conservancy Council. MAFF and DoE are, and should be, customers for research on the environment, and as such ought, as far as possible, to co-ordinate their programmes. We were assured that a great deal of informal co-ordination does indeed take place between scientists of the Agriculture Research
88
Service, DoE, and NERC. And in this context we much welcome the fact that MAFF and DoE are now talking about exchanging their research programmes, though we were surprised that such an exchange was not already established practice. I understand that there is already increased contact, and this is to be welcomed. But we suggest that there should be, in addition, regular meetings of the chief scientists' groups of DoE and the agriculture departments with representatives of AFRC, NERC, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission to discuss the formulation of research programmes in the area of common interest.
It also appeared to us that the Nature Conservancy Council was both underfunded and over-extended. Its relationship with the DoE seemed to us to need examination and we would welcome a more vigorous role for it in the dialogue with the agriculture departments. We would encourage the NCC's efforts in creative conservation and hope for greater liaison with the agricultural research service for this purpose. Research is less effective than it should be, if its results are not made available in the field. The establishment of the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group and of county FWAGs is a most welcome development. FWAG, as well as the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS), have important roles in the dissemination of research, as well as in its planning.
Finally, we welcome initiatives from the Economic and Social Research Council and the agriculture departments in socio-economic research in agriculture. This is an important and topical area, especially in the face of possible changes in the common agricultural policy.
My Lords, I believe that this report makes modest and practical proposals, and it is gratifying to be able to report constructive responses from both the National Farmers' Union and the Natural Environment Research Council. I hope that this report will serve to improve our research effort in an area seen by the public, as well as by farmers, to be of great importance, not least because there is a general awareness that many of the ground rules of post-war agricultural practice are at the moment under review.
8.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the committee of your Lordships' House under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, has (if I may speak to the noble Lord's report first) performed a valuable and timely service. It is valuable because the report has undoubtedly focused attention on issues which are of widespread interest and concern in the United Kingdom and it is timely because we are currently reviewing not only structural policy, but also the future of the uplands and of the common agricultural policy.
First, I welcome the clear recognition in the report of the committee that without farming, the countryside would become a wilderness and rural communities would decline. It is, therefore, vital to continue policies which ensure an efficient and prosperous agriculture. At the same time, I say freely and openly that I accept that we must recognise that there is a widespread concern about the consequences for the environment

89
of changes in agriculture over the last two or three decades, about which the noble Lord spoke. I should like this evening for there to be no doubt on this matter. The Government understand and share that concern. Our objective is to achieve a balance between a healthy agriculture and conservation.
I suppose it is fair to say that it was the shortages of the war years and the rapid mechanisation thereafter which brought about the change from livestock to arable farming which we see today in so many parts of the country. But, as the committee has observed, the rate of change has accelerated, and we have to devise ways of meeting change with safeguards for conservation and the environment.
The noble Lord's committee acknowledges the responsibility shown by the majority of farmers for the care of the countryside, and I am sure that this is the spirit we need to foster. I really do not think that the red tape of regulations and restrictions is the way to tackle rural problems; sympathetic and understanding management of the land is needed.
For that reason, I very much welcome the committee's recognition of the work of ADAS in balancing agricultural and conservation interests. I say this because a key part of the Wildlife and Countryside Act is designed to ensure that Government-sponsored advice should be widely available on how best to integrate wildlife and landscape conservation with successful farming. Thus, a good deal of what the committee suggests is being done by ADAS, a service which stands close to the farming community and which cares and works in harmony with the statutory and voluntary conservation agencies who have such great expertise and whose work is of such value. The committee recommends that this role of ADAS needs to be increased, and despite the manpower limitations we have, I very much hope we can move further in that direction.
However, I think that some of the committee's recommendations were perhaps based on an outdated situation; I have in mind, for instance, the statement that the Ministry of Agriculture's interpretation of the structures measures is too pre-occupied with agricultural production and insufficiently sensitive to the needs of conservation. I do not say this just because I am proud of the ministry in which I work; I naturally react against criticism. I do not think it is that. For some years now the United Kingdom has been carrying out policies designed to assist the environment which only now are finding their way into the structures provisions. When the report says that the Government ought to take their own initiatives—and the noble Lord in his capacity of chairman of the committee repeated this view in his speech this evening—that is good advice. This is precisely what we have done in our own domestic legislation in this country, particularly in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I am surprised that nowhere in their report did the committee mention this important legislation, one of the aims of which is to foster good conservation practice in agriculture through voluntary co-operation. That aside, I am happy to be able to report to your Lordships that I think a good spin off of that legislation is that earlier this month the Ministry of Agriculture concluded new agreements with the NCC on the notification and management of SSSIs on
90
agricultural land to enable, by working together, the fullest use to be made of both ADAS and NCC skills and expertise.
One particular difficulty which the report recognises is that such words as "environment" and "conservation" can mean different things to different people. Public opinion is, of course, a very important factor, and we must always be responsive to it, but it is not always to be gauged by the loudest voices, and it does not by any means always speak with a single voice. So the position that the Government find themselves in is that they have to try to maintain agriculture and the whole rural economy in a healthy state while, at the same time, safeguard the landscape, conserve flora and fauna and provide for access in the countryside wherever that is possible. As we all know, that is not any easy balance to achieve.
So, for example, in the last few years in the Ministry of Agriculture we have made changes to the environmental safeguards in our national grant schemes. we pay grant on conservation expenditure which is part of agricultural investment; we have withdrawn the last vestiges of grant for hedge removal. We have recently increased grant for hedge planting, stone walls and shelter belts, and we withdrew some grants for land reclamation outside the less-favoured areas.
In this context, I have noted from the report and from the minutes of evidence that several witnesses advocated the reintroduction of prior approval. I do not know whether those witnesses appreciated that some 400 extra personnel would almost certainly be needed in the advisory service in order to do this. I am in no doubt that ADAS is occupied to far better advantage in getting out and about and advising farmers on good conservation practice rather than in dealing with forms in offices. That apart, the suggestion was one which does not give credit for the prior notification arrangements which we operate in the most sensitive areas and which I believe are working well. I know that part of what I have just said is rather reactive and defensive; but may I make it clear that I do not believe, and the Ministry in which I work does not believe, that we have in any way reached the end of the need for change. We realise that we have to keep policies under review. This is why this report is so enormously important. I give an assurance this evening that if in the light of all the considerations further changes are needed, we will always do our best to recognise this and to try to see if we can meet the need for change.
I must say in unison with that point that it will not come entirely as a surprise to your Lordships that the Government attach rather more importance to costs in these matters than I would have discerned on a first reading of the Committee's report. However, even with cost implications very much in mind, the Government believe that the draft regulation, which of course is the peg on which the whole report of the Committee is hung, needs to be amended to make it more responsive to environmental concerns. As your Lordships know, in Brussels we have already put forward some amendments; but we think that the time has now come for us to take a major new initiative.
Much attention has been given to the possibilities of using Article 3(5), suitably broadened, but your Lordships will forgive me if I say that the difficulty I

91
foresee there is that Article 3(5) is inevitably bound up with the Less Favoured Areas Directive. The problem, as the committee rightly recognised, is that some of the conservationally sensitive areas are not less favoured. Indeed, quite the reverse is the case. So as my right honourable friend foreshadowed at the last meeting of the Agriculture Council, the Government have decided to seek a more general provision in the draft regulation. We believe that we need a completely new title in the regulation-conveying powers which would enable us in environmentally sensitive areas to encourage farming practices which are consonant with conservation. We will straightaway discuss with the Commission qhow best to give effect to this idea which would herald a totally new policy for balancing agricultural and conservation objectives. It would not be a solution to all the problems although it most certainly would not be cosmetic—if I may answer the noble Lord directly on that point—but it would be a valuable step forward. However, we should be under no illusions. As I think the Committee itself recognised, amendments of this nature may not be acceptable to all other member states. We can only try.
I should like to thank the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, for the work that it did. I welcome wholeheartedly the committee's work. Its essential concern is the same as that of the Government—to ensure that agricultural and environmental research are as well co-ordinated as possible. There is complete agreement on that. I am grateful to the noble Lord and to his committee for having given their attention to this important point. The report notes that environmental research,
"originates from a polyglot ill-defined entity which ranges widely over a great number of disciplines and is required to satisfy a public interest which may seem nebulous or even contradictory".
The Committee was certainly under no illusions about the problems of co-ordination. Then the committee also noted another important aspect of its subject. It recognised that agriculture is part of the environment and it would be wrong to introduce an artificial division of the countryside, despite potential incompatibilities between the objectives of modern agriculture and those relating to the environment. I hope that I am being consistent with the reply which I have tried to give to the report of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, when I say that it is the aim of the Government and of the research programmes which we fund to overcome or to minimise those incompatibilities so far as possible. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, that the Government will continue to seek improved co-ordination and will consider very positively the suggestions which the Committee made a few weeks ago.
There are one or two points on which I should like to comment immediately. The committee considered that the existing research organisation has not served the country badly although it believes that there has been undue delay in undertaking some environmental research. That rather modest tribute to the existing organisation I take to be in large part an acknowledgement of the good work of scientists in the many and various research centres throughout the country. I should like to support it in that way.
92
The Committee suggested that agricultural departments should be able to identify better the environmental effects of agricultural practices. I referred just now to the committee's comments about environmental research relating to,
"a public interest which may seem nebulous or even contradictory".
We accept therefore that there is a need to bring environmental questions together so far as possible to form an identifiable and coherent subject. In this connection, the Ministry of Agriculture has decided to establish an Environmental Co-ordination Unit. The work of this unit which has now been set up will include co-ordination of the Ministry's interests in respect of the effects of agricultural practices on environmental pollution, conservation and rural diversification, and will also develop and maintain a close liaison between the policy and scientific and technical sides of the Ministry on environmentral issues.
There is however one point in the report with which I should like to express some disagreement—that is, the committee's suggestion, which the noble Lord mentioned in his speech, that public-funded research has been late in looking at environmental questions, and that one reason for this has been what the committee called the "closed loop", "with minimum interference from outside" between the agriculture departments and research contractors. The Ministry's evidence to the committee made clear the importance that we attach to the protection of the environment and the prevention of adverse social effects. The Ministry's list submitted to the committee on research and development work relating to environmental questions was really quite substantial and included research by ADAS which the noble Lord was probably pleased to see because I noticed that at the very end of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, made the point that it is enormously important to see that research is translated into action in the field. In-house research by ADAS over many years on pesticide usage has been concerned with environmental effects. More recently work with environmental objectives has been undertaken. I shall give three examples: on subjects such as hedgerow management, farm buildings in the landscape and farm management at the Ministry's experimental husbandry farms. The Boxworth experiment on pesticides represents a major investment in environmental research which we very much hope will provide insight for future work. I have read the views of the committee about this experiment at Boxworth and I should like to take this opportunity to assure your Lordships that there was consultation about it with the ITE, NCC and AFRC. But certainly I have taken on board what the committee said and we will call together all those concerned to review the experiment before it finally comes to an end. I would suggest however that the charge of a "closed loop" in agricultural research is a little hard; rather, we have formal arrangements for independent inputs into our planning of research programmes and open doors for widespread and less formal contacts. The new Priorities Board is going to be central to these arrangements. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, welcomed the inclusion of Sir Hans Kornberg, formerly the chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, as a member of the board.

93
The report makes many more interesting and important points, but I must end now because of the many speakers which we all wish to hear. However, I should like, just quickly before I sit down, to pick up two other points which are in the report. The Government fully agree about the growing importance of socio-economic issues to farming and rural viability generally, and we are trying to devote more resources to these matters, in close liaison with the other organisations concerned, such as CoSIRA. The Government also wholeheartedly endorse comments in the report on the value of the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group. I very much agree with the description as of it as "this excellent development", and we are giving FWAGs the fullest possible support.
Both the reports we are discussing this evening show the enormous amount of work that is being done in this country in environmental matters generally, and perhaps I might end by referring once again to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill's committee. I should like to say one word more about the initiative from the Ministry of Agriculture that we are now determined to take. Of course, I cannot guarantee that the proposal we shall put to our European partners will necessarily be accepted; but I believe that we have reached the point where we need to be able to designate areas outside the LFA's as conservationally sensitive, and within those areas to be able to make payments and impose conditions to ensure that agriculture is carried on in a way which is consistent with conservation objectives. At any rate, that is our intention and we are going to do all we can to succeed.
8.31 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I am getting a new pair of spectacles and may then be able to do away with the use of this box in due course when the Government introduce cheaper spectacles! We are really very indebted to the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill and Lord Adrian, for introducing the two reports so concisely and so briefly. They did both in 22 minutes. The Minister took slightly longer, and perhaps your Lordships will excuse me if I take a little longer still, but I will try to be as brief as I can.
I should like to say one thing first: that is, that I am not going to argue about the question that the CAP has been the cause of all the environmental problems that have been put forward in various quarters. I should like just to remind your Lordships that Dr. Stapleton did his work away back before the war and far more land in the hilly areas was reseeded, ploughed and improved in every way, at least so far as farmers were concerned, before the CAP was every thought of. I am perfectly certain that in the technological age, with the advances that have been made in agriculture the same would have applied to lowland farming, and that the CAP has nothing to do with the accusations, some of which I completely disagree with, which have been brought forward.
As I sat in my office yesterday with a blank sheet of paper in front of me—and I am sure that many of your Lordships will have done the same—wondering how I would make a start, I looked across the Lea Valley. My office stands at a height of about 300 or 400 feet above sea level, though one would hardly think there was that height in Essex. I looked across the Lea Valley and
94
there, as far as the eye could see, were trees and hedges. As regards hedges, I should like to take this opportunity of publicly apologising to my noble friend Lord Melchett for having accused him during a previous debate of wanting two yards left round all hedges. I do not know where I got that from but he has assured me it is wrong and I apologise to him.
This area that I look on to contains a power station, which is now redundant, and of course the remnants of the glass-house industry in the Lea Valley. Looking a little further west over the beautiful Broxbourne Woods, one can see the roof of Haileybury College, where the late Lord Attlee was educated. He was very interested in the environment and he was not worried so much about what the farmers were doing to the environment as about what the urban litter louts were doing to the countryside. Although he did not have time in his day to bring in the Litter Act, he mooted it back in the 1950s.
I was then tempted out of my office by the fine day to view the east and south sides of the farm. Looking south to the great metropolis first, there I saw St. Paul's, overshadowed by two great tower blocks—a reminder of the urban population's care for the environment. To the east, over the valley between us and Epping Forest is a large farming area, well farmed well treed and well hedged (if that is the right expression) with many trees—and I would stress this to your Lordships—in the middle of fields where the farmers, in removing hedges, had left them. I have done the same. I get into trouble with my son and my foreman because they are awkward, but they are there to stay as mature trees.
On the way back further to contemplate that empty sheet of paper, I met my daughter-in-law, who had just returned from a trip through Essex and Cambridgeshire, showing an Australian visitor our countryside. The Australian lady was rapturous about it and when I asked her whether she saw any signs of destruction of the environment, she just did not know what I was taking about.
I then remembered a trip I made a few years ago with two American friends. I picked them up in Edinburgh and motored down through all the counties that have been accused of "prairie farming": Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. We also did a trip through the Cotswolds and around Wales, and they were impressed more with the eastern counties than with the Cotswolds and Wales. They thought they were better farmed and the amenities of the countryside, so far as they could see, were well preserved.
I mention this to your Lordships because I want to put it to you that the so-called "devastation"—and that is a word which is used loosely: the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, mentioned the looseness of some of the language that has been used—of the countryside is a gross exaggeration. In fact, it simply is not true. Of course there are people like Hughie Batchelor in Kent—but how many acres has he actually damaged in this latest row that he is having with the council? I doubt if it is more than one acre, if that. And how soon will it recover? It is amazing how few people realise how quickly things recover.
The Forestry Commission have made a survey of the deciduous and broad-leaved woodlands in this

95
country and they have found that, although there has been a change in the species—for example, more beech, more ash, more sycamore and maples and fewer oaks and, of course, elms—the acreage is virtually the same as it was 50 years ago. Yet in the report the evidence that was given—of course it is not evidence really, but only pinion—suggests the opposite. I think it is just that people see bits and pieces of woodlands being taken down, and really very little damage is done. Let us not forget that a lot of it is planted or allowed to regenerate on its own. I had a note here to mention ancient woodlands, but I will leave that to someone else.
Let me tell your Lordships of two instances that illustrate how people mislead themselves. In the county where I spent the first part of my farming life is the small town of Stonehaven, the county town; and south of it was an area of woodland which everybody enjoyed for many generations and which had beautiful deciduous trees. Just before the war it was sold to be cleared and felled; and all hell was let loose. People wrote to ex-Stonehaven residents abroad to try to raise enough money to buy the woodlands and save them. Of course that was not possible, and the woodlands were cut down. The land was replanted straight away—and of course nowadays we can replant, using the chemicals that we have for killing any diseases that may arise from the stumps—and that woodland today is as beautiful as it was then, and perhaps even more so, in no time at all. Those people simply did not realise what could be done.
May I give you another small instance from my own farm? We were finishing a drainage scheme, the ditch between two fields had to be cleared out and there was a large overgrown hedge which we had to cut fairly far down. A local resident wrote to the papers and said that here were farmers tearing out hedges again. She said that she went there on her favourite walk—and her favourite walk, I may tell your Lordships, is up the avenue of trees that I planted 30 years ago when I went to this farm, but she did not mention that in her letter to the press. The following week another letter appeared which my son took to be slightly different, though putting the same point. He took the trouble to telephone the person and invited him to see what we were doing. He pointed out the necessity of it and said that we had not pulled out the hedge but had just trimmed it down. This chap had never been on a farm; but, if somebody had asked him to join the environmental bodies he would have done so in a flash on the basis of that letter. So many people do not realise the recovery that takes place. That was 18 months ago and that hedge is now growing, and I am sure that the birds and the butterflies are enjoying it. I am certain that people who dislike change—and we are a country of conservatives with a small "c"—convince themselves that the change they dislike is an environmental disaster.
When I was in the Ministry nearly 20 years ago, the same row arose over something and I called for some old maps. There were huge areas of wide open spaces that are now, or were until recently, full of hedges. Someone said that agriculture planted those hedges and agriculture has taken a lot of them out again. When I was in the Forestry Commission, I met an old
96
forester who had started planting a woodland when he was a boy. By then, he was just about retiring age but he remembered the protests about planting that land. He said that later he started to fell the woodland and the protests started again. That is the sort of thing that happens and we should remember that.
That brings me to the subject of forestry and no body has taken more stick from environmentalists than the Forestry Commission, though no body deserves it less. Until about 12 years ago, the Forestry Commission had no environmental remit at all. If the British public wanted the Forestry Commission to do environmental work, they should have got Parliament to put something through. But they appointed Dame Sylvia Crowe in 1963, and she laid the foundation of the Commission's landscaping policy. Forestry Commission woodland attracts over 20 million visits a year. which is probably over 20 times the membership of all the conservation and environmental bodies put together.
I want to mention what the Forestry Commission is doing today to encourage farmers in woodland management. They have given £1,000 a year to the Farming and Wildlife Trust, and have a whole host of plans for helping farmers. I have the press release here about managing farm woodlands, and so on, and if any noble Lord would like to give something to the Woodland Trust's appeal to help FWAG, then they can do so. At the same time, I should like to pay a tribute to ADAS. We have recently had several open days, instigated by FWAG, and ADAS have shown what they are doing.
As the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, the criticism is not altogether right. There is a body of opinion, thank goodness small, but vocal—as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead said, these bodies are usually vocal though they are small—who suggest that Britain should not attempt to maximise its production of food and wood. They say that we should buy it all from abroad. How selfish can we be? We buy between £3,000 million and £4,000 million worth of wood and wood products a year and world forests are being cut down at the rate of 50 acres a minute. We produce approaching 75 per cent. of our temperate foods.
In today's copy of The Times, there is a list of surplus foods held in this country. On the next page is a plea by Kenya for food to stave off starvation. The same could apply to a lot of Southern Africa. Anyone who saw shown on television last week the appalling conditions in Ethiopia will surely think that we could sacrifice a few hedges and butterflies to give an extra tonne or two of wheat to send out there. I do not want to go into the details of why it is not sent there; I just put it to your Lordships.
What I have said illustrates the value of these reports in putting things in proper perspective and that is what they have done. I am not suggesting that nothing should be done about Community proposals, and I think that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, is excellent. Nor do I think that there is nothing to be done to help and advise farmers, landowners and foresters to continue to look after the environment in continuing changing circumstances. I am a member of FWAG—a body funded mostly by farmers—and I am president of our local conservation

97
society. But I am first and foremost a farmer and I must make a living for myself and my staff and enough to maintain the environment. There must be compromise, but I cannot agree that care of the environment must have comparable status with food production. I do not wish to expand on this, but in those conditions environmentalists could make life for a farmer almost impossible.
The continuing changing circumstances which I mentioned earlier make the report of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, of immense importance. When I started farming in 1926, the only spray we had was Bordeaux mixture for blight in potatoes; 20 to 30 units of nitrogen on our cereals was being very bold. We fed our animals on food produced on the farm with a modicum of linseed cake added. Every animal and bird we kept was on a litter—slats and cages were unknown. The situation today sometimes appalls me: 200-plus units of nitrogen, some of it pouring into the water supply of the country; spray after spray after spray; pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. I do not know what will be the ultimate effect on our land.
Our animals and birds are kept in a multitude of different ways and we pour into them vitaminised, medicated and goodness knows what kind of food. Straw and hay are processed with chemicals and we implant the animals with growth regulators. So far we have got off with it, and it may be that no harm will be done to the human and animal environment, but I should like to know. Therefore, I welcome the proposal for closer co-ordination between agriculture, the environment and research, and trust that the position will be looked at in the broadest sense, as I have suggested.
May I make one criticism? It seems to me that giving an awful lot of instructions to a great many bodies to liaise with each other—I am now talking about the body of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian—means that they will spend a great deal of time liaising and not enough on research. The recommendations give that impression. I hope that I am wrong, but there it is. I have spoken rather longer than I intended, but I hope that I have put some fresh thoughts into your Lordships' minds on the subject.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to repeat some of the points that my noble kinsman has made because both these reports are enormously valuable. The report of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, is particularly valuable in that it draws the teeth from some of the rather ridiculous statements made by bodies who have a small, particular interest and who push it to the absolute limit without a great deal of knowledge of what they are talking about except from their own very narrow view. Also, the report of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has raised the debate above the level of farmer-bashing, which is becoming extraordinarily popular and which has given rise to lots of good stories combined with Irish ones.
The latest story is about the farmer who was rich beyond the dreams of avarice. An Irishman came to him and asked for a small job. The farmer gave him a pot of green paint and told him to go into the back yard and paint the porch. Two hours later the Irishman came back and said, "I've painted the porch,
98
and I ran over the Bentley as well". That is the kind of story which is going around.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, referred to high prices. I would rather talk about adequate prices. That fact is that when we look at the countryside we all look at it with a different eye. Countrymen are inclined to think—no doubt unreasonably—that the countryside is a place for countrymen to live in and in which to make their living. They believe that because they farm there, work there, build there, or whatever they do, they should have the major say about how the countryside is organised.
As has been said, and as is acknowledged in the report, the history of our country is bound up with the transformation of the countryside by the improving landlords and farmers of the past. The description of Aberdeenshire in the early 18th century would delight some of the conservationists. The description of the wetlands, the awful bogs, the frightful screes, the terrible areas of whins, would be a paradise to them. But it was not a paradise to any of the travellers through it. The work that was done in transforming Aberdeenshire into a place where people could live, which is prosperous and which people drive through, as my noble kinsman said, with enormous pleasure, is the result of the agriculture industry at work.
The beauty of what somebody described as "the old meadows of England" is no beauty at all to a farmer. I know exactly what he means. One person actually said that 95 per cent. of the old meadows had been destroyed. They have been destroyed, and an excellent thing, too, because there were acres and acres of English countryside—I am referring only to England, not to Scotland—which were covered by useless grass. I remember a farmer telling me that in Lincolnshire he once rode on a hunt for 15 miles across grass with not a trace of arable there, but that he rode past tumbledown farms and cottages, with nobody in them. Today you could not ride a horse across one mile of that area. Nevertheless, it is an area of tremendous use and of great beauty to the people who go through it.
I believe that there are a number of things for which our community—I say "our community" because I am a farmer—are to blame and which have resulted in the problems we face. One of the worst of them is straw burning. Without any doubt, straw burning has had more effect than anything else on people who like the countryside but who do not live there. Those people have every right to go to the countryside for peace and enjoyment, for they lead busy lives in towns. Straw burning has been one of the worst factors in creating the divergence between town and country. There is no agricultural reason for straw burning. I believe that it should be phased out. The straw should go back to the soil from whence it came in order once again to enrich that soil. It can be done, and it is being done by a great many competent people.
The interest groups complain about over-grazing on the hills, about drainage, about the destruction of the wetlands, the loss of moorland, the removal of hedges, the damage to woodlands, and so on. I am all in favour of fewer grants being made for the improvement of land. The one thing which will put up prices is scarcity. The less that land is improved, the better, perhaps, the

99
price will be for the rest of us. But that is not particularly good for the community as a whole. Although we want to stop the rogues in the farming and landowning community from destroying natural beauty, we have to think of the future.
At the moment there is a surplus of food in Europe, but that surplus may not last for ever. We have already seen odd things happening which have put the price of sugar and wheat, for example, below the world price. This country needs that food. During the last 10 years, agriculture has contributed over £2 billion to the balance of payments by means of extra production. The country cannot do without the contribution which agriculture can make. For that reason, there is no doubt in my mind that greater interest needs to be taken in the environment.
The Department of the Environment is involved in the enormous problems caused by acid rain, by pollution of all kinds and by a whole host of other matters. However, when it comes to countryside planning, this should be done by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If a proper section were devoted to the interests of the environment, there would be legislation and control over the countryside which the farmers and the community there would accept. The two sections need to be married. Therefore, much greater interest needs to be taken in the environment. That is the way to achieve it.
If I may now turn to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. I am wholly in favour of nearly everything that is contained in it. We do not know where we are going. I initiated a debate on the subject in this House in February 1983, and expressed grave doubts about whether we really know what we are doing—my noble kinsman has already mentioned this—about the application of science to agriculture. Chemicals are already being withdrawn. All we have is a voluntary code which controls the issue of chemicals. A tremendous amount of research therefore needs to be done into the long-term effects of chemicalised (if that is the right word) agriculture, for this is now a major part of farming, if not the major part of farming.
In the days when Aberdeenshire was dragged up from the stones, advances were made in such areas as the introduction of wild white clover. This took place in about 1910. It made the most phenomenal difference to Aberdeenshire. It improved the natural fertility of the soil, and it changed its colour. It improved the crops. People knew exactly what they were doing with it. Nowadays, however, we treat the soil as though it were water, as though agriculture was a form of hydroponics. We pour in inputs and we get larger outputs. Then we burn some of the outputs and wonder why disease piles up on disease. We are on the back of a tiger.
There is no doubt at all that more money must be devoted to long-term research into the effects of modern agriculture—not on the beauty spots, but on what chemicals may be doing to the soil. Our soil is the tremendous asset of this country which we have been improving until now but which, for all we know, we may be destroying. We have seen large chemical firms producing cures for morning sickness which have led to the most appalling distortions in the children which have been born. This has happened despite all the
100
research. It highlights the need to look at what we are doing to this great asset of ours—the soil of this country.
I think that these two reports run together, and run together extraordinarily well. I was almost pleased by the Minister's response, but I am sure that after this debate he will go back and try to force perhaps more and more money for research. I was pleased to hear him say that there would be money to support the environment; but I must say that I think we have probably not had two more important reports from our committees in this House for a great number of years.
9 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, the House will have listened, as I have done, to the interesting anecdotes and reminiscences of the noble brothers Mackie and Mackie. But if we were expecting to find on those blank sheets that were mentioned some indications of Labour and Liberal party policy in this difficult matter, I think we have to say that the sheets still look a little blank. I find this a welcome change from the Rates Bill.
Though serving on the committee that produced the red report under the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, I want to make my remarks on the stage set for us by the blue report, which concludes in its main and final finding that more work needs to be done in the socioeconomic dimension, by which I take it that they mean the general welfare and prosperity of the countryside and of the people who live in it.
The first thing I should like to say is what an interesting experience it has been to serve under an eminent civil servant who has just confessed that he has not had much to do with these matters previously. He was not the only senior civil servant added to the ranks of the committee which was otherwise drawn from Sub-Committee D on Agriculture, and G on Environment. I think it was a splendid idea to have these senior civil servants among our members. It has had the interesting effect of bringing down on the two departments chiefly concerned about the heaviest strictures I have ever heard the Select Committee deliver to any United Kingdom department. We are grateful for that to the extent that those strictures were deserved, as I fear they were.
However, I would add the other side of that coin, and express our gratitude to my noble friend for the responses which he has made on behalf of his own department. If they had not come today I do not think they would ever have come; and so they are particularly welcome. Let us hope that this time they will prove adequate, lasting, sufficiently enthusiastic and all-embracing.
I think the experience of us all—and particularly those of us who have been in government—is that the machinery of government can be almost 100 per cent. effective in inhibiting useful change. In this particular case the Strutt Report of 1978 has almost entirely effectively been stifled. The machinery of government is of only limited use in stimulating changes in attitudes and striking better balances between two departments, such as is needed here. Let us hope that this new unit will have some success. As always, for

101
most constructive steps, we need to look to the local level and to consider in the context of this report what hopes we can place there.
I believe that the pattern and procedure, known as notification, established in October 1980 for the limited purpose of administering farm capital grants in the limited areas that were designated as national parks and SSSIs offers us some hope. As your Lordships will recall, the idea then was limited to ensuring balance between farmers' plans in those areas and the conservation policy expressed in the national park plan, which, as your Lordships will recall, is a form of land management plan. This procedure was all that was left of the so-called prior approval which at the same time was elsewhere and in all other respects abandoned. For its limited purpose in the limited areas, this new notification system has worked very well. Up-to-date statistics should be available, but are not. Nevertheless, I think one can say that the extra cost of balancing farmers' plans with conservation policy proves to be minimal. Reference to Ministers with possibilities of compensation having to apply occupied only a fraction of 1 per cent. of the notifications that have been dealt with. The delays have been minimal, and the paperwork has been minimal. A great deal of mutual understanding has been built up in the process.
Readers of our report will have noticed that the NFU has asked for the reintroduction of some form of prior approval. That will be found on page 79, at paragraph 9 of their main evidence. They have not said, and I am not suggesting, that any new form of prior approval or notification should be administered exclusively by the MAFF. Far from it. It is not at the moment, and it works none the worse for that. I think the NFU should have their way. It should be by way of extensions and developments of the form of notification that we have now evolved for farm capital grants in the national parks and SSSIs. But it should go, step by step, further and wider, spread to other grants and subsidies besides farm capital grants, for other purposes, and into other areas outside and beyond the national parks. With what purpose? To strike the right balance between agriculture and the environment, and also between agriculture and the other policies which go to make up the socioeconomic policies of the countryside; and to ensure that there is proper compliance with the United Kingdom law at the very least. I am referring now to the Countryside Act 1968, Sections 11 and 37. Section 11 is that part of the 1968 Act, as your Lordships will remember, which requires
"every Minister, Government department and public body—
(including the Forestry Commission; that is where their conservation responsibilities derive from) to have regard—
"to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty … of the countryside".
Section 37 reads:
"it shall be the duty of every Minister†and local authority to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas".
That is where the socio-economic dimension comes in.
Thinking of that now rather old Act—it is nearly 15 years old—our Lordships might ask whether these
102
two rather dead ducks can be revived. I believe that they can. It has been shown in the experience of the notification scheme in the national parks since 1980 that it is possible to set out policy for managing the land of a national park so as to conserve its beauty and amenity. It has been possible to spell out what so many noble Lords say is one thing to one person and something else to another. It is possible to spell out what is meant by the environment in that particular place, and what is meant by conserving it. Under the notification scheme farmer after farmer has been persuaded quickly, easily and without any fuss on how to apply his own capital, his own plans, and his own CAP grant to assist and support that policy.
The same can be done in respect of other forms of public assistance to farmers and in support of other aspects of rural policy, and in areas outside and beyond the national parks, and SSSIs. It certainly requires the concerted effort of a number of public bodies to produce the variants on the national park plan—suitable plans for other areas and for other purposes. The Development Commission has recently indicated its priority areas and the nature of the rural plans it would like to see. It is the local planning authorities alone which, at the end of the day, are responsible for giving statutory force to any such plans by appropriate degrees of "public participation" and by "adoption". That is their regular, familiar work.
I put it that whenever and wherever that is done in sufficient and appropriate detail, it will become possible to adopt the NFU's suggestion and reinstitute new and further forms of prior approval or notification. The Minister's duties under Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act—which have, to a large extent, remained a dead letter—will enable him (indeed, will require him) working through ADAS to give the advice needed. And with socio-economic research proceeding, if the blue committee's advice is heeded, that will be easier for them. Now the Minister and ADAS are not working on their own; the farming and wildlife advisory groups are there to help them, and a great strength that will be.
Sooner or later there will be a test case for the courts, in the United Kingdom, or in the EEC, or both. Thereafter we shall know whether the legislation we already have in Sections 11 and 37 is enough. I so agree with the committee, and with its chairman in particular, when they say that we ought to be able to solve this ourselves. We shall then know whether the legislation we have in the 1968 Act is enough, or whether we need more. Personally, I would still expect success by the straightforward application of Sections 11 and 37 of the Countryside Act 1968, via more and better advice tendered by ADAS under Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and in the light of appropriate local land management plans, such as the national park plans which we already have in force and in place.
It could work just as well in the rural development areas and with the rural development plans now being recommended by the Development Commission. Like the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, I see a large role for the farming and wildlife advisory groups in all this, and for rural enterprise trusts on the socio-economic side.
As your Lordships will have seen, the Countryside Commission have given your Committee evidence of

103
the extensive range of farm supports and of the earlier stages to which prior approval or notification can be, and is being. applied in other member states, notably in Holland. The NFU has been perceptive enough to see that it is in its members' interests for its use to be extended in this country. Certain it is to me that the alternative is a progressive application of development control over successive forms of rural land management. This is very much a second best way of striking the balance between agriculture and the environment—and, will not, I hope, ever need to be recommended.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I have to apologise for the fact that when I put my name down for this debate it was the first item on the agenda, if I may put it that way, and I undertook commitments which will not permit me to stay until the end of this debate. I apologise for that and I will be brief.
Many of your Lordships will remember how in Gulliver's Travels the King of Brobdingnag,
"gave it for his opinion, that whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country than the whole race of politicians put together".
As a very young man I remember coming to the conclusion that to make two blades of grass grow where one grew before was perhaps the most useful thing I could do with my own life.
The attaining of virtual self-sufficiency in European agriculture is an enormous achievement. It is an achievement, however, which has to be seen in the context of a world in which the spectre of hunger still hangs over vast sectors of the population. They still have a desperate need for the kind of technological and managerial breakthrough which we have achieved in Europe over the past 40 years.
I should like to join earlier speakers in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, and their respective committees, on their clear and well-balanced reports. Most thoughtful farmers accept, I think, the need to limit production to avoid substantial surpluses in Europe. Most farmers would also accept the need to take steps to preserve the amenity of our countryside and our national heritage of wildlife. Fortunately, these two objectives are not in conflict. The question is: how can we best achieve them, and who is going to pay?
There seem to be, broadly, two approaches. On the one hand, measures could be introduced which would aim to achieve an across-the-board reduction in productivity: a ban on the use of nitrogenous fertilisers altogether has been suggested as an extreme example. Alternatively, measures could be introduced which would have the effect of removing selected areas of agricultural land from intensive production and restoring or retaining them in less intensive systems. I do not believe that a reduction in the levels of production across the board is a realistic alternative. Plant breeding and nitrogenous fertilisers are the prime agencies of agricultural intensification.
104
It has been suggested that nitrogen fertiliser—"bagged" nitrogen, as we call it—should be banned altogether. I suspect that such a ban would be quite impractical, cumbersome and, indeed, probably impossible to administer. It would also certainly increase the cost of food to a point where those increased costs would have to be passed on to the consumer. A tax on nitrogenous fertiliser, if it were sufficiently swingeing to have any effect, would have the same result. It has been suggested that a general reduction in EEC support prices would have the desired effect. Unfortunately, there is a serious lack of research in this area.
I have the privilege of being a governor of Wye College, which is instituting a research programme to look at the economic effects of some of the proposed solutions to the problems of surpluses. The project is a joint venture between the economic and the ecology departments and it is one which Wye is uniquely well equipped to undertake. My own guess would be that a reduction in EEC commodity support prices would not have the effect of reducing levels of production across the board. The likelihood is that on the better soils a high input/high output system would still be the one which would give the lowest unit cost of production and, therefore, the most favourable return. On the other hand, a reduction in the support price of commodities would have a considerable effect on marginal land and would probably tend to mean that some marginal land at least would be withdrawn from intensive production.
Fortunately, it is a fact that the richest diversity of wildlife species is often found on marginal land, on sites of low fertility, poor drainage and with other natural constraints. Often, too, these low fertility sites, such as heath and moorland, are the most attractive for public access. A reduction in commodity support prices, therefore, could probably solve both the wildlife and amenity problem and the surplus problem by taking marginal land out of production or by shifting it from high intensity systems to low intensity systems. However, the effect of this shift would be also to reduce the value of the land and to jeopardise the livelihood of those who work upon it.
What happens to the people whose livelihood is taken away by this disintensification of marginal areas? As long ago as 1968 Dr. Mansholt foresaw that there would be a need for land to be taken out of production. He suggested a figure of 5 million hectares in the period between 1970 and 1980. He made some suggestions to solve the resultant social problems: larger holdings; some farmers leaving the land: rural industries; forestry; and tourism. What is clear is that some of these changes are going to take place. What is important is that the consequential social dislocation (part of which is already taking place on the Continent) must be a charge upon the community as a whole and not on the individuals concerned.
Finally, there are many conservationists who would like to perpetuate, or to reintroduce, the less intensified and better buffered systems of farming which we used to use in the olden days, and about which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, spoke so eloquently. If it be true that a reduction in commodity prices would not reduce the intensity or production on the better land, then other steps will be necessary.

105
In that context I would suggest that consideration should be given to the excellent idea which has been put forward in this House on several occasions by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, of a national land fund. Such a fund could purchase appropriate areas of land, which could be let to tenants. The managers could control the way in which the land is farmed through the kind of restricted covenants in the tenancy agreement which have been a familiar feature of most well-run estates in the past—a covenant not to sell straw or dung off the estate, and not to burn it; a covenant to keep half the farm in grass; a covenant, if
106
one likes, to use a four-course rotation. Where such covenants reduce the potential profitability of the farm, the land fund would have to compensate the tenant by taking less than a full economic rent. I am convinced that on those terms there would be plenty of tenant farmers who would be happy to operate such systems and would enjoy doing so.
And so it may be that some Jonathan Swift of the future will put pen to paper to express his admiration of the farmer who makes two weeds to grow where one blade of grass grew before.
9.21 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am sure that we are all much indebted to the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill of Harrow and Lord Adrian, for the reports which they have presented to us, and also, if I may say so, to my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies for having used certain pressure to enable us to discuss the two reports tonight while they are still fresh before us. It is not easy to find time for such debates at this period of the Session, and I fear that we shall run rather late. Nevertheless, I am sure that it was well worth while to secure the debate at this time.
I had the honour of serving on the committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, but I am sure that the main credit for the two reports goes primarily to the chairmen and sometimes to the specialist advisers. I am particularly glad that both reports are outstanding for their clarity and for refusing to fudge issues. Each reaches broadly the same major, and perhaps rather obvious, conclusion that agriculture and the environment are part of a single whole and should be regarded as such without equivocation or buck-passing.
Those of us who have tried for the past decade or more to sustain constructive dialogue between the agricultural and environmental interests have been encouraged in some quarters to believe that we should be tempted today to echo the Reverend Jesse Jackson and proclaim, "Our time is come!" But it does not look quite like that, although undoubtedly we have felt for the past few months that there has been some feeling of change in the air—a new tone perhaps for those who have ears to hear.
Frankly, I doubt whether one would have gathered that from the rather defensive and apologetic way in which the Minister presented his case. He made some interesting, and one or two quite important, announcements, though they did not sound quite as challenging as I had hoped he would make them appear. Nevertheless, I am sure that we shall be very much interested to see what effect the Environment Co-ordination Unit in his department will have. I am sure that we were gratified to learn that the Priorities Board for Agricultural Research has recently included Sir Hans Kornberg, even though some of us who have had the pleasure of working with Sir Hans would regard him as a distinguished applied scientist, rather than an environmentalist. I doubt whether his knowledge of the countryside is very much greater than that of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill. Nevertheless, I am sure he will bring an interesting influence to bear upon the research work carried out in the environmental field.
Perhaps even more interesting to some of us than the rather muted ministerial announcements this evening was the report in the Observer newspaper yesterday of a joint statement just issued by the Country Landowners' Association and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. According to this report (and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, will expatiate upon it later on) both organisations are in agreement—I am quoting from their statement—
"that ways must be found to build environmental objectives into the system of official financial support for agriculture".
108
Both organisations advocate,
"changes in policy which would help end the unfortunate and damaging conflicts over the effect of modern agricultural practices on the countryside".
The statement, as I have it here, is cautious, not jubilant.
Problems do not change overnight, but the will to make a serious and concerted attempt to solve them is what matters. It is immensely encouraging to many of us that two such major voluntary organisations should have set their hands to this task. Experience leads one to believe that only a joint approach to Government by the major interests concerned is likely to prevail upon Ministers to pluck up courage to tackle the very real difficulties which lie in the way and to dedicate the necessary resources to their solution.
The main value of the report of the committee which sat under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, apart from the lucidity of its analysis and the clear identification of the deficiencies in co-operation between the Departments of Agriculture and the Environment, is its emphasis on the fact that many of the remedies for the present defects lie in our own hands. There are certainly conflicts of interest in Brussels which will have to be resolved, or perhaps by-passed, but they do not justify the procrastination from which we have suffered in the United Kingdom in our domestic administration.
Legislative and financial changes within our own competence could assuage much of the current dissatisfaction. Most of us have received briefing of some kind from various organisations, most notably the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Nature Conservancy Council, and the Countryside Commission. I shall leave details to other speakers. However, I felt that the Nature Conservancy Council in particular was quite correct in stressing, as the report itself does, that mechanisms can be developed on a national basis without awaiting the final emergence of the directive from the Commission in Brussels.
One of our difficulties arises from the obsession of the present Government with cutting official or quasi-official manpower, regardless of the consequences. Personally, I have no doubt that some of the initial cuts were justified. However, it is not wise, nor statesmanlike to pretend that one can will certain ends and disregard the necessary means. The dialogue between agricultural and environmental interests at detailed local level is time consuming. If mutual understanding is to flourish, it cannot be promoted by officers of MAFF, DAFS and WOAD in England, Scotland and Wales respectively, who are too thin on the ground and are always conscious of work piling up in the office if they stay too long in the field. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, knows my views on ADAS, for which I have the highest regard. I shall not repeat them. They apply equally to the Nature Conservancy Council. They are of the essence of encouraging progress. Unless one has adequate manpower on the ground, one will not achieve the full results of any of the changes in policy that have been proposed in the Greenhill Report.

109
At a lower practical level, the Manpower Services Commission can play a certain part. I was delighted this weekend to see the current news sheet prepared for walkers by the Offa's Dyke Association, of which at least three members of your Lordships' House have the honour of being a past president, praising the MSC helpers who helped to maintain the path but also warning walkers to keep strictly to the paths bordering hay meadows,
"as trampled grass cannot be gathered and as hay now fetches £1.20 per bale".
That is good practical advice for those walking in the countryside.
I welcome particularly the second of the two reports that we are discussing, that on the relationship between agricultural and environmental research. It, too, is lucid, authoritative and pulls no punches, pointing out that co-ordination between agricultural and environmental research occurs in spite of the system rather than because of it. It rightly emphasises what is called the closed loop between the agricultural departments and the Agricultural and Food Research Council although the Minister felt that this criticism was not fully justified. It also mentions the one-way traffic in cross-membership of research bodies, and comments that,
"the fact that agricultural research can be accused of looking like a closed shop indicates some defect in its organisation."
It recommends greater reciprocity between agricultural and environmental interests at departmental and research council level. I would have said that these are matters that have been obvious to many of us for some time. It is heartening to find them so clearly stated by the Select Committee. I hope that the comments have full effect when these matters are discussed departmentally and by the research councils and their advisory board.
I was glad to read of the encouragement by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, to the Nature Conservancy Council to engage in more general "creative conservation"—that is the current phrase—instead of concentrating so strongly on specific and isolated habitats. I do not blame the NCC for the way that it has acted hitherto. All of us understand that it has considerable restraints on its resources. But we must be grateful to the Select Committee for its outspoken comments which, I am sure, will encourage the NCC in the start that it has already made in taking a wider view of its responsibilities.
The blue report is a most valuable one that we have little time to digest. It is of less obvious interest to some of the conservation lobbies. It is however basic to the whole concept of better concerted action in the countryside, not least in its reference to the need for a policy framework for land use, summed up in the plea of Professor Bradshaw, quoted in the report, for a synthesis that, because it is objectively based, is acceptable to both sides. Only a scientifically-based framework detached from direct interests could bring about such a synthesis. It may be unattainable. But this review of science-based activity is most timely. The lead given by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, and his colleagues is greatly to be welcomed.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, it has been a great privilege for me to be disciplined under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. Perhaps, before he disappears as vice-chancellor to some university or other in East Anglia, he might like to give the Whips a tutorial on how to discipline reluctant Peers. I noted with regret the press comment on both reports. A number had comments such as, "Peers slam MAFF". I would ask your Lordships to read the reports. Although you may find that some of the witnesses were critical of MAFF, the findings of the committees, particularly that of research and development, do not take such a hostile view.
Perhaps I should say that I disagree with the committee's view that research follows public opinion rather than leads it. Again, if your Lordships read the evidence given by MAFF and, indeed, AFRC, particularly on straw burning, I believe that your Lordships will find to the contrary. Incidentally, I disagree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, on this particular problem. The noble Lord has the unfortunate experience of having to live in the north of Britain and he does not understand other parts.
The report states that farming is in a state of flux and farmers and MAFF are being asked to change course. But such a radical change takes time. Both are and, indeed, have been aware of the problem, and both are reacting to it. But once again I say that we need time. I deplore the fact that the present fashion of "farmer bashing" is now turning irrationally to what I would call "MAFF whacking". It serves no useful purpose; it is an insult to those in MAFF who have worked so hard to deliver the goods for which the country has asked. No other industry has such a good relationship with its Ministry, and that is something of which I am proud.
Anyway, the way to solve the agricultural and environmental problems, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady White, is, I am sure, through ADAS, who are already as it were "drip feeding" farmers with information and help. Moreover, my noble friend who is to reply might care to elaborate on the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Belstead to the Committee in Question 577 on current training courses being carried out for ADAS officers.
There are two areas that concern me that derive from these reports. The first—and this was referred to by my noble friend Lord Belstead in his opening remarks—is that the first priority of any farmer is to make profits in order to support his family, his staff and his village—in that order. Butterflies must inevitably come last—not disregarded, but last. The Committee recognised this, but they do not explain how it will be possible, for if part of the financial cake is given to butterflies and bats, will not the first three —my family, my staff and my village—suffer? I hope that the Government will give this careful, humane and, indeed, unhurried thought. There is, I am sure, a way forward as the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said. But I am not sure—indeed, I am not capable of knowing—where it is. But we now at least see the problem and I am sure that it can be solved.

111
Secondly, the report suggests help for the disadvantaged farmer through the less favoured areas scheme. Here I was particularly interested and welcomed the remarks of my noble friend Lord Belstead about his intended approach to Brussels to extend these areas. This could well lead to some constructive help, particularly to the NCC, in being able to look forward rather than—as I suggest they do on many occasions—looking back. I am of course selfishly in favour of the less favoured areas scheme. But what worries me most is that it ignores the far greater problem of the new entrant to farming suffering unavoidably high costs, particularly in the south of England, whose priority obligation to family, staff and village must, at that age, be even greater than that of an old grandfather like myself, who can now afford to take more time and spend more money on the birds and the bees. I ask Government, I implore Government, always to consider the problems of the newcomer.
Agriculture, is at a T-junction, not a cross-roads. Farmers need time—and so I suggest does the Ministry of Agriculture—to find the correct road. Who knows?—one day we might want food again. These two reports are moderate and sympathetic, and recommend that the way forward is by peaceful, thoughtful co-operation between environmental and agricultural development. Here I am bound to note with dismay the statement by Labour's spokesman on the environment in your Lordships' House, which was reported in the Guardian the other day, that he was in favour of breaking the civil law to protect parts of the natural heritage. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will wish to correct what I am sure must have been a misrepresentation by that paper of what he and, indeed, the Labour Party advocate.
If your Lordships want evidence that farmers are considering the problems enumerated by both committees, I would commend a discussion circular which was sent out to all branches of the National Farmers' Union in April or perhaps May of this year. We all hear the problem. but I know that it cannot be solved overnight.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I should like to make it clear at the outset of my few remarks that I shall be speaking to the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, will not misunderstand my reasons. In fact, he will recall from my years as president of the Royal Geographical Society that I am not competent to make sensible comments on most of the recommendations in his report. However, I have of course read it and I shall make passing reference to it at one stage in my remarks.
It is very evident at this stage of our debate that there is a great deal of common ground among nearly all noble Lords who have spoken. In fact, I would say that there is a great deal of common ground among all noble Lords who have spoken. I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, because he has done us a service by enlivening our exchanges by
112
introducing a slightly more controversial note, which I think is a very good thing. It invigorates the debate.
However, I hope that the degree of consensus which has emerged from our discussion so far can be said to augur well for the effect that both of these reports will have on the Government. The reports of both committees are presented at an exceptionally opportune time. It is a time when there is a growing concern among those who can claim to be in the know about the inadequacies of the checks and balances of the existing legislation, and in particular the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to provide enough protection for the countryside and for wildlife. The debate on a Motion by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, on 30th June (which unfortunately I missed) certainly pointed that up.
A report on the uplands by the Countryside Commission, which has received a passing reference, is at present under consideration by the Government. This is a time when, as the affair at Halvergate has made clear, it is not only the upland areas and the national parks (which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford) but the marshlands as well, not only the national parks and the SSSIs but the countryside more generally, which are all liable increasingly to come under the threat from intensive and extensive modern farming techniques.
No less important in this issue of timing is a matter which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and the Minister: the fact that there is a growing awareness of the problem among a wider public. This, what I call a climatic change, has no doubt resulted from the publicity which has been given to the damage done by agricultural development, and especially to SSSIs where wildlife—which is an emotive subject—is destroyed, and at a time when—and I think that this has to be mentioned—there is a most welcome attitude displayed within the farming community itself which the select committee has not failed to note at paragraph 137, and which the NFU's response to Lord Greenhill's report has confirmed. This was a most constructive response.
There is one other aspect on this matter of time. At page 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum of the draft regulation we learn:
"The present communication"—
that is the regulation—
"completes the framework which the Commission envisages for the agricultural structures in the coming decades."
I think they meant to put it in the singular. It probably means for the next 10 years. This surely underlines the importance of getting it right.
Against that background there is the drafting of a new regulation whose purpose—albeit, quite properly, to replace and improve the efficiency of current agricultural structure directives—has been seen by many of us as the opportunity for action to bring about a balance of conflicting interests and to bring harmony where there is conflict. For myself, the perceived shortcomings of the draft regulation, which I share with the committee, are more than offset by the constructive use which the committee has chosen to

113
make of its deficiencies in order to create this balance and this harmony.
As the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said—and she was a member of that committee—it is an outstanding report. I only wish that I, who was not a member of that committee, had been the first to make that point. It is succinct, it is frank, and hard-hitting, but it is also fair to all concerned. It is expressed with admirable brevity. I was going on to say that it is one of the most readable reports that I have read in a long while. It is forthright in its criticisms of certain prevailing attitudes which govern policies.
This is not an occasion to dwell on the past, but it was right to point to the continuing sins of omission of both the Government departments principally concerned. MAFF, as is only too obvious from the remarks made so far, is the main target for criticism. I have not read the press reports referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, but I must say to the Minister that notwithstanding his personal charm and his evident sincerity and his honeyed words, MAFF has a long way to go to live down the scepticism of a wide body of public opinion—and that body of opinion was referred to at paragraphs 54 and 58 of the report—about the reality of concern hitherto for the environmental interests in that department of state. Statutory and voluntary bodies have been calling for stronger safeguards and for a change in policies governing grant aid for years. All I say is that the opportunity to make amends by making amendments to the draft regulation must not be missed.
As regards the draft regulation itself, the Explanatory Memorandum claims at page 9:
"The new policy has been given a decided change of direction."
But I agree with the committee at paragraph 134 that it says too little about the environment; that it is still too production orientated and short of innovative features.
The committee propose one major amendment in particular which they consider would be instrumental to this needed change of course. This is the inclusion in the preamble of a reference to the Third Action Programme on the Environment. They make that point at paragraph 78. I hope that I am right in understanding that MAFF has withdrawn its objections on legal grounds to the admissibility of that reference, and that their objection will now be set aside, perhaps in the light of the evidence presented by the report.
But as the committee points out, this inclusion and the several references to environmental protection in the preamble are not enough. The regulation is decidedly short in giving effect in its articles to the good intentions which precede them. Article 3.1(c) is the key to which certain other articles now need to be attuned. The essential need, as the committee has said, is that the regulation should be unambiguous and, as it has stated elsewhere, not cosmetic in regard to protecting the environmental interests.
The committee has made two most important points which have been touched on—and I repeat them briefly—in regard to the power or lack of power of the regulation for solving the problems affecting the environment. The first point is where it is indicated at paragraphs 29 and 130 that the regulation alone, even
114
when amended, cannot be expected to achieve a new status for the care of the countryside as a policy objective.
The second point really stems from the first; it is that Her Majesty's Government should not wait for a lead from the Community—they can, and should, take their own initiative. The chairman of the committee himself, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, have both made that point. I would add that if the Government were to delay action until the lengthy process of endorsement of the regulation by all member states is completed, a great deal more damage would be done to the environment.
So what should, and what can, the Government do without delay? The committee called upon MAFF and the DoE to put their act together; that is in paragraph 135. The committee believes that more common ground can be found if there is a will on the part of MAFF to take a wider view, and, I would add, a longer-term view, and accept the proposition that environmental objectives should have a status comparable with those of agriculture, with both on a level together. The third action programme, together with Article 3.1(c), would, I suggest, provide a text for this change in attitude and course.
To its credit MAFF has already made moves in the desired direction. As the Minister reminded us, ADAS already has a remit to advise on environmental matters; the committee has stated that this needs to be strengthened, and Ministers agree. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has referred to the environmental co-ordinating unit within his Ministry. Perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, replies to the debate he will tell us a little more about this because, on the face of it, co-ordination is not merely internal to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but involves that Ministry, the DoE and other departments as well.
According to the committee's evidence, there is no recognised interdepartmental machinery for discussion, let alone co-ordination, either centrally or locally. There is a need for, and opportunities for, co-ordinating research. This is an aspect which features prominently in the report of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian.
I conclude by saying that the matter is urgent. The countryside and its wildlife in our small, heavily populated, industrialised island are increasingly endangered. The threats to their conservation are from not only modern, intensified farming operations and forestry, but also mining, road building and other communications networks, water storage, hydroelectric schemes and industrial pollution. These can, and do, have a damaging impact on the countryside. This elevates the question of policy to the level of the Cabinet itself. I take heart from the concern which the Prime Minister herself is reported to have expressed about this matter.
The Government must not evade the challenge presented by both these important reports. Public opinion—that,
"large and reasonable body of opinion",
referred to in paragraph 132 of Lord Greenhill's report—has been stirred. It is not fanciful to predict that a very large number of voters will be looking for

115
a reference to environmental policy in future pre-election party manifestos. I say, "Good luck!" to no matter which political party has the courage, the vision and the will to hoist a green pennant at its masthead alongside its traditional party colours.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, there are many noble Lords wishing to speak so I, too, will confine myself to the red report. May I first join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the Select Committee on Agriculture and the Environment on producing a balanced report which is a constructive one in that it makes a series of recommendations for amending the European Commission's draft regulation which it was their task to examine. Secondly, I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for what she kindly said about the CLA. Having finished my presidential term last October, I can claim no personal credit for the initiative that they are now undertaking, but certainly while I was in the saddle we were working on those lines.
To turn back to the report, I should like to make just two comments on the proposed amendments to the draft regulation and then I should like to concentrate on the summary of the committee's views in paragraph 139, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has this evening drawn our attention. First, paragraph 138 (b) says:
"The Preamble and Articles 1, 2 and 3 should be altered to establish that, as an element of the improvement of farming, care of the environment should have comparable status with the production of food".
I think that I know what the committee mean by this, and I think they are right: but I wonder whether any of the member states would understand it. I was glad to hear what my noble friend Lord Belstead had to say about that just now. There would need to be much redrafting and clear explanations as to how the amended sections were to be implemented and administered before there was any hope of achieving general acceptance in the Community. This, of course, is acknowledged by the committee in the first sentence of paragraph 139, and I should like to refer to what seems to follow from that reasoning in a moment.
Secondly—and this is only a small drafting point—I am in favour of paragraph 138(e), which would amend Article 20. Some environmentalists get very confused about forestry techniques and practices. Timber growers would all welcome something better than the very meagre encouragement which the Forestry Commission now gives to the growing of hardwoods, but the words "indigenous species" are unhelpful. The purists tell us that, for instance, the sycamore, which now provides so much tree cover in lowland areas, is not indigenous. It would he a pity to discourage the growing use of some of the faster-growing hardwoods from the American continent, like the American oak and the South American beeches.
I should like to concentrate on paragraph 139. This, I believe, is the most important section in the whole report. The committee takes the wholly realistic view that the most practical way forward is to persuade our own Government to achieve a more appropriate balance between agriculture and other environmental interests. This, I am sure, is right; but it must be
116
acknowledged how far we have progressed already. My noble friend Lord Stanley has spoken up stoutly for MAFF, and it seems that the committee felt that the MAFF evidence was a shade cautious and defensive. Nevertheless, their evidence reminded the committee that Ministers and MAFF have had a duty since 1968 to have regard to Section 11 of the Countryside Act of that year, and, as my noble friend Lord Belstead, too, has reminded us, under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act Ministers have to conform with Section 32 and that very important Section 41. For that section, we have to be grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford. He made a very notable contribution to that piece of legislation by insisting that that section went into the Act.
In addition there is the whole range of assistance given to farmers in the LFAs, whose area has been greatly extended. So we are already moving down the road envisaged in paragraph 139 but, says the committee, not fast enough, and this is acknowledged by Government. This new unit has been set up in the Ministry which will strengthen the conservation work of MAFF and there are new liaison arrangements, as we have heard just now, between MAFF officers and the NCC. We must certainly welcome the statement this evening of my noble friend Lord Belstead with regard to the Government's proposal for trying to get the draft regulation amended so that more account is taken of environmental matters.
I am sure that we have to raise our sights beyond these very worthwhile and welcome developments. To repeat again the words of paragraph 139, we do indeed need to achieve
"a more appropriate balance between the needs of agriculture and other environmental interests".
Whether we require (to quote again from that paragraph):
"a revision of priorities"
I am not too sure. I have lived through too many ups and downs of farming to be unmindful of the cycles of prosperity and hardship through which we have to earn our living and at the same time try to look after the countryside. As a farmer I have received too many signals from Government in the form of exhortation or by way of cash incentives or by way of disincentives to put my faith in anything but well thought out longterm strategy. I have seen too many revisions of priorities.
I am well aware that the committee is recommending not so much a switch in production priorities as a policy change that is more fundamental than that. Nevertheless, rather than being led into short-term policy making, I think I prefer to heed the advice that is contained in the European Community's Third Action Programme. I am so glad that the committee attach so much importance to it. The aim of that programme is,
"to ensure that natural resources are well managed, in particular by introducing qualitative considerations into the planning and organisation of economic and social development."
That basic human economic activity is agriculture. Agriculture is about feeding people, and this seems to be forgotten in so much of the argument about the environment that has raged during the past three or four years. But it is not the only economic activity. The

117
Third Action Programme goes on to refer to the promotion of,
"a greater awareness of the environmental dimension, notably in the field of agriculture (including forestries and fisheries), energy, industry, transport and tourism".
Surely, if we go along with that aim in mind, we must be led to look at these problems in the overall land use context. The Select Committee treads delicately in just nudging us in that direction. I believe that it could have been bolder.
I was interested to read in the blue report what the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, had to say about the respective roles of the DoE and of MAFF. The DoE has an immense range of responsibilities so many of which are at present in the limelight. Just a few of them have been occupying your Lordships for many long hours this Session. I really do not think that without modifying the role of the DoE in the countryside it can continue to be the Department of State to which we should look for achieving, even if there were close liaison with MAFF, the kind of objectives which this Select Committee has in mind.
I have acknowledged over the years that MAFF has been enlarging its scope beyond its responsibility for food and food production pure and simple; and, as my noble friend Lord Belstead has told us, MAFF are building up their conservation advisory work and generally widening their activities in the environmental field. Nevertheless, I believe that this trend in Government policy should progress well beyond merely, in the words of paragraph 139,
"a revision of priorities, a change in administrative attitudes and closer co-operation between statutory and voluntary bodies."
Eight years ago the CLA (as always, in advance of contemporary thought) were promoting the idea that MAFF should undergo a process of metamorphosis and emerge as a ministry of rural affairs. That idea was then looked on at Westminster and in Whitehall as very far-fetched and impractical. Is it too fanciful now to imagine the DoE keeping, as it were, to the streets and MAFF taking on an increasingly enlarged role in the countryside —taking in, for example, as a start, the NCC, the Countryside Commission and perhaps the Development Commission as well?
Of course, this raises a whole host of difficult questions, not the least being land use planning and the competition between land uses. But perhaps my predecessors who led the CLA in the 1970s might have been on the right track. Does not this report take us, albeit timidly, into a position where we might look down that road again and see where it might take us?
10.7 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, as in previous debates of this kind, I declare my interest as one of an international group of four of five special advisers to the Commissioner in Brussels who handles environment policy; but of course in this debate I speak for myself. I say straight away that the Commissioner, Dr. Narjes, was enstranced—if I may use that word—by the red report when I was able to communicate it to him in Brussels. He was very anxious to consider the positive suggestions that are in it.
118
The report will have a considerable effect not merely in this country, as other speakers have pointed out, but also in Brussels, because it is so timely and because it makes these positive suggestions for amending the regulation and because it tries, and succeeds in, reconciling to a great extent the conflict between farming and environmental interests.
I should like to start by thanking my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies and the European Affairs Committee. It was because I criticised her committee in a previous debate on agricultural structures for producing a report which had ignored environmental considerations, that she kindly allowed me to write a suggested brief for this inquiry, and then the committee took it on. So I have a special personal reason to be grateful for the inquiry and also for the privilege of serving on the committee.
I want to say a few words only about the Third Action Programme, and I am so pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, commended this so strongly to your Lordships. The problem that became clear—and I have to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—in the early stages of the evidence that the committee took was that the significance—almost the breathtaking significance—of the Third Action Programme did not seem to have percolated down to the Ministry officials who gave evidence. Frankly, it was the case that they were saying in answer to questions at the very first hearings that they thought this directive, with its new environmental considerations, would make very little difference to the way in which the grant schemes were operated; and I am almost quoting this verbatim. There did not seem to be an understanding that this new action programme had to be taken extremely seriously and put on terms of parity with Articles 42 and 43 of the treaty, which refer to agricultural policy.
If I may quote just one witness—and I could give many quotations to prove my point—he said in Question 43:
"If one is voting money for the purpose of reforming agricultural structures, one wants to know that this is the primary purpose. If one is then told that it is also primarily to serve the purpose of the environment confusion sets in and the situation can only be resolved by a subordinate determination of priorities within that range".
What outdated thinking, if I may say so! After all that the third action programme has been trying to educate everyone to accept, and indeed with the glowing report of your Lordships' House on the third action programme itself, how can civil servants give that sort of evidence to a Committee of your Lordships' House on behalf of their departments?
Indeed, the same witness went on to say in question 95:
"Here one should have a regime for grant-aiding agricultural structures primarily for that purpose with environmental articles in a subordinate sense"—
subordinate! I will not weary the House by labouring this any further, because I am glad to say that I hope the effect of the red report will be that this kind of thinking, this wooden thinking, this refusal to accept the importance of the third action programme—I will come to its precise significance in a moment—has now been laid to rest.
I was glad in correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to have his agreement in the end in a

119
letter which reached me a few days ago to a statement that will, I hope, at last mean that that attitude will be finally killed in the departments. The noble Lord said that he could agree to a statement that was produced by Professor Jacobs and circulated by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. I hope the House will bear with me when I just read that paragraph with which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, says he can now agree. It is paragraph 13 of Professor Jacob's opinion given to the CPRE, and he said:
"Such an 'integration' of the environmental dimension into the agricultural policy would, in my opinion, be within the competence of the Council under Articles 42 and 43 and it would be an unduly restrictive view of that competence to suggest that environmental considerations could have only a subordinate or ancillary role."
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I hope that that closes what has been an unhappy chapter.
We seem to have been fighting to get established the parity of environmental considerations with agricultural ones in directives or regulations of this kind. It was made worse by the fact that these same witnesses were reporting that there was no machinery for co-ordinating on a regular basis DoE and MAFF opinions on agriculture and the countryside and conservation. Indeed, they were almost indulging in what the late Professor Laski used to call ladling butter out of each other's tubs, by saying that each was very content with the other one in the way that policy was handled at the moment, and neither had any fault to find. If we can put that one to rest, it is worth finally saying this.
The environment programme of the Community, on which I am engaged part of the time as an adviser, is moving on very rapidly indeed. We have over 50 directives behind us now. In many of the directives we have dealt with pollution, with the outlawing of blacklisted substances, with the quality of the environment around us. However, the significance of the third action programme, which came into existence a year or so ago, is that it says that we must continue to cure pollution wherever we find it but that we must now set out much more deliberately to prevent the pollution and degradation of the environment so that the need for pollution measures does not so naturally arise.
The significance of the statement in the third action programme is that one of the prime areas to be looked at in building environmental considerations into sector policy-making is agriculture, where so much damage can, in many cases inadvertently, be done, often for the best reasons in the world, by the individual farmer. Now that it has been established that the third action programme can be accepted in its entirety and written into all policymaking this may be, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, the most historic aspect of the report. It will make sure that on all future occasions everybody will be looking for the building of environmental considerations into agricultural policymaking and into other sector-making as well.
My final words are directed at what was said this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. Despite his charm, honeyed words, personal courtesy and soft tone, he had very little to tell us. If one looks at the paragraph which makes the main recommendations about the alterations to the draft directive, the noble
120
Lord did not tell us whether the Government intend to accept any part of it. I very much hope that somebody will do so before the debate is ended.
The noble Lord said that a new section of MAFF will look at the co-ordination of environmental problems, but he did not say whether the Government accept paragraph 138(a): that a reference to the third action programme on the environment should be incorporated in the preamble. He did not say whether care of the environment should have comparable status, as in paragraph (b), with the production of food. The noble Lord did not tackle the problem of the uplands nor the suggestion in paragraph (c) of paragraph 138 that Articles 13 to 15 should be altered so that income support to less well-off farmers might be dissociated from levels of production—in other words, lower intensity farming. The noble Lord did not mention any of the practical suggestions which are of fundamental concern to the environmentalists. These are contained in the positive recommendations in the committee's report. In that respect his remarks were rather thin.
What the noble Lord said about Article 3.5 of the existing regulations was very interesting. He said that the British Government would seek a replacement of Article 3.5 to take care of those areas where conservation ought to be practised. There might be some misunderstanding about this. For some years in my work at Brussels I have been active over obtaining agreement—we seem to be very near to obtaining it now—on a draft directive upon environmental impact assessment. We have had to reach agreement with the British Government by means of regular meetings at official level over many years in order to iron out misunderstandings in areas where clarification is needed. I am wondering whether that might be the way in which to move forward in relation to Article 3.5. It would give some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who is very passionate about this issue.
While the Government are pursuing the idea of an amended Article 3.5, I am wondering whether or not at an official level we should have meetings in Brussels to try to get down on paper the precise response that they would make under the present regulation to the areas which the noble Lord wants to include for conservation purposes in the structures policy. If the noble Lord thinks that this is a good idea, since we have practised it to good effect in the environmental impact assessment directive, I should be delighted to take a hand in trying to arrange it.
I conclude by saying again what a privilege it was to serve under the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill; what a timely and important report this is; and how important I think it will be historically for showing a first directive, or first regulation, in which we are saving that the environmental dimension must be put on terms of parity with the sector policy-making concern. It is indeed an historic day for those of us who work in the Environment Directorate of the Commission in Brussels.
10.20 p.m.
Viscount Sidmouth: My Lords, as a member of his committee I should like to join in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, in steering the committee through what was a rather difficult subject.

121
We were indeed subjected at times to rather extreme views which, to my mind, were typified by a proposition—now rightly relegated to a footnote on page v—which stated:
"Modern agriculture is incompatible with almost everything else."
The obvious exaggeration of this statement seems to stem from a practice which was noticeable among some of the witnesses, I thought, of extrapolating from a narrow base and arriving at conclusions not always tempered by reality.
To those giving evidence, "the environment" clearly meant different things, ranging from amenity, through an ecology untouched by human hands, to the preservation of specific flora or fauna deemed to be threatened. To the man in the street, it is probably amenity which comes most readily to mind. Most British people, especially those who have been expatriates, will have experienced the nostalgia of those calendars illustrated each month or week with scenes from rural Britain. Although, of course, they show natural features such as hills, rivers, coastlines, etc., in almost every case there will be clear evidence of human activity, whether it be villages or churches, but much of it agricultural, as the setting for that amenity. I submit that amenity and agriculture are by no means incompatible, and, indeed, that the one enhances the other. Without human intervention and care, most of our countryside would consist of badly-grown scrub interspersed with tangled woodlands. There is an old saying that "it is a stupid bird that fouls its own nest", and farmers are not so stupid as to foul up the surroundings in which they have to live.
Certainly there is a need for care. and the report lists sonic issues, such as the removal of hedges and stone walls, where amenity can be impaired. The Commission proposes rightly that there should no longer he any grant aid for these activities; and, perhaps more importantly, the great majority of the farming community condemns the type of "prairie farming" which does such things. I believe that care is needed also. on amenity grounds, in the siting and designing of farm buildings. so that silos, for example, are not placed on sky-lines, and utility buildings generally are suitably planted out by trees.
The issues are more complex when it comes to conservation. When the original National Park was set up in the Congo by King Albert of the Belgians he directed that human activity and influence should be totally excluded. This has long since been found impractical, even in Africa, and it is certainly not possible in a country such as Britain. The motive, of course, was that where human interests and those of flora and fauna come into conflict, the former generally prevails. But it is by no means proven that these interests must always be in conflict, especially if you are considering farming as opposed to, say, mining or heavy industry. For example, in this country much farming takes place in national parks, where it is specifically more subject to environmental constraints than elsewhere.
As we heard earlier this evening from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. these farmers had to give prior notification to the national parks authorities regarding improvements they wished to carry out so that the environmental implications could be considered. It is
122
remarkable from the evidence we heard how few cases have been "called in "by the authorities—and of these few, there was no evidence of any of them having been ruled out altogether. This point is relevant when considering the modified system of prior approval recommended by the committee.
To conclude, there is a problem here of reconciliation of interest, and the committee were no doubt right to draw attention to it and to recommend that more attention should be paid officially to the environmental role in agriculture. In my view, the main criticism levelled at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is rather immoderate and not justified by any concrete evidence given to the committee. As we have heard this evening from the noble Lord. Lord Belstead, they have been engaged for some time in giving advice and particularly in research which contains environmental elements. They are quite right to regard it as impractical and unnecessary to try to impose a whole environmental régime on the CAP. Such an attempt would be opposed on both agricultural and financial grounds. Far better to capitalise on the goodwill already there towards environmental matters among the public and the farmers. It would then be found I believe that quite small changes in policy within the means of many farmers could produce a considerable dividend in environmental gain.
The committee were impressed by the evidence of the farming and wildlife advisory groups, who advocated this approach. Reinforced by an enhanced environmental role for ADAS—about which we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, this evening; and it is a concept which he accepted in his evidence to the committee—that way lies the best chance of progress towards the change of heart desired by many conservationists.
10.27 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, in the course of the debate so far this evening one or two hobby horses have been put out to browse within the red leather environment of your Lordships' House, and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has loosed a particularly intriguing hare. On the other hand, as a member of both sub-committees, I feel that I have had the opportunity to voice my opinion in general terms of both inquiries under the very able chairmanship of the two noble Lords, Lord Greenhill and Lord Adrian.
I shall not therefore pick up the general threads; nor shall I indulge myself by responding to any particular issue raised in the debate. I should like to take this opportunity briefly to draw the Government's attention to two single points that are made—one in each report, both of them financial, and both of which I think ought to be registered but which have not hitherto been mentioned this evening.
In the report on the structural directives by the subcommittee of the European Communities committee, in paragraph 60, the issue of costs of the proposed draft regulations was raised, as my noble friend Lord Belstead will remember, for he kindly came to the committee on 10th April. It was pointed out, particularly in paragraphs 598, 613 and 614 of the evidence, that MAFF justifiably opposed additional expenditure placed upon the EEC budget by the proposed

123
regulations. This of course must especially be true when the budget is in fact a set of obligations rather than a fixed sum within which expenditure must be contained. This of course is the essence of the CAP rgime.
However, the report—in paragraph 60 in particular—points out that adoption of a more environmental approach, which has been urged in the report itself and echoed by your Lordships this evening, and adoption of the measures that are specified would, in fact, bring a net increase in the inflow of funds from the Community into this country. I could cite a number of instances in which environmentally beneficial payments are already being made which could perfectly well be brought into the regime of the draft regulations.
For example, at present the Countryside Commission gives grants to farmers for small woodland plantations. These grants nowadays generally require, with respect to the noble Lord. Lord Middleton, that indigenous species—that is, native, broad leaf species—are planted, and there are among us some who regard the sycamore as an alien intruder; and that includes the grey squirrel, who does his best to get rid of it. I see no fundamental objection to the use of European Community agricultural funds by departments of this country which are not actually called the agricultural department. I do not see in other member states any precise parallel to our own MAFF. Not all member states unite food and fisheries with their agricultural departments. So there is no particular reason why these grants should not, in my view, he channelled within our own member state through a department called the Department of the Environment. It is the essence of Community legislation that each member state enacts directives into its national framework through whatever means appear to be appropriate. I believe—and I stress this to my noble friend the Minister—that the United Kingdom is already well placed institutionally to take very quick advantage of many of the "environmental" provisions within the proposed structural regulations.
The Commission has estimated that adoption of the measures will increase the Community's agricultural budget. But if a large proportion, or a larger proportion, of the increase—even if it is only 25 per cent. reimbursement to the United Kingdom—flows into our country as a contribution to United Kingdom projects, then by any way that the figures are calculated that must he good news to the United Kingdom. I believe that if our representatives at Brussels firmly take the new approach of the type promised by my noble friend in his opening speech, it will he to our national advantage. Therefore, I urge him to tell his negotiators to be resolute and to be chauvinistic, because what is beneficial to the environment of the United Kingdom is beneficial to the environment of Europe.
Turning to the second report—the report of the Science and Technology Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian—I again wish to make a financial point. It relates to Recommendation No. 20, which urges the AFRC (the Agricultural and Food Research Committee) and the Natural Environment Research Council to fund a higher proportion of
124
research in universities on agricultural/environmental margin. I am a member of the Natural Environment Research Council and I know that it broadly welcomes all recommendations of this report that affect its function as a research council. But we must be cautious. A general willingness to support university-based research in this field, or in any other. does not automatically herald the start of a multitude of appropriate projects, such as the very long list that was recommended to your Lordships' Select Committee by the various witnesses.
As I hope the Select Committee has stressed with sufficient force, there is at this time intense competition for science Vote funds. That competition exists both between and within research councils and applies to applicants from universities as much as to research programmes within the institutes of those research councils. However strongly it may be urged that research projects in this field—the interface between agriculture and environmental research—should be supported. it would not be beneficial to science on the national scale if mediocre subjects were to be funded simply because the topic was in an area which had become fashionable. It is a fact that today even good scientific projects face increasing difficulties in finding support from the science Vote through the research councils for reasons which in fact are largely financial. There simply is not enough money to fund all research projects that are submitted for support.
In that context I should like to highlight one particular problem which is faced by the research councils: it is the cost of university studentships and of the salaries of research assistants. The same unhappy sequence of events has occurred in the past two years during my membership of the Natural Environment Research Council. In 1983 the Department of Education and Science allowed research councils a 3.5 per cent. cash increase, in particular for the revaluation of research assistant salaries. Subsequently, academic pay awards were negotiated and those gave, on average, a 5.4 per cent. increase. The money had to be found by the research councils from somewhere or other. Inevitably such an increase over and above imposed cash limits simply restricts the funds that are available for new research projects. The same story can be told of 1984, where the cash limits were 4 per cent. The Department of Education and Science has very recently—long after those cash limits were set—announced levels of postgraduate grants which are to apply from September of this year. They range from 5.8 per cent. to 7.3 per cent.
I do not say that graduate students are being over-generously treated: they are not. The annual allowance is £3,170 in London and £2,580 elsewhere for a student who is not living at home. But what response, I ask, was expected of the research councils at this late stage in the year? I do not think that NERC can be blamed if a decision is made to reduce the number of new studentships quite simply to cut the cake that has been given according to the new size of slice. Inevitably, such an increase simply means that there is less research done for the same amount of money. The cash limit system does not seem to me to be working efficiently in that context. The research councils are not party to the negotiations over academic pay, nor to those that come to decisions on student grants. I

125
wonder whether the Department of Education and Science negotiators appreciate the consequences of setting awards at levels which exceed the cash limits.
I do not see that this is an area in which a market economy can work. If our national scientific capacity is to he safeguarded, it is not a matter of market adjustments. The nation needs to support research in new fields, such as those that have been identified by your Lordships' Select Committee. I think that the problem of cash limits in that context is one which must he faced.
10.39 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I too am a member of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. I also start from a keen interest in the quality of the scientific endeavour behind the activities we are discussing and also of course in the research scientists responsible. I visited the Rothamsted Experimental Station and there I was greatly impressed by the quality of the people concerned and the wide vision that many of them have, including a very acute appreciation of many of the environmental problems concerned. I did not visit any NERC institutes so I am unable to comment on them.
However, like the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, I have to ask how far the scientists are able to carry out the research in the way that they would like and the way that most speakers in this debate would like. I am rather doubtful about their chances. There are several factors which restrict them. As we said in Paragraph 3.12 of our report,
"the customer/contractor principle works imperfectly on the margin of agriculture and environmental research. Slight defects are apparent at the contractor level hut the main failing occurs at the customer level".
I will first say something about research council funding. As has been said, this is from the Science Vote, but it is mainly directed to fundamental research. Generally speaking, the research relevant to this debate is not fundamental, it is applied. While some long-term applied research may be funded from the Science Vote, the main responsibility for funding lies with the customer departments who commission applied research in accordance with the Rothschild principle. All research councils are hard pressed by spending cuts and the AFRC has been hit by the need to transfer a significant amount of its resources from agriculture to food research. In such circumstances, it is only to be expected that research council funding is concentrated on mainstream subjects rather than on marginal projects for which perhaps another research council might arguably be responsible.
As your Lordships know, the main paymasters for applied research in agriculture are the agriculture departments. The thrust of their research programmes decides the balance of the national programme. The agricultural departments are also cash limited. Therefore they too concentrate on mainstream projects and especially the more immediate ones. By their own admission in evidence to us, they are underfunding strategic research—that is, long-term but directed research. This is something that concerns me greatly. Strategic research is the area for which the Rothschild principle, as operated, is least well suited
126
and in agriculture it is precisely the sort of research with which this debate is concerned.
The fact that we can debate the science and technology report together with the EEC report is very helpful. It helps to identify an important strand in agricultural policy which directly influences research priorities. In recent years the main research effort in agriculture, as has been said, has concentrated on maximising agricultural production, and it has achieved great successes. But maximum production can no longer be the sole objective of agricultural departments. In some cases it may even be the wrong objective. The growth of public interest in environmental factors, whether it be pesticide levels, conservation or landscape beauty, has to be set alongside agricultural production in determining research priorities. The programme needs to he harmonised. The Government's programme, as seen from a point of advantage such as your Lordships' House. should make sense.
Several recommendations in our report seek to meet this point but I should like to mention only three. The first is the obligation, which we want the agricultural departments to accept. to represent the wider public interest in agriculture, as well as the narrower but of course essential interest in the farming and food industries. The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has already explained the details of this proposal. Secondly, the agricultural departments must fund more strategic research. That is where the main gap in research lies at the moment. To meet the wider public interests to which I have just referred, more emphasis on long-term programmes is required.
The third recommendation suggests a forum in which discussion of research programmes can take place and the interests of agricultural and environmental research can be drawn together. This recommendation is for regular meetings between the chief scientist groups of the agriculture departments and the DoE together with the agricultural and natural environment research councils, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commissions. These are the main bodies responsible for commissioning research and the main research contractors.
How can even modest sums he provided to facilitate this matter? I raised earlier the question of funding. This may be an important contributing factor, but I suspect that it is not the basic one. The Medical Research Council and the Department of Health and Social Security have always been close and have operated successfully the Rothschild principle but they have now changed to a very much more flexible new agreement. The funding is decided once a year at a formal meeting. But to discuss these matters, scientists meet every week. The programme of strategic research is, I believe, going extremely well. Could not others learn from this example?
10.46 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, verbal self-discipline is, I feel, essential this evening if we are to make progress. There has been a lot of talking. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has importance far beyond the narrow confines of an EEC directive. When his Committee wrote it, I believe that it realised

127
that. Paragraph 126 of the opinion of the Committee says so. as does paragraph 139, the last paragraph. The report asks us to re-think our countryside policies. On that, it is to be congratulated and its recommendation supported wholeheartedly. It is a true judgment. The report says in paragraph 134 that the draft regulation is too closely production-orientated, and later in the same paragraph, adds:
"MAFF. by their narrow interpretation of the few innovative features it contains, reinforce this backward-looking tendency".
Reading the Ministry's evidence, I am afraid that I draw the same conclusions. I am happy to see that MAFF's view on environmental protection has now been successfully challenged. Both MAFF and the DoE had urged, as some of us had urged previously, that there must be a change. This change is necessitated in part by the success of the agricultural industry. That success has not always increased farmers' incomes. Paragraph 28 says that short-term decisions have produced environmental damage.
This success in response to signals being given by a single-minded Ministry is producing the criticism now being heard, some of it as stated in paragraph 129, often exaggerated. I hope, when I read that the noble Lord. Lord Melchett, has been suggesting that people should tie themsleves to bulldozers at Halvergate, that the noble Lord will dissociate himself from this irresponsible, dangerous and counter-productive behaviour.
Added to the influence and width of the agricultural and environmental report, the fact that the Secretary of State for the Environment has issued an Article 4 directive has probably changed the conception of our countryside policies. If an 1DB was to be refused planning permission to drain after an Article 4 directive, they, having no value in the land, would not receive any compensation. But presumably, even though the adjacent landowners had lost potential value, they would not get compensation because they themselves had not applied for planning permission. In the present case. the landowner, if he is refused planning permission to drain, will get compensation, probably based on a capital sum under the guidelines of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. However, there is a major difference. The authorities used to creep up to the landowner and say, "How much do you want for not draining the land?" The landowner, before the golden days of management agreements and when he was not going to drain the land anyway, would think of a sum and, when possible, double it. Under the new situation the landowner has to prove loss to the satisfaction of the district valuer. The situation was very different from the present system of management agreements.
I know that so far only one Article 4 direction on land drainage has been issued, but in today's climate, so well illustrated by this report, it cannot be the last. For instance, the Derwent Ings are a very suitable candidate for Article 4 treatment. As it will not be the last. I now suggest that the voluntary concept of the Wildlife and Countryside Act has been undermined nearly to the point of collapse. However, it has been undermined in a haphazard way. I hope that when my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale comes to reply he will enlighten the House on the problems of this Article 4
128
directive. I gave my noble friend warning that I would raise this matter and he said to me, "Does it really come within the concept of this debate?" I looked at the recommendations and at the breadth that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill. had given himself, and I think that I persuaded my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale that it came within the concept of this debate.
I hope that the Government will take to heart the major re-think provided by this excellent report. When both the CLA and the Open Spaces Society welcome it, when the CPRE and the CLA issue joint statements, then surely the Government will undertake to review the wildlife Act and to move from a maximum food production policy to a policy for the countryside as a whole. I certainly support what my noble friend Lord Middleton said on the subject of the Ministry of Agriculture doing this and what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about the use not only of agriculture, but also of roads, water, etc. We need the concept of a "Ministry for the Countryside" as a whole and if the Ministry of Agriculture were given the firm political directions needed. it would be a very good Ministry to carry out that work.
The commitment of my noble friend Lord Belstead to ask Brussels for agricultural money for the environment is a major step forward. I hope that if he does not get it from Brussels he will at least transfer some of his Ministry's money to the environment. I am sure that we can pay my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley to grow butterflies, just as much as we pay him at the moment to grow corn.
Certainly as regards our countryside policy, farming will always play not only the central, but also the pivotal role. But farming policies must be more sensitive to people's aesthetic feelings and more mindful of the different countryside interests. MAFF must realise that conservation and care of the environment is not just a question of planting new hedges, new trees and building new walls—it is also a question of looking after old hedges, old trees and old grazing marshes.
10.53 p.m.
Lord Raglan: My Lords, all my working life I have been a farmer, and my sole income is from farming. I know to my cost that there can be no quicker way of losing money, and so I have a great respect for good farmers who I thought were doing a fair job of husbanding the land, which apart from our lost elms looks more attractive to me than ever I remember. Only last week one of my noble friends, who is not a farmer and who had just "helicoptered" from London to Hereford, told me that he had never seen the countryside looking more marvellous, and that he had felt like God visiting his own country. I admit that that was before the straw burning started!
On the sub-committee on which I served we heard another view—sometimes advanced with passion—that farmers were spoiling the countryside abetted by MAFF, to which the DoE had abdicated its responsibility. I think that I have summed up the situation fairly. There was potential for disagreement and I should like to thank our chairman who lived up

129
to his name by remaining cool and elevated, and very good-humoured as well. Although I am not particularly happy with the report itself, I think that the whole exercise was useful in airing many questions.
However, I felt very strongly that behind many criticisms of farming were other largely unspoken ones which inhibited a constructive dialogue. For instance, there is often a very great reluctance to accept what the report points out; that farming shaped the countryside, which is artificial. In that sense agriculture and the environment are not distinct, but are very much the same, and, with respect, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, made rather heavy going on that point. Indeed, all the specific evidence critical of farming related to change—actual or threatened—from one farming environment to another.
Yet as one who for many years has been heavily involved in urban conservation, where we must get our facts and figures right or be shot down, I was surprised by how little many lobbyists knew of farming—its history, operations, techniques, economics and terminology— or the CAP. That is a deficiency which I hope can he remedied. But there is a further obstacle to understanding which I perceive as the spirit of Rousseau. Your Lordships may remember that he was the Swiss philosopher who promoted the concept of natural man returning to a state of grace amid an idealised nature. This idea swept urban Europe at the end of the eighteenth century and had wide ramifications in the nineteenth century. Marie Antoinette, dressed as a shepherdess, was one product of it, and it led to much of what I have heard charmingly called "peasant fancying". It greatly affected art, and I am indebted to another noble friend for the observation that Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard represents a townsman's thoughts. Nowadays Rousseau is the spirit which takes people on long treks to country cottages of a Friday night. He often pops up on television, where the word "natural" is joined with any product which can possibly he associated with the countryside. There are variations. I have seen "Farmer's Wife Bran", and also a gadget to make "country fresh" air to prevent hay-fever.
For those who can afford to live in the countryside. and who expect a slightly updated version of a homeward-plodding ploughman, to find instead the driveway blocked by a youth on a 200-horsepower tractor with reversible plough, or to have a combine thundering past at night, is not, in their opinion, farming; that is not the real country. It is though, and has been for many years, and it will be for the foreseeable future.
I think that this is the sentiment at the back of the frequent criticism of cereal farmers, although it is not they who have created an intractable surplus; that is milk. To support milk takes half the CAP budget, but dairy farmers have the image of small men with animals in green fields with hedges, and they suit the rustic picture better. In the main, too, as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said, those species-rich meadows have yielded not to cereals, but to Sir George Stapleton, the great scientific director at Aberystwyth, who invented ley farming half a century ago.
If I have no sympathy at all for those who do not get their facts together or those who over-romanticise the
130
countryside, I incline to the view mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that we should not try too hard to grow food in places least suited to it, such as the hills. That would leave more room for leisure use as well. But if economic agriculture were to retreat from the hills, conservationists would still want to have them farmed, and the question is, by whom and, of course, what happens to the people who are there now?
In the lowlands the problem is even more difficult. Urban conservationists have rescued buildings from the planners only because they have been excellent investments, as we knew that they would be. There is a dictum, too, that if you want to preserve a building, you should find an economic use for it. Country conservationists, though, want farmers to make financial sacrifices towards what is not necessarily a countryman's view of a healthy countryside. In addition, they want farmers to farm a whole lot of wild things they might rather be without. If they are to be induced to do it, it needs reasoned persuasion and a good understanding of the problems.
As the evidence solicited from the conservationists piled up with only a few sheets from the CLA and the NFU on the other side of the fence, I thought it would be helpful to hear from a farmer who was also a keen conservationist. The chairman invited Mr. Oscar Colburn, a well-known farmer, whose evidence begins on page 207. However, your Lordships will see from the top of the page that we missed from the room all my noble colleagues—there were five I can think of—who had pressed for the sub-committee to be set up. I have been wondering about that ever since. I do not want to make too much of the matter because I like them all, but it is yet another factor which shows that this whole subject is more difficult and complex than at first sight it may seem.
11.1 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, this is an unnaturally late hour for farmers and, I suspect, for environmentalists, so I shall he brief. Like other speakers I shall contain my remarks to just one of the two most important reports. I shall contain my remarks to the blue report on Agricultural and Environmental Research. I do so because I have to declare an interest, in that I am not just a farmer; I am also chairman of the Agricultural Food Research Council, a body which will derive much benefit, I am certain, by this report. I do however speak for myself and not for the council.
This report was rightly concerned to inquire into the interface between agricultural and environmental research to see whether it was the case that somewhere, particularly in times of financial stringency, they were failing to be supported because they appeared not to be sufficiently important to any of the potential contractors. But it is important to point out, as the report fairly does, that much research which is aimed at agricultural objectives is not different in kind from research aimed at environmental objectives. That does not surprise me at all, although I was nevertheless gratified to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, that when the committee visited

131
Rothamstead they found that much good agricultural science there was extremely well based in environmental objectives.
The work that I would refer to which would be common ground—and it amounts to a considerable part of the research portfolio of the Agricultural Research Service—would be particularly concerned with the more strategic and even basic work in the soil sciences, the nitrogen cycle and particularly understanding about living organisms and the systems in which they occur, which are areas of work which must be fundamental to both the agricultural sciences and to an understanding of the environment.
Even when we go a bit further downstream towards the more applied end of the spectrum, I do not quite follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. as far as he would go in suggesting that until recently the objective of agricultural research has been to increase production. Although that has certainly been the case since the war, it has probably equally been the case since our entry into the EEC and very much more so in recent years that the writing has been on the wall for many to see that the farmer will soon be looking for lower input systems. Certainly to bring us right up to date to the days of quotas for the milk farmer, this has concentrated the mind wonderfully for that particular section of the agricultural industry. Certainly the arable farmer is following closely behind as prices squeeze on his outputs.
There is considerable interest from the farmer as well as the environmentalist to see how inputs can be lessened. Although this can often be work of an applied nature, the objectives, be they agricultural or environmental, march hand in hand to an extent which perhaps might not be readily apparent.
Farmers are at the moment looking at the extension of biological control (used already in the glasshouse, but now. hopefully, to be moved outside) as a system of reducing their inputs—a system which obviously has much attraction to the wider community. The farmer is looking at a very much more efficient control of agro-chemicals, partly because by putting on very much smaller quantities more precisely he is reducing his inputs. The environmentalist, nevertheless, is equally concerned that he should do that and not splash chemicals around in a noxious way. Again, the livestock farmer is looking with great interest at how he can make better use of indigenous grasses, of legumes and the like—all of which is common ground.
However, as the report has emphasised, there will be areas where a customer department will be required for the wider public than the farming industry. I support strongly, as others have from both sides of the House, that it is centrally the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture to represent this wider public. It is a matter of great concern that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others have expressed such misgivings about the commitment of the Ministry of Agriculture in the past. I hope that they will find solace, as I do, from the observations of my noble friend Lord Belstead and that we shall, in turn, find that the Minister can implement the enhanced role of the Ministry just as we would wish.
The role of the Ministry in this area in the blue report is to commission further research at a time, as
132
we have heard from my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, when funds for research councils and for commissioning departments are greatly reduced. It must be of great concern to us tonight to know what chance the Ministry of Agriculture has in being able to hold its own in its research budget, let alone expand it to take on this wider remit which so many of us urge the commissioning departments to underwrite, not only for the farming community but for the wider public.
The Ministry of Agriculture's record in defending itself from the stringent cuts by the Treasury in its research budget have not been very successful to date. All right: the science budget as a whole has been under threat: but it is a matter of particular concern that at a time when the agriculture industry is. in the words of the report, in a state of flux. at a time when the intolerable cost of the common agricultural policy must be reduced— farmers recognise widely that this is the case—the industry has to alter agricultural systems, if not overnight (as in the case of the dairy farmer) certainly over a short timescale. This will create a strong requirement for research results.
The role of research is to give options to industry and the wider public. If systems of support are to be changed for the farmer, great burdens will be placed on the commissioning departments which have undertaken that research work to show the farmer how he will cope in a different financial climate. The fact that we now find that some of the support systems, though not all, for which the CAP has evolved, have led us into something of a blind alley and that farming can perhaps no longer be supported on some sites and on some farms. puts a great onus on the Ministry of Agriculture to ensure that the commissioning for the farmer is continually underwritten at a reasonably generous level. I know the constraints under which the Ministry of Agriculture suffers as to the funding of the department, but it simply cannot opt out, when such great changes are being made in agriculture, from the need for applied research and for developing findings for the industry. At the same time, we recognise that it must take on this wider role for the public.
I ask my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, when he replies to the debate, to give us an assurance, not only that the Ministry of Agriculture will undertake the wider brief for commissioning environmental research for the public, but at the same time will fight strenuously to ensure that the support which farmers are entitled to ask for, I think, is maintained. I think that if that assurance cannot be given the only conclusion that can be drawn is that, although there might be a new unit within the Ministry, the environmental co-ordinating unit, without additional funds to support the environmental research it is very difficult to see how much benefit will come for the research service from this wider brief.
11.11 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I welcome what I believe are two excellent reports—as I think has been the case with nearly everybody who has spoken. I think that it is worth pointing out that the unanimous conclusions of both probably would have been unthinkable three or four years ago, and it is unfortunately the fact that it was three or four years ago that we were debating

133
and passing the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Attitudes have changed dramatically since then and I think that the conclusions that these two reports reach and the fact that they have received such a widespread welcome—including a welcome, if cautious, from the National Farmers' Union—demonstrates that. The reports have also received, and particularly the European Communities one, a very strong welcome from conservation bodies, which is not surprising, as the Countryside Commission, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Council for the National Parks have pointed out that the reports' conclusions mirror almost exactly the evidence which those organistations gave to the committee.
Looking back on the debate, I must say that I regret that my noble friend Lord John-Mackie and his noble kinsman on the Liberal Front Bench, in their preambles, took us back to attitudes being expressed not three or four years ago when we were debating the Wildlife and Countryside Bill but 30 or 40 years ago. Both noble Lords seemed to me to show an ignorance of what conservationists are on about and what their interests and their attitudes are, and to dismiss the views of millions of people, including many, many farmers, who do show a real concern about the very real changes that have taken place and are taking place in the countryside. I think that that was regrettable. I would not want to dwell on that, because both noble Lords, somewhat paradoxically, went on, as I do, to welcome both reports.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, acknowledged that change is coming to agricultural policy, as many other noble Lords have said, but he pleaded for time for farmers and the Ministry of Agriculture to adjust to this and to adapt. Milk producers faced with quotas might also enter the same plea but to little avail. In the light of that plea for more time. I think that it is worth stressing that the most significant fact that conservationists will have taken from the evidence to these two committees is that given by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to the European Communities Select Committee on page 113, where, using Ministry of Agriculture statistics, they show that the rate of loss of moorland in England, Scotland and Wales has been increasing in recent years—in fact accelerating very rapidly. Indeed, in Scotland the rate of loss has gone up by four times compared with the average rate of loss since the war. So conservationists feel very strongly, in response to what the noble Lord. Lord Stanley, had to say that time is, in fact, running out.
It seems to me that recently Ministers at the Department of the Environment have recognised that fact and have been saying some outstandingly positive things about conservation. For example, the Secretary of State for the Environment said recently—and I quote from Farmers' Weekly, which I hope is a reliable source:
"A minuscule part of the sums of money which go to the support of agriculture and forestry diverted to the aims of conservation would work wonders".
And the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment in another place on 11th July; talking about the Norfolk Broads—to which I hope to return—said:
134
"We have all learned that we must have a new and more integrated régime on the Norfolk Broads so that we do not continue having absurd arguments".
I think that there are many conservationists and many farmers who would strongly agree with that. But it is not enough for the Government to make positive noises either in general terms about conservation or in response to these two reports. While all of us would have wished for rather more positive noises from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, at the start of the debate, the Government will be judged not by the noise they make but by the action they take on the ground.
I should like briefly to mention one or two areas where action is needed. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, mentioned the Derwent Ings. A decision about that now rests with the Government. It is a grade one site of special scientific interest which the local drainage board wants to drain. It is a European Birds Directive special protection area. The Government will be judged on whether they protect that area for conservation or whether they fail to.
In Wales, the Secretary of State has to take a decision about an area of forest at Nant-y-Brain which is threatened with coniferisation—conifer plantations. It is one of the last sections of open moorland in that part of central Wales. The Government will be judged on the decision which the Secretary of State takes in that case. In Scotland, the Government's record since the passing of the Wildlife and Countryside Act has frankly been deplorable. There have been huge losses of moor and heath on Orkney in recent years and although conservationists are under severe pressure in areas such as that, in sharp contrast to the Department of the Environment in England, the Government in Scotland have not felt able to make any remarks in favour of conservation in attempts to sort out the problem. in sharp contrast to the actions taken, for example, on the Somerset Levels.
On the Islay the Secretary of State for Scotland has just approved a planning application to extract peat from a large area of peat moss. This is an area of international importance for the Greenland white-fronted goose. It is a special protection area under the European Community's Birds Directive. It is the third time that the Government in Scotland will have been taken to the Commission for breaches of the European Birds Directive. That is a deplorable record for a country which prides itself on its conservation of wildlife.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what these huge losses of moorland amount to? How many acres does this amount to in proportion to the area of moorland in Scotland?
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the statistics are set out in the evidence to the European Community's report. I am sure that at this time of night the noble Lord will not want me to go through that in a great deal of detail. I have given him the page reference and I am sure that he has the report and has read this evidence in great detail and with great interest himself. The current rate of reduction over the five years from 1976 to 198 I has been 58,073 hectares. That is roughly four times the average rate of loss in the period since the last war.

135
The Secretary of State for Scotland now wishes, as I understand it, to give a grant for planting forests in Creag Meagaidh, another site of special scientific interest. I am glad to say that in that case it appears that the Department of the Environment in England has intervened. but again the Government will be judged on whether the conservationists' case being made from London will overcome the apparently anti-conservationist stance once again being taken by the Scottish Office.
In all these cases the Government will have to be judged by their actions, as they will on their response to these reports. On the Norfolk Broads, a Government Minster, Mr Waldegrave, recently said that the area was safe for a year. Since that time—indeed, within a few weeks—two areas have been destroyed. The Government need to implement the Section 41 designation of the whole area under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, as they have been asked to do for a long time. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, they need to implement an Article 4 directive to stop drainage in that area, and I would agree with him on the Derwent Ings as well.
The Earl of Swinton: They have, my Lords,
Lord Melchett: I heard the noble Earl say that they have, but only on a very small area of the Broads and not on the area which was being damaged towards the end of last week. The Government should give a commitment that they will give no further agricultural grants for improvement in that area and instead agricultural money should be diverted to support the current livestock farming systems in that area.
I should like to make two final points. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, asked me about a press report. I am happy to correct one aspect of that. I am not an Opposition spokesman in this House on the environment, and have not been in the past. The newspaper was inaccurate in that respect, and nothing that was said in the television programme on which it was based suggested that I was speaking in anything more than a personal capacity.
My second point, and the point I should like to end on, is to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, had to say about the Government's new initiative on Article 3.5 of the less favoured areas directive, and the need to have a new and wider article, as I understood what he said. I think a number of us will want to study that with care, but my first reaction is to say that this is not a new initiative at all. It is in fact a continuation of the Ministry of Agriculture's persistent view that it is impossible under the current less favoured areas directive to do what the Select Committee's report said could be done, and what the Select Committee's report said was already being done in other countries; in other words, a new initiative is simply not necessary.
I am afraid a number of us feel that, in taking an initiative of this sort, the Government are, first of all, putting up a smokescreen to cover the fact that they are not actually accepting what the report says and the clear legal view which has been expressed in the report. Secondly, we feel that, if this initiative is knocked on the head in the Community, the Government will not shed too many tears and, what is more, will then refuse
136
to implement the measures which the committee have clearly said they could implement under the less favoured areas directive. The committee received evidence which clearly said that these measures were already being taken in the Netherlands under existing legislation.
So I hope that the Government will not try to sidetrack those of us who listened to the discussions which the committee had, or those who take an interest in these reports, with new initiatives which are in fact a reflection of their past thinking about the narrow interpretation of the directives, which the committee have said clearly, firmly and unanimously are wrong. If the Ministry of Agriculture is to be shifted from that, the Department of the Environment has a lot of work to do, and I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Skelmersdale, will tell us how they intend to set about it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am grateful to him for answering half my question: hut did he, or did he not, say in the interview that he recommended people breaking the civil law?
Lord Melchett: My Lords. I was hoping at this time of night that the noble Lord would not sidetrack me into something which does not seem to me to be particularly relevant to the conclusions reached by either of the Select Committees, but since he has, with your Lordships' leave, I feel obliged to answer him. I did say that; and I said it because the Government, when passing the Wildlife and Countryside Act, said that the voluntary restraint system to safeguard wildlife habitats in the countryside would work. They said that very largely on the evidence of farmers such as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, who himself said that a voluntary restraint system would protect the countryside.
That has proved to be totally wrong. In the case of the Norfolk Broads, the Government Minister gave a clear and unequivocal undertaking to Parliament that they were safe for a year. Within weeks, that was shown to be completely wrong. In those circumstances, I think that people who peacefully attempt to protect the countryside, as Friends of the Earth have been doing on the Norfolk Broads, should have the support of all of us who care about the countryside, including the noble Lord.
11.23 p.m.
Viscount Blakenham: My Lords, it is late and I will try to be brief. Two conclusions from the Agricultural and Environmental Research Report are, first, that greater co-ordination between agricultural and environmental research is needed; and, secondly, that the obligation of the agricultural department towards the whole environment must be emphasised. I have taken these two quotations from the second report, because it has not been debated so much and because I was on that committee, which was so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. But they do reflect themes which might equally have arisen from either report.
Agriculture is, to a large extent, our countryside environment. Farmers are, to a lesser or greater degree, environmentalists. The growing success of the

137
voluntary farming and wildlife advisory groups is beginning to reflect this awareness of their responsibilities to the environment by individual farmers. But full integration of environmental and agricultural objectives is what is needed. I do not believe that it is practicable or necessary that the Government should have to increase the overall cost of their support to agriculture and the environment; but there is room, as the report points out, for recasting the present expenditure in the United Kingdom within the total spend to give greater emphasis to environmental measures.
But what worries me greatly, particularly after reading the evidence submitted in these reports, is whether the agricultural departments—I include both MAFF and DAFS— either want or are capable of taking on this responsibility. At page 237 of the red report, my noble friend Lord Belstead in his evidence takes credit for helping the FWAGs in a financial way and that report points out that the Ministry of Agriculture's part shows where his heart lies. What worries me is where the heart of the Minister of Agriculture lies; and I think his attitude tonight, when he said that he assured the House that if further change was needed it would be looked at, is a reflection of that attitude.
Of course change is needed. That is what both reports are about. It may not be enormous change but it is a significant change in attitude. We now have enough evidence from the Countryside Commission, from the NCC and from other bodies, not to be doubtful about changes that are taking place in the agricultural landscape and in the uplands, the wetlands and all over the place. I do not think we need to depend on personal anecdote. Either they will have to change their attitude or some of their present resources should be directed to the Department of the Environment.
Both departments are criticised for being insufficiently responsive to public opinion. The problem has been that when it comes to intensive farm production the Ministry of Agriculture has been too effective, and when it comes to the conservation of the environment the Department of the Environment has not been effective enough. Now may be the opportunity for the Department of the Environment to play a less subordinate role. In either case, the overall value of financial support to the farming community would not decrease.
Finally, a more appropriate balance between the needs of agriculture and other environmental interests must be found, and that the care of the environment should have comparable status with the production of food, when it comes to farming improvement, is perhaps the most important conclusion reached by the report. The recommendations in these reports offer an opportunity for harmony rather than conflict, their conclusions should be welcomed and Her Majesty's Government should do their best to implement them, as is suggested, in an unambiguous and enforceable way. This can be done both by putting forward suitable amendments to the draft regulation at the European Community level, and by acting as soon as possible upon the committees' recommendations in the United Kingdom.
11.28 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, this somewhat lengthy but never tedious debate has been characterised by the same spirit of restraint and objectivity that one found in the two reports which we are discussing, and I join in the gratitude expressed by other noble Lords to the two chairmen of those committees and to those responsible for these very valuable and important reports. Dealing first with the report from the Committee on Science and Technology, I have nothing but praise for it and I will not detain your Lordships by going through, point by point, all those aspects with which I agree, but would simply pick out two of them. I was very happy to see the criticisms contained in the report of the customer-contractor principle, particularly as it applied to agriculture and the environment. I have never been happy about this principle, although I accept that in certain cases it is of value. However, the report shows how very dangerous it is in matters such as those which we are discussing.
I am glad, too, that they give prominence to their commendation of the farming and wildlife advisory groups. Those groups, which were very recently formed, are enormously valuable, and in my opinion will probably do more to bring together the potentially conflicting interests of conservationists and agriculturists than any other action which could be taken.
The only area in which I find myself in some disagreement with the report is that which criticises the experiment at Boxworth. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred to it; but, with the greatest respect to the members of the committee, I do not believe that it gives a completely fair assessment of what is being attempted in this experiment. I understand that there were informal consultations with the NCC in the very early stages and that the Weed Research Organisation was involved as part of the Agricultural and Food Research Council, though again in an informal manner, which frequently—I believe noble Lords will agree—is more valuable than formally sitting around a table. Monk Wood was also consulted, I am told—again informally—in the preliminary stages of working out the experiment, though they were not party to the actual design of the experiment.
Those who are responsible for it make it very clear that they are not satisfied with the experiment, very largely because it is on too small a scale. I understand that the plots used for this potentially very important experiment are restricted to 40 hectares, whereas they would have greatly preferred 100 hectares in order to obtain adequate results. Birds, particularly, and insects move over quite wide distances, and a 40 hectare plot is not sufficiently large. However, financial and staff constraints made it impossible for them to carry out the kind of experiment which they would have liked to carry out, and with the resources at their disposal this was the best which could be done. It should be regarded not simply as an experiment to give final results but as an experiment to test the very complicated and sophisticated methodology which must be used in work of this kind. However, that is the only item in the report with which I find myself in some disagreement.
If I may turn to the report of the European Communities Committee, I would suggest to your Lordships—having been, I am happy to say, a member

139
of that committee, having listened to the debate. having read the report and discussed these matters with many people, and having thought about them over many years—that it is convenient to divide the problem of environment and agriculture into three headings. The first—the heading which in the most lucid way one can call the aesthetic aspects of it, which include access —relates to what the countryside looks like: whether there are hedges, trees, wide open spaces; whether people can visit and have picnics there or whether there will he "Trespassers will be prosecuted" signs everywhere. The second heading relates to those sites which are of interest to those whom one can call amateur experts—a sizable body of people who enjoy bird watching, who understand about butterflies—even if they do not possess the expertise which the noble Lord. Lord Stanley of Alderley, may have in due course—who enjoy looking for and who are capable of recognising a whole array of wild flowers but who do not pretend that they are expert scientists.
The third group are areas which are of interest not only to the scientists themselves for specific scientific reasons, but also must be regarded as part of our national heritage and which succeeding generations will look at with interest provided that they are preserved. Those are the three general headings under which we should look at this question.
The first—the aesthetic—covers an enormous range of our land: almost all of our rural land. Much of the argument about this is purely subjective. What is more, it changes from generation to generation. What our fathers and grandfathers enjoyed in the countryside many people today do not approve of. As is often quoted, the changes which took place at the time of the enclosures were viewed with horror by many people, but in fact they are responsible for the countryside as we know it today. All one can say therefore is that this is a very objective matter and it is something for which I do not believe one can legislate. We can only have the form of countryside which, over a long period, will give pleasure to a large number of people with the wholehearted co-operation of those who own the land and those who occupy the land: the landowners and the farmers.
When we are discussing this matter, it is worth reminding your Lordships that where it is thought that farming is destroying or harming the countryside, as opposed to beautifying it, farmers are not, even in those cases, the only culprits. The urban sprawl, the spread of the housing estates of developers and of councils, on the outskirts of what used to be small market towns, the motorways, and things of that sort, all play their part in changing the countryside, in making it less attractive to look at to those of us who are already well housed, but which bring many advantages and benefits to those who are not lucky enough to live in such pleasant surroundings.
Nor must we forget that the enormous demand for water by the urban population as well as the rural population has a profound effect upon our countryside and upon the habitat of the flora and fauna which live in it. Abstraction of water lowers the water table and the whole ecology of the area is changed. But in return people are able to have baths, they have lavatories that flush, they can wash their cars, irrigate their
140
lawns—most of the time—and they have many advantages which they would be very loath to give up. We must bring all these factors into the picture when we are discussing the aesthetic aspects of the countryside.
The second—the amateur/expert areas—is undoubtedly far more likely to give rise to conflict of interest between farmers whose interest is in the land and what it produces. and its capability—as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has rightly pointed out, and my noble friend Lord Raglan too—of providing a livelihood to him and his family; a conflict between him and those who enjoy the flora and fauna. The Wildlife and Countryside Act has attempted to bridge the gap between these conflicts of interest. It is still early days. We discussed it not very long ago. I think in general it has succeeded although there are undoubtedly weaknesses in it which in due course—I hope without too much delay—will be dealt with. There is undoubtedly a need for some objective body to hold the balance between those two conflicting interests, be it the Countryside Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Department of the Environment, or a grouping of all three. Somebody must be the arbiter.
There is one point that we cannot get away from, and it is that conservation. in particular this kind, costs money, and somebody has to pay for it. That somebody is probably the taxpayer.
Third are those areas which are described, perhaps too generously, as sites of special scientific interest. They must be of very special scientific interest, and they must be undoubtedly preserved in their entirety, as they are at the present time. We have not yet found the best means of doing this. I feel (as, I am glad to say, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, mentioned) that something of the nature of a national land trust might well be the best body to do this. It would own land and acquire it. too, preferably voluntarily, but if necessary by compulsory purchase. It would run the land in the interest of the particular scientific aspects for which it had been designated. At the same time, it would make such arrangements as were necessary for the proper management of the land.
I must not detain your Lordships very much longer, but to my mind two points stand out from all the discussions we have had and the evidence we have heard. First, there is no longer a need for greater production from our farms at all costs. I have been farming for many years. I do not want to go back over the ground which the noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Mackie of Benshie, have covered in respect of the past, but when I started farming the main object of agricultural policy was to keep farmers alive at the minimum cost. Then came the war. when the object was to produce as much food of a bulky nature as possible in order to feed the population and to save our own shipping from having to bring food into this country.
At the end of the war we switched from that policy to producing food of the highest dollar value in order to save our valuable and short-in-supply foreign exchange. So in a relatively short space of time we have had already three shifts of policy. There then followed the fourth shift, that of maximum production, when we joined the Common Market.

141
Those shifts have been achieved relatively painlessly. Now is the time for another shift; a shift away from maximum production and towards the preservation, conservation and enhancement of the environment. On the other hand, conservation in all its forms is an expensive business. Too many conservationists seem to expect that they have a right to enjoy all the advantages of conservation without having to pay a penny for it. It is clearly good to have in our cities municipal parks; but they have to be paid for. They have to be paid for out of the rates; but people appreciate them and enjoy them.
I believe it is good that we should now, by degrees, shift the emphasis from our farms being the kitchen garden of this country to their having a larger and larger area of pleasure gardens—of rose gardens, flower gardens, and lawns. But in doing that we must not imagine that the lawns look after themselves and the roses grow of their own accord; they, too, have to be looked after. That is a job which farmers can do if they are told that that is what is wanted by the country as a whole, and if the country is prepared to pay for it.
I return to the point about paying. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in replying to the point about prior approval, said that 400 more people would be required in order to do that. I do not dispute that figure, but if people want conservation properly carried out they cannot grudge the salaries of those 400 people, and if they do grudge those salaries they cannot complain when they do not get conservation.
My final point—and I apologise for having gone on for so long—is that I believe that the Ministry of Agriculture, particularly through ADAS, is now fully aware of the importance of the environment, and that the work that ADAS is doing is first-class. It has taken some time to get there, but it has got there. I am not so sure that the same feelings permeate throughout the whole of the Ministry of Agriculture, particularly in the higher echelons. I hope that the change which has taken place in ADAS will more rapidly, as the months go by, take place throughout the whole of the Ministry of Agriculture. I hope, too—this is one of the aspects that come out in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill—that the role of the Department of the Environment will be greatly enhanced in the future, and that it will no longer look on itself as the very junior partner in any discussions concerning agricultural land, but will regard itself as the protagonist in the fight for the preservation of the environment in this country. In my opinion, these two reports and this debate are of very great value, and I believe that good will come of them.
11.46 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord John-Mackie has spoken with his usual ability on agricultural matters. Of course, he speaks for the Labour Party on these matters, as I do on environmental matters. Although we may not speak with one voice we do not speak with a forked tongue. We both want to see, for all our people, the best from and on our land. What we are both about is marrying imperatives.
142
This is an important debate—timely, apposite, full of rich experience and containing lessons for us all, especially the Government. I have enjoyed and valued every single contribution from all your Lordships, none more so than those from the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill and Lord Adrian. I congratulate them both on their contributions and on their reports.
The whole world is opened up by these reports. It is clear that hitherto there have been two worlds, that dominated by agricultural considerations and that dominated by environmental considerations. The great theme to emerge is surely that in the future it need not be so. It should be possible to achieve a synthesis of aims and accommodation for each other's imperatives.
For those who, like myself, served on the Committee dealing with the Wildlife and Countryside Bill in another place—and, let me add, who recognised fully the crucial part played by your Lordships' House in making modest progress towards a better protection of species, habitat and national beautiful features—this report is enormously encouraging. I will tell your Lordships why. Within its pages we can find evidence, not only of the diligence of the Select Committee but also of the response it received to its willingness both to hear evidence and to receive views. Let me first remind the House of the opinion of the Select Committee, to be found in paragraph 137, which reads:
"The Committee admire the enthusiasm of the many voluntary bodies seeking to conserve wildlife habitat and the appearance of the landscape. The existence of such bodies providing for the opportunities for the discussion and the pooling of expertise on countryside management by farmers, landowners, scientists and conservation interests is much to be welcomed. The Committee are also encouraged by the increasingly positive attitude of the farming community as shown in the growth of farming and wildlife advisory groups. However"—
and here is the vitally important element that rings through much of the report—
"the Committee are concerned that the activities of such organisations should not he regarded as a substitute for the involvement of Government departments or of agencies such as the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council."
That opinion, in my view, is one of the wisest in a catalogue of wisdom. If we are to ensure a bright, as opposed to a bleak, future in this sphere, the Government must shoulder their responsibilities.
We should also acknowledge the fact that without the evidence of groups and individuals, the report would be the poorer. The Essex Naturalists' Trust reminds us dramatically of what has happened—and what can happen in the future—without such firm Government action. It says:
"In Essex, the loss of grassland habitats and the indirect effects such as hedgerow removal, infilling of ponds, and increased use of chemicals has severely affected all major groups of flora and fauna".
It then lists a depressing catalogue of outrages and natural disasters.
I commend the concept of a countryside register—an alternative to planning control in the countryside—as outlined in paragraph 304. I also believe that the memorandum by Joyce Quin, MEP, on page 319, outlining the need for an environmental assessment, is valuable and worthy of closer study and support.

143
The RSPB will certainly welcome the indications given by the Minister that it is the Government's intention to seek to strengthen the regulation with stronger environmental safeguards and thus to redress a major defect in the regulation. It is the RSPB which applauds the report and calls it a landmark in official thinking over agriculture and the countryside. I say, "Amen", to that, as I do when it also welcomes the assertion of the Committee that,
"care of the environment should have comparable status with the production of food".
It is the CPRE which claims that the report endorses every single one of the principal points which it made to the committee, and that the report will reverberate through both Whitehall and Brussels.
I say, all power to the Minister and the Government in their declared intention tonight. The Minister made a major statement, and in that statement he talked about the extension of Article 3(5) to cover areas where conservation constraints could apply. That is very important. I wonder whether the Minister who is to reply is in a position tonight, or by correspondence, to take the statement further by answering the following questions.
Will the provision apply to areas within the existing less favoured areas; for instance, Orkney, where the conflicts, such as ploughing of moorland, are real, or in the Welsh uplands, for example, in the Berwyns? Will the NCC or the Countryside Commission be able to approve form plans within such areas so as to ensure that the best possible result is achieved for conservation? Could such provisions be applied to wetlands, such as the Somerset Levels, or Halvergate, so as to maintain the wetland character: low intensity grazing and high water tables? What about the wider countryside? Is MAFF to abandon positive conservation efforts there? Why cannot prior approval be necessary for grants—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—for work known to damage wildlife; for example, ploughing of moorland, or wetland drainage? That would ensure that resources are devoted to the real problem areas and are not wasted on uncontentious issues, such as fencing, and so on.
I commend the perception of the Select Committee when it says in paragraph 131 that MAFF and the Department of the Environment are insufficiently responsive to public feeling, especially when one views the rapid pace of change due to agricultural expansion, which has proved unacceptable to sections of public opinion. We fail to recognise and respond to that perception at our cost.
Paragraph 133 is central to the value of the Select Committee report when it asserts that the regulation would permit MAFF and the Department of the Environment to reconcile more harmoniously the requirements of agriculture and the environment. I especially welcome the clear opinion that it is for the Government to take greater account than hitherto of environmental considerations. The Minister tonight acknowledged that this is right and that it is being done.
In one degree or another we are all political animals. We recognise that governments are returned at
144
elections because the electorate is persuaded that they have the best package of proposals to marry potentially conflicting policies. At our peril we have not taken the care to persuade the voter that we care. For instance, the rise of the green parties more swiftly in other countries than here is noted by the Government.
A headline in the Financial Times on 16th July, 1984. said,
"Tories Seek to Win the Environment Vote".
It goes on to say that the Government are to make a determined effort to attract to the Conservative party the votes of the environmental lobby. A special unit is to be set up by the environment department. Its aim will be to co-ordinate Government activity on environmental matters, to alert Ministers to environmental issues affecting their department and to try to identify important issues before they become matters of public concern.
I welcome such agitation. The Labour Party will eagerly engage in public debate as a prelude to our forming the next government.
Free market forces will not work unaided to protect our environment. We must have national and international intervention. Without intervention in economic and industrial development, without proper systematic planning and control over the use of resources such as land, water, energy, the marine environment, the problems of environmental and ecological damage are unlikely to be arrested, let alone eliminated.
The annual report of the NCC last year was prophetically right when it said that there is just about enough habitat left to ensure continuity of Britain's wild plants and animals if it is to be conserved. It said that the danger is that, if it is not wholeheartedly protected now, then in 10 years' time it will be too late.
One cannot escape the feeling that the Department of the Environment seems to have become defensive abouts its role and responsibilities and is being driven by EEC legislation. We want to see Britain taking initiatives and leading the case for improving environmental policy. Agriculture has often been presented as environmentally a benign industry. We must take action to halt the use and abuse of pesticides and fertilisers. The damage done to flora and fauna, top soil and water courses is serious. It is increasingly the physical destruction of heaths, moorlands. marshes, meadows, wetlands, deciduous woods, hedgerows and SSSIs. They all must and should be protected.
The impact of people on their environment is increasing. Demand for sport, recreation and leisure will increase. It will continue to grow and to bring pressure on the countryside. Government funding of the development of leisure facilities must be increased to take account of this situation and to prevent the overuse and damage resulting from too many people with too little access to the areas and facilities that they require.
In conclusion, I say that what the country needs and what the Labour Party has is a positive approach to planning and intervention.These reports point the way. They are a credit to their authors and to the work of select committees. They may even induce in the

145
Government a greater sense of urgency and a recognition that time is not on their or our side. If they do that, this will be a thoroughly well-earned bonus and we can all be grateful for it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he could tell me what the Orkney farmer is going to do if he is not allowed to improve his grazing. The importation of grain is very expensive and he is hit hard. So is it more important to preserve the moorland in Orkney than to preserve the farmer?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, poses the problem and dilemma not only for the farmer but also for the community. When the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asks me what the Orkney farmer will do, I have a shrewd idea that he knows better than I what the Orkney farmer not only would like to do but what he wants to do.
11.59 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is one of the rules of the House that anyone speaking from this Dispatch Box speaks for the Government as a whole. But it is not generally recognised, I believe, that I hold the job which the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, is, in part of its report, calling for, in that I am a spokesman both for the MAFF and the DoE simultaneously. I accept, of course, that I have a minimal role in policy formation but nonetheless my role is to present both sides of the argument, which becomes more like quicksand every day, it seems. Listening to the ups and downs of this debate, I think that that remark, which I penned some hours ago, is probably correct. I see myself a little like mercy on top of the Royal Courts of Justice, with a balance that moves, in that it goes up and down. That is what the weight of argument, occasionally on the side of agricultural interests and occasionally on the side of environmental interests, should do.
Noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Walston. for example—pointed to, one almost might say, the slings and arrows of outrageous agricultural fortune. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord said. Having said that, I welcome on behalf of the Government both reports, because any organisation worth its salt, which my two departments are, is made all the stronger for selective and constructive criticism such as your Lordships have made tonight and such as is made in the two reports that we are debating. Nonetheless, there is a right approach in these matters that depends on consultation and diplomacy and not everyone at the barricades all the time.
Like other noble Lords, I was astounded to read in the Guardian the other day that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was in favour of breaking the civil law to protect parts of the natural heritage threatened with destruction by powerful agricultural interests. Within minutes, I read in the Observer yesterday that the CLA and the CPRE in a joint statement said they had agreed that ways must be found to build environmental objectives into the system of official financial support for agriculture. I side with the noble Baroness, Lady White, on this. There should not be one person
146
in your Lordships' House who would dissent from the view that this latter is the right approach.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, as the noble Lord has referred to my remarks again, may I make clear that I also strongly support the approach that the CLA and the CPRE are taking? Had they taken it earlier and had the Government adopted it earlier, direct intervention would not now be necessary. In how many cases have sites of special scientific interest been destroyed as a result of breaches of the criminal law? I have information to suggest that it is around 20. In how many of those cases have prosecutions been undertaken by the Government or by the Government's agencies?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think that this is the time of night to get into an argument with the noble Lord. I would, however, say that it is very difficult to understand how he reconciles the two approaches that he has just adumbrated.
I was talking about what I call the right approach. This forms the background to the thinking behind both Select Committee reports. It is inevitable that when we are debating two reports, however worthy, one of them will be treated as second class. My reading of the report of the Science and Technology Committee is that research is admitted to be going on, albeit slowly. We are already responding with action to points that have been made in the report. I welcome the announcement of the creation of an environment co-ordination unit within the Ministry of Agriculture. To this end, my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment held discussions on 16th July with that Ministry to arrange liaison with his department, which, let no one be in the slightest doubt, will happen.
I am also glad to confirm the statement made by the Chief Scientist at the Department of the Environment in evidence to the committee that we shall exchange research programmes with the agriculture departments. We also accept the recommendation that there should be twice yearly meetings with the interests concerned. I take the point of the noble Lord's committee that it is somewhat surprising that this has not happened up to now, but that is exactly the type of constructive suggestion that I would expect from a committee of your Lordships' House of that eminence. Perhaps I may here report that, as evidence of our recognition of the need to stimulate socioeconomic research in the countryside, officials of my department, together with their colleagues in MAFF, are discussing with the Economic and Social Research Council a seminar which might he held in the autumn of this year to review the impact of changing policies in the countryside and to evaluate the needs for research, especially in the social and economic fields.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am very interested in this. Would the noble Lord agree that the long-term monitoring research at Rothamsted might he the subject of development in this new co-operation which is taking place?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, indeed it might. This is something which I believe both of my right honourable friends would do well to look into.

147
I am confident that the seminar to which I have just referred will lead to an evaluation of strategic research requirements, and may thus be instrumental in achieving some of the objectives to which the Select Committee have pointed.
In referring, as did many noble Lords, to the role of our agencies—namely, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission—my noble friend Lord Belstead indicated that in the past weeks we have seen the publication of the Nature Conservancy Council's document, A Nature Conservation Strategy for Great Britain, at which event I had the honour to be present, and we have received from them the text of their corporate plan. Both make an eloquent case for strengthening resources in this field, and these cases are receiving serious consideration by Ministers. It would be quite wrong for me to pre-judge the outcome of that consideration, but there is one thing that I must say. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to make a specific grant to the Nature Conservancy Council earmarked for research. We have had this argument across this Table on many occasions when the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I have been speaking on the subject of the proper role of local authorities. It is rather for Government to judge the appropriate total level of funding for the NCC in relation to the case made by that body and the priorities attached to its work and for the council itself to judge the balance of expenditure it should support within the total.
Turning to the Countryside Commission, like the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, I draw the attention of the House to the strong links with agricultural interests developed through farming and wildlife advisory groups—the uglily named FWAGS. The Countryside Commission has earmarked £1 million over the next 10 years to support conservation officers, a large proportion of whom are based on the FWAGS, whose associated trust has already raised over £500,000. The commission can therefore call on considerable local experience in framing its research programme.
But inevitably most of this debate, although, I accept, not all of it, has centred on the other report—the report of the European Communities Committee. With the best will in the world, I do not think that I shall be able to answer all the points that have been made. But some noble Lords have very kindly given me prior warning of the special problems that they see and I shall do my best to answer them. Otherwise, I think that it might be appropriate if I comment on what other noble Lords have said.
I shall deal first with the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. Over the last five years or so the main thrust of work on nitrogen application to agricultural land has been changing from consideration of crop yield responses to broader studies of the balance and fate of nitrogen in the soil. I accept that there is a need for better models to deal with the wide range of soil and fertiliser situations. Both of my departments are discussing the best joint approach. The Department of the Environment's sponsored research spending on acid rain will amount to some £2.3 million in 1984–85, rising slightly in the following year.
However, I disagree with the noble Lord on one point. Of this, ¤650,000 is directly relevant to agriculture. The research will examine the causes of
148
acidification, the atmospheric processes involved in its development and transmission, and the impact of acidification on flora and fauna, lakes, rivers, forests and soils. The results of this research will be of interest to both the departments and, indeed, the House. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment are responding to an EEC request for an evaluation of the trace element, cadmium, and I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased at that. The recent Soil Science Commission Review has recommended that further work should be done to develop predictive models to prescribe pathways and processes in soil. Again, proposals for joint work are being discussed.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said that the CAP is not the total cause of changes in the countryside, and, of course, I agree. Furthermore, I have said before from this Box that I should not like to live in a glass-case. I can visualise very clearly the verbal picture that he paints of the view from his office window. I do not know how long the noble Lord has had his office in that position, but I would ask him to compare the view today with the view on his arrival. Since that time I would assume that the Lea Valley Scheme—a mammoth undertaking—which has been good for conservation and not at the expense of agriculture either, has taken place. There is a guide here to the steps that we need to take to clear up, for example, the Mersey.
I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I felt that both the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and his noble kinsman had a rather unusually optimistic approach to this particular problem and I wondered whether, in fact, the noble Lords' glasses were rose-tinted.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, brought up the subject of straw burning. I really cannot agree with the noble Lord that there is no agricultural reason for straw and stubble burning. It is a long-established farm husbandry practice which brings very real benefits in terms of crop yields and farm management practices. Nevertheless, the Government recognise that careless straw burning can cause some serious environmental problems, and research is being entered into to bring this practice, hopefully, to an end. I am sure that the whole House would welcome that.
My noble friend Lord Sandford and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, were unhappy about the subject of prior approval. As the Countryside Commission pointed out in its evidence, this would be a very heavy bureaucratic burden. Even in a simplified form it would be very expensive in terms of manpower, and would necessitate the diversion of staff from other activities.
What really matters—and I am trying to look at it as objectively as I can—is that it is questionable how much additional safeguard it would achieve. The Countryside Commission has undertaken to analyse from 1st April 1983 the results of this notification procedure. Figures for the first six-month period are now available. Of the 2,757 notifications processed, national park authorities had no comment on 86 per cent. and their conditional agreement was given to a further 9 per cent. In only 5 per cent. of the notifications did the authorities seek modifications, and 145 of these were agreed by the farmers, mostly

149
without any financial contribution from the national parks authorities. Thus, at the end of the period there were only six cases where agreement had not been reached between the farmer and the national park authority.
As is well known—indeed, as has been mentioned this evening—national parks and SSSIs already have special agreements. In fact, I remember long debates at the time of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill in which my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley was instrumental in bringing this matter before your Lordships. I agree with those noble Lords who said that it was surprising that there was no mention of that Bill in the Select Committee's report.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, for example, spoke about the United Kingdom procrastination in domestic legislation, and that we should take our own initiatives to find balancing mechanisms without waiting for the Economic Community. If she was talking about the last Labour Government, I would agree with her, but her speech does the Government grave injustice. Various forms of national legislation, notably the Wildlife and Countryside Act, do precisely this. This is way ahead of most other member states of the Community.
The advantage of the initiative announced by my noble friend Lord Belstead is that it puts all member states on the same basis—surely a desirable objective. I was rather surprised by some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in this connection with his experience of advising the Commission, which I know he has done for a good many years. I should have thought that there would have been a little more objectivity—that is the word I would use—in his remarks.
Having said that, I do not rule out further adjustments either to the draft directive that we are discussing or to the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Keeping capital grant schemes under continuous review is obviously something which needs to be done and I have no doubt that they will in due course be changed. It was always understood that they would be. We have made changes in the past and will do so in the future if it seems appropriate.
Several noble Lords have mentioned forestry. I am sympathetic to the committee's wish to protect and encourage indigenous species of trees. This is already policy and practice in the United Kingdom. Because the Commission's afforestation measures, which are of concern to the United Kingdom, are expensive, we have expressed strong reservations. We are ready nevertheless to consider the committee's recommendation, though it is doubtful whether this would attract support from most other member states.
There is a problem here on forestry which is unique to the growing of timber. Local people will remember the row that occurred before the war when the National Trust decided to afforest part of the Quantocks, which of course is in my home area. That, I am assured, is little different now that the time has come to cut the trees down, and they are softwoods.
Time is getting on. My noble friend Lord Stanley mentioned the trainee courses for ADAS. I have said before from this Dispatch Box that the Ministry have
150
been running courses in conservation for ADAS officers for a number of years. These courses not only rely on MAFF's widespread internal expertise but also benefit from the assistance of expertise from the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, and some of the voluntary conservation bodies. The emphasis of these courses has recently been changing from a general introduction to the awareness and understanding of conservation, to training in the practical recognition of conservation interests. I am glad to say that some socio-economic courses have been held.
I am the first to accept that this is a small start in what can only become a big programme when one realises that over the past three years some 283 main courses have been held and there are in the order of 2,000 general ADAS officers. My noble friend Lord Onslow warned me that he was going to bring up the subject of the Article 4 direction made at Limpenhoe by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. This followed a request from the Broads Authority who were concerned that the field was about to be drained.
According to the best information available from the authority, the landowner was not prepared even to consider the offer of a management agreement. The direction is limited to a 12-month period. This limitation was imposed in order to provide a cooling-off time in which the possibility of a management agreement could be pursued in the normal way between the parties. If such an agreement is satisfactorily concluded, the direction will be lifted. Thus the direction made in this case is seen as supplementary to the voluntary approach, rather than undermining it in any way.
There is no intention of imposing Article 4 directives in other circumstances if there is a reasonable prospect of successful negotiation of a management agreement.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I gave my noble friend warning of this: may I ask him to say something about compensation? The other point he has just mentioned seems very important. If there is a reasonable prospect of a management agreement, directions will not be imposed; but if somebody starts mucking about and asking for silly sums, they will be imposed. This is a major shift of policy, and from my point of view it is welcome.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, what I was trying to do was to make the point that we are not seeing the undermining of the voluntary approach of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, but reinforcement was built into that Act. I accept that Article 4 was not the reinforcement that was envisaged in that Act. As the House well knows it would be the Section 29 arrangements. I think I am right: if not, I shall have to correct that. There must be, to any kind of Act of this nature, some type of back-up powers. I do not particularly like using them, but I can confirm that when they are necessary, they will be used.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, suggested that the Government should give a commitment that no more grants for agricultural improvement should be given, but would divert agricultural funds to support

151
conservationally-acceptable farming. This is not possible under existing arrangements, except in designated less favoured areas. The Netherlands are frequently cited as one, indeed the only, country using Article 3.5 in the manner advocated by the committee. The conditions in the Netherlands are quite different from those in the rest of the Community. The land designated does not have the potential of, for example, Halvergate. This is why the Government see the need for a new approach which does not rely on areas suffering permanent natural handicap.
I understand, and sympathise with, the committee's wish to find a way of preserving areas of particular conservation interest by encouraging continuation of traditional farming practices. I am not, however, convinced that widening the definition of "less favoured areas" by amending Article 32.2(b) is the best way to achieve that objective. There is a genuine problem regarding many such areas, especially lowland ones with considerable productive potential, as less favoured. This is why the United Kingdom is taking the initiative in proposing that the regulation be amended to provide new arrangements for conservationally-sensitive areas. That point was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Belstead in his opening speech.
So far as the Orkneys and the Isle of Islay are concerned, I was rather surprised by those noble Lords who mentioned them because crofters' rights are rights that they have had for generations, and I should like to see them continuing for generations. I know the Island of Islay a little and I am hoping to see first-hand the problems in the Orkneys during the Recess.
In conclusion, the Government welcome the overall thrust of the two reports that we have been debating this evening. We strongly support a positive effort to promote research and development and to further balance the equation between agriculture in it widest sense and the environment, however defined. The research and development influences the whole spread of rural policies from food production, through protective conservation and socio-economics to creative conservation and the creation of new habitats for the wildlife and new features of natural beauty.
The Government appreciate that changes have been sweeping through our countryside and that the impact of some agricultural policies have caused concern. It is reassuring to note the committee's judgment that most of the essential research at the interface between agriculture and the environment does get done at some time. But the other report believes that there is a long way to go to achieve harmony. Yes, my Lords, I certainly agree with that.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, your Lordships will not wish me to prolong the discussion, tempting though it is to take up one or two points. I think I can speak for the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, when I say that both committees will be very satisfied with the debate which these reports have provoked. There is clearly a wide area of agreement on which future policy can be built. I should also like to thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate and sat until this very late hour. We are very fortunate
152
in this House to have so much informed opinion on which to draw. We shall watch what happens in the future. In thanking the Ministers for their characteristically courteous responses I am sure the House will want the matter left where it is.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agricultural and Environmental Research: Science and Technology Committee Report
Lord Adrian: My Lords. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on Agricultural and Environmental Research (4th Report, 1983–84, H.L. 272)—(Lord Adrian.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past midnight.

  R. v. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT EX PARTE FINDLAY AND OTHERS
  R. v. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT EX PARTE FINDLAY AND OTHERS
  PRISONER C43665
  PRISONER C43665
  PRISONERS: PAYMENTS
  PRISONERS: PAYMENTS
  INVALID CARE ALLOWANCE AND MARRIED WOMEN
  INVALID CARE ALLOWANCE AND MARRIED WOMEN
  CYPRUS: TRADE
  CYPRUS: TRADE
  CYPRUS: ACTION GROUP
  CYPRUS: ACTION GROUP
  RATES CONSULTATION: COST TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  RATES CONSULTATION: COST TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  NON-INDUSTRIAL CIVIL SERVANTS: ETHNIC SURVEYS
  NON-INDUSTRIAL CIVIL SERVANTS: ETHNIC SURVEYS