Sitting of 26 July 1984

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

    COUNTY OF LANCASHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered upon Monday 30 July.

    NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered upon Thursday 25 October.

    BOURNEMOUTH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 25 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Local Government Elections (Personation)
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he proposes to take to prevent personation at the forthcoming local government elections; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The Government share the widespread public concern in Northern Ireland at the extent and nature of electoral abuse in recent elections there, and are considering what further measures, including those requiring a Bill, should be introduced before the local government elections in May 1985.
    Mr. Maclennan: Those concerns were widespread before the European elections, and the Government did not move then. Will the Minister give an assurance that, if necessary, legislative action will be taken in time and that consultations with the constitutional parties will be extensive?
    Mr. Scott: In fact, certain administrative action was taken before the European elections; but before considering legislative action it is right that careful consideration should be given to all the options. I hope that it will be possible to take that action in time to meet the date for the local government elections next year.
    Mr. Porter: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the fears expressed before the European elections were justified by what happened in the Province during those elections? Has
    1220
    the time come when a form of identification for voters should be made compulsory. not only in the Province, but in the United Kingdom as a whole?
    Mr. Scott: Continued widespread abuse means that we must consider all the options to counter it. Otherwise, we are defrauding the voters of Northern Ireland.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister acknowledge that it would be unacceptable if a form of identification at polling, such as stamping with invisible ink, were used in Northern Ireland and not elsewhere?
    Mr. Scott: I cannot accept that. The situation in Northern Ireland is quite different from that which exists on this side of the water. In those circumstances, special measures may be necessary.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: No doubt there is a growing threat of impersonation in Northern Ireland, but to a large extent it also occurs in Leicester.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is ingenious, but the question must relate to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Bruinvels: Will my hon. Friend consult his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the difficulties experienced in other parts of the United Kingdom to ensure that there are no electoral disadvantages?
    Mr. Scott: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have his attention drawn to what my hon. Friend has said.

    Health and Social Service Boards
    Mr. A. Cecil Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied that the management and accounting methods now used by the health and social service boards are effective in minimising misuse of public funds.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): Yes, Sir; but there is room for improvement. Progress is being made in the greater use of information technology and more efficient systems are being developed to cover budgetary control, payroll, nurse management, patient administration and stores control.
    On health service management, I have initiated a wide-ranging action programme based on a recently completed review of the structure and management of the services. I am also considering what action is necessary to secure in Northern Ireland the improvements in the management of the health and personal social services advocated in the Griffiths report.
    Mr. Walker: I am happy to hear that reply. Is the Minister aware that there is serious anxiety among employees and employers in the Royal Victoria hospital? They suspect that some employees are manipulating the system to deprive taxpayers of money. Will the Minister please investigate such charges with the managing body of the hospital?
    Mr. Patten: Certainly such charges need to be investigated. I am aware of a recent case which was drawn to the attention of the chairman of the board by an hon. Member. I believe that appropriate action has been taken as a result. I hope that any other cases will be referred to me or to the chairman of the appropriate board.
    Mr. Archer: While ensuring that public funds are protected from the unmeritorious, is the Minister taking steps to ensure that people receive their proper entitlements? Does he agree that the Belfast law centre not only provides much needed advice and information, but helps people to perceive the law as something that can help them and that it is worthy of respect? If so, will he at least maintain the centre's level of real funding?
    Mr. Patten: The grant to the Belfast law centre is not strictly a matter for me. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have been as pleased as I was that the Social Security Advisory Committee, when it came to Northern Ireland, particularly commended my Department's efforts to encourage take-up. We are discussing with the Belfast law centre and others ways of helping people to become aware of their rights under welfare legislation.
    Dr. Glyn: In his review, will my hon. Friend take into account the attempts being made in England to cut the costs of administration and to give a better service to the patient by providing more doctors and nurses?
    Mr. Patten: Yes, Sir. We have consulted on the Griffiths report and hope to bring forward proposals in the autumn for implementation, where appropriate, in Northern Ireland, given the difference in its structure.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the import of the Minister's answers. Does the concern extend to boards other than the Eastern Health and Social Services Board? The hon. Gentleman says that information technology is being used. As what is put in is what comes out, does he consider that there are sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse of the information?
    Mr. Patten: My concern covers each board. I hope that there are sufficient safeguards. However, if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to suggest that there are not, I should like to hear from him.

    Royal Ulster Constabulary
    Sir John Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to improve the living and training conditions of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    Mr. Scott: Royal Ulster Constabulary accommodation and training are primarily matters for the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, but I understand that it is planned to spend £46·6 million over the next four years to extend and improve residential and operational accommodation. The Police Authority has recently sought my right hon. Friend's approval for the construction of a new expanded training centre to replace the present limited facilities at Enniskillen. My right hon. Friend and I are currently studying the Police Authority's proposals.
    Sir John Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the RUC does a very tough job? Is he further aware that today's terrorists get the benefit of international training and expertise? Bearing that in mind, will he make sure that the RUC can match the international expertise that terrorists are bringing to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Scott: I share my hon. Friend's respect for the courage and determination of the RUC. The Government are determined to ensure that it has the training and resources to do its job.
    Mr. Maginnis: Is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary aware of the disquiet caused to my constituents by persistent rumours that the new training depot will be removed from Fermanagh and South Tyrone? Will he assure them that he will look carefully at possible sites in my constituency for the new training depot and that neither he nor the Police Authority has yet ruled out siting the training depot in my constituency? Will he also assure them that, with the Police Authority, he will have proper consultations with elected representatives in the west of the Province?
    Mr. Scott: As I have said, my right hon. Friend and I are studying the proposals. No decisions have yet been taken. We want to consider all the options to make sure that the RUC gets the training that is so necessary in the most cost-effective way possible.
    Mr. Soley: I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's opening remarks do not mean that he does not take a close and detailed interest in the RUC's training programme. Will he confirm that the human awareness and discrimination training is at least up to the standard of that of the Metropolitan police?
    Mr. Scott: I am sure that all aspects of the training appropriate to the special task of the RUC in Northern Ireland are covered to the highest possible standard. However, we need improved facilities to conduct that training.

    Constitutional Status
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in order to assess the current wishes of those who live in Northern Ireland about their consitutional status, he will consider holding a further referendum.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while every Member of the House understands, though may not like, the constitutional position, many people overseas —particularly in the United States—and, indeed, many young voters in this country, do not understand that a majority view has frequently been expressed through the ballot box? Would it not help to promote Her Majesty's Government's policies and to counter hostile propaganda if, say, once a decade that exercise were carried out?
    Mr. Prior: I take my hon. Friend's point. On the other hand, I am well aware of the impact that too many elections can have in Northern Ireland. Nearly every election in Northern Ireland in recent years has been fought as if it were a referendum about the constitution. Therefore, I do not want to get involved in a further argument at this stage. We take every opportunity to explain the position, in the United States and in other countries.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that we know what the outcome of any referendum would be? Let us be quite clear — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]. Because the minority community was deliberately made a minority community by drawing a line round an area in which there was an inbuilt Protestant majority. That was done by force of arms a long time ago. Is it perhaps that the hon. Gentleman who asked the question is trying to be provocative and cause further trouble?
    Mr. Prior: No. My hon. Friend would have a tremendous job to be as provocative as the hon. Gentleman.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland is not in question, that such a referendum would simply inflame passions that are best left uninflamed, and that the people should be allowed to devote their attention to finding ways and means of working and living together?
    Mr. Prior: I have absolutely no doubt that that is correct. I also appreciate the point raised by my hon. Friend about the need to try to show other countries what the position is.
    Mr. Canavan: Instead of holding a rigged referendum confined to the gerrymandered Six Counties of Ireland, why do we not consult the Government of the Republic of Ireland about the possibility of holding a referendum throughout the whole of Ireland, so that all the people of Ireland can be consulted about, for example, a united Ireland?
    Mr. Prior: The simple answer to that question is that the Republic of Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom.

    Security
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Peter Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Prior: Since I last answered questions on 28 June there have been four deaths in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. Two of those killed were civilians and two were part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
    The skill and professionalism of the security forces has led, so far this year, to 324 people being charged with serious offences, including 34 with murder and 38 with attempted murder. In the same period, 126 weapons, 21,349 rounds of ammunition and 10,946lb. of explosives have been recovered.
    Mr. Proctor: As one who has not always seen eye to eye in every detail with my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether he is aware of the wide support for the personal courage and determination which has typified and characterised his stewardship of Northern Ireland?
    Will my right hon. Friend examine security and deployment in Castlederg in the west part of Tyrone, and raise that to the same level as currently exists in south Fermanagh?
    Mr. Prior: On the latter point, we have obviously been very worried by recent events in the Castlederg area. I have had private talks with the Member of Parliament for the area, and drawn the matter very much to the attention of the Chief Constable and the GOC.
    As for my hon. Friend's earlier remarks, I am quite embarrassed by the nice things that people say once they know that I am going.
    Mr. Robinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that July and August have traditionally been sensitive months for security in the Province, and no time more so than the
    1224
    month of August at about the anniversary of internment? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in August 1983 a number of terrorist activities were staged to impress visitors from the Noraid organisation? Is he aware that that same delegation intends to return this August? If so, will he take steps to ensure that those of its members who engaged in terrorist activities on the last occasion and the publicity director of the IRA in America, Mr. Martin Galvin, are excluded from Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Prior: I am well aware of what happened last August. I should like to make it plain that this group is not welcome in Northern Ireland. I have already been in touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary about certain individuals.
    Mr. William Ross: Has the Secretary of State noticed that in recent weeks in a number of areas there have been provocations by Republican groups trying to create a reaction, which in some cases unfortunately occurred? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the normal antiterrorist activity is insufficient to deal with such incidents and that the police need to put their minds to methods of combating low-level street activity?
    Mr. Prior: I am aware of certain incidents which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I am also aware of other provocative incidents which were committed by people from the other side of the community. I deplore all such incidents, from wherever they come.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the largest demonstrations held for 12 months in Northern Ireland went off peacefully, and for that reason no comment was made by the BBC to inform people throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, I think it can be said that this summer there have been a number of marches of the traditional type which have gone off absolutely peacefully. That is a great credit to everyone in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, I believe that the Province is now.more stable. I think most people feel that there is a great deal more stability now than there has been for some years. I hope that that can be used as a basis for making some advances.
    Mr. Onslow: Going back to what my right hon. Friend said earlier, I hope that he will not be too embarrassed if I say that a number of hon. Members in the House are prepared to say nice things about him, whether he is going or not.
    Mr. Prior: That is a change.
    Mr. Archer: Does the Secretary of State agree that security is best protected by attracting the support of the whole community for the agencies of law and order and that that entails maintaining manifest fairness? Will he tell the House when we may expect a debate on the Baker report?
    Mr. Prior: I expect that this item will come up for debate soon after we return. This is a matter for the Leader of the House, but I believe that that is the understanding.

    Irish Congress of Trade Unions
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his most recent meeting with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): My right hon. Friend last formally met the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in November 1983, when they discussed a wide range of economic matters.
    Mr. Parry: In view of the increase in unemployment in the Province under this Government from 52,000 in 1979 to 118,000 today, when do the Government intend to put to the ICTU some positive measures to reduce this high level of unemployment?
    Mr. Butler: I do not think that it is the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to which the Government should put such measures. Whilst I acknowledge the considerable and worrying increase in unemployment in the Province in the last few years, we should take comfort from the fact that the last unemployment figures showed a reduction. Seasonally adjusted, they actually showed a fall.
    Mr. Beggs: In an attempt to deal with unemployment in Northern Ireland, will the Minister give urgent consideration to the difficulties facing cheese manufacturers and the possible loss of jobs arising from the cut in the milk allocation to those factories? Will he also tell the House whether he has any plans to assist the beef industry, in view of the dramatic fall in beef prices?
    Mr. Butler: I suspect that the question has more relevance to a later question on the Order Paper. However, it is true that there is considerable concern, and indeed short-time working, in industries associated with the agriculture industry, because of the cutback in milk production. We are watching the situation very closely. I believe that there has been a degree of over-reaction. I hope that it will not result in loss of jobs.
    Sir John Farr: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the representatives of the Irish TUC, whom he is to meet, are fully representative of widely-based opinion in the Province?
    Mr. Butler: Yes.
    Mr. Soley: Will the Minister go back to the trade unions and discuss with them the future of shipbuilding in the Province? In a statement yesterday, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry brought into question the future of Harland and Wolff. What comments has the Minister to make to his right hon. Friend in the light of that worrying statement?
    Mr. Butler: Members of the committee will be meeting my right hon. Friend on Tuesday. I am sure that, if they so wish, they will raise the subject with him then.
    The Government have supported Harland and Wolff considerably over the years. We shall continue to do so, within proper limits. The problem is getting the orders.

    Housing Executive Property
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the provision of sound title for Housing Executive properties available for sale to tenants.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is responsible for the day-to-day administration of its voluntary sales scheme. However, I understand from the vice-chairman that sound title has been established for
    1226
    over 3,000 holdings. There are at present some 169 holdings where there are title problems, and the Housing Executive is endeavouring to resolve these on the basis of negotiated agreement with neighbouring landowners. The majority of the 21,000 sales completed to date have progressed smoothly.
    Mr. Molyneaux: As the ownership of at least some of those properties has passed through the hands of no fewer than four successive authorities, will the Minister consider introducing legislation to clear up the confusion in those remaining cases once and for all, bearing in mind that the number is likely to increase as fresh applications for purchase are received?
    Mr. Patten: There are certainly problems—and I noted what was said by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) on the financial provisions order—but I do not consider that the difficulty is quite so acute as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. We are still managing to complete 100 sales a week. I think that that is very encouraging and a vindication of the policy so wisely started by the Labour Government and vigorously continued by the present Government. However, I shall keep the matter under review.

    Children (Education)
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children in Northern Ireland are presently receiving their education in (a) Catholic and (b) Protestant schools in the state system.
    Mr. Scott: In January 1983 there were 162,749 pupils in grant-aided schools under Roman Catholic management, and 190,091 pupils at controlled schools—which are non-denominational — and at voluntary grammar schools not under Roman Catholic management. These figures cannot automatically be equated with the denomination of the pupils concerned.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister accept that when the Select Committee last went across to examine the state of education in Northern Ireland the two figures were much nearer to each other than those that he has given? The imagination boggles at what the Unionists will have to do to keep ahead.
    It is a disgrace to all of us that those children have been brought up during the troubles. I hope that in the future there will no longer be two separate communities and that the hand of friendship will be stretched out from the unionist to the Catholic community. Not communalism, but democracy, as we have it here, will solve that particular problem.
    Mr. Scott: As in the rest of the United Kingdom, children in Northern Ireland are educated as far as possible in accordance with the wishes of their parents. Having said that, however, I shall lose no opportunity of encouraging teachers, parents and school authorities from both sections of the education system in Northern Ireland to co-operate, wherever possible, on both study and community projects. That would be of benefit to everyone concerned.
    Mr. Alexander: Does my hon. Friend agree that more children should be encouraged to attend schools of mixed faith, so that the early barriers of hatred and mistrust can be cut down as soon as possible?
    Mr. Scott: As I said, the Government would support integrated education, and they have demonstrated that by

    1227
    their support for Lagan college. My hon. Friend should not underestimate the degree of integration that takes place in other schools in Northern Ireland due to conscious wishes of parents and to the determination of some teachers to take a lead in the matter. But the wishes of the parents must be our predominant concern.
    Mr. Archer: In view of the Minister's encouraging answer that children should be educated in accordance with their parents' wishes, is he aware that the number of children whose parents would like them to be educated in inter-community schools such as Lagan college now substantially exceeds that college's capacity? Will he consider capital funding for an extension of Lagan college on a different site?
    Mr. Scott: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, Lagan college is in temporary accommodation and is seeking a more permanent home. We would obviously consider how capital requirements could be met. However, there is a long queue of very deserving capital projects in education in Northern Ireland and I do not think that it would be right to give Lagan college special priority.

    Constitution
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on the progress of the negotiations between himself and the political parties after the New Ireland Forum report.
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what constitutional changes he intends to make in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Prior: During the past three weeks I have had informal discussion with the leaders of the main political parties. I hope for further informal discussion, directly between the parties and with me, during the coming weeks, to see whether common ground can be found on the best way of making political progress in Northern Ireland. The Government hope that it will be possible to develop agreed ideas which reflect the interest and concern of both parts of the community.
    Mr. MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the alliance proposals for more power for the Chairman of the Assembly and for some sharing of the chairmanship across the community divide constitute a useful way forward?
    Mr. Prior: Yes. I think that the alliance proposal has a good deal of merit. I have no doubt that it will put them forward in the Reports Committee of the Assembly, with which I shall be having a discussion early next week.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: While paying tribute, on this afternoon of encomia, to my right hon. Friend's desire and efforts to make Northern Ireland more democratic, may I ask him whether he intends to discuss with the Constitutional Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, or with anyone else, "the way forward" set out in the document so entitled?
    Mr. Skinner: He is on his way out.
    Mr. Prior: Of course, I am willing to discuss the proposals in that document at any time. They are an advance on anything that we have seen for some time. The leader of the Official Unionist party knows that.
    1228
    I may be on my way out, but I shall do my damnedest to see that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is never on the way in.
    Mr. McNamara: Why does the right hon. Gentleman always engage in wishful thinking? Why is he so happy to be going? Is it because he has made no real constitutional advance in Northern Ireland, so that we still have a gerrymandered state bearing no resemblance to any ideas of democracy as we understand it in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that the real progress that we need to make will be made not in the Assembly but in discussions with the Republican Government?
    Mr. Prior: All Secretaries of State, on both sides of the House, have done their best to make political progress in Northern Ireland, and that must involve both parts of the community. That is our aim, and that is what I have sought to achieve.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend think that it would be a fitting memorial for his work in Northern Ireland if he built a causeway linking Northern Ireland to the mainland of Britain, thus providing an irrevocable link?
    Mr. Prior: We are just completing the Foyle bridge, which has cost a lot of money and I do not think that we have enough for a causeway quite yet.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: May I suggest that if the Secretary of State has such powers, he may wish to build us a bridge to the Isle of Wight? May I also suggest that the greatest gift that he could make to this country and to its future peace would be to achieve a power-sharing executive out of the Assembly? Can he say whether, following the discussions that he has had so far with the other parties in Northern Ireland, he is at all optimistic that that is achievable?
    Mr. Prior: I think that progress towards any devolved administration involving both parts of the community will be slow. I also think that any form of power sharing must not come under such great pressure that it breaks down again as it did before. We must therefore look for other modes than simply the power sharing of 1973–74. I am trying to turn the attention of the parties in Northern Ireland towards that, to see whether there is an alternative that meets the criteria.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Has my right hon. Friend noticed any change in the Irish Government's view on this subject since their ambassador told some of us at the time of the last debate that the Irish Government were reasonably satisfied with the progress being made?
    Mr. Prior: No. I think that the view of the Irish Government remains that which the ambassador told my hon. Friend. I must say to the Irish Government, and to this House, that I do not think that we shall see miraculous progress in the short term. It would be better to make slow progress which can be sustained than miraculous progress which will go wrong again.
    Mr. Archer: Has the Secretary of State now grasped the fact that the dialogue for which we had all hoped is being delayed to see whether his successor is wet, dry or damp? Much as we shall regret his passing, had it not better be soon?
    Mr. Prior: I have no evidence to support that view.

    Dairy Industry
    Mr. Nicholsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the Northern Ireland dairy industry has been affected so far by the introduction of milk quotas in April.
    Mr. Butler: It is still too early to assess the effects of the introduction of the milk supplementary levy, but the indications are that the majority of dairy farmers are adjusting to the new situation.
    Milk production in the quarter. April-June 1984 is estimated to have been down on the equivalent period of 1983, but it is likely that many producers will have to make further adjustments to remain within their quota allocations.
    Mr. Nicholson: If the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food continues to deny Northern Ireland the full benefits of the special Northern Ireland allocation, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Government fully implement their decision to equalise hardship throughout the United Kingdom, so that all hardship cases, especially those in Northern Ireland, receive equal and fair treatment?
    Mr. Butler: I entirely refute the suggestion that Northern Ireland did not benefit from the 65,000 tonnes extra allocation. It definitely did. Regarding hardship, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have increased the proportion of farmers whom we hope to buy out, or the proportion of quota which we hope to buy out, under the outgoers scheme, which is giving special treatment to Northern Ireland yet again.

    Housing Grant
    Mr. J. Enoch Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to accelerate the processing of housing grant applications.
    Mr. Chris Patten: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I understand from the vice chairman that grants staff are currently working overtime in an effort to reduce the backlog in processing grants which resulted from the introduction of the Housing (NI) Order 1983.
    Mr. Powell: Does the Minister recall that two years ago he intervened very effectively to help to remove the logjam which at that time accumulated in the processing of grants, and does he agree that a similarly effective intervention would be welcome at this stage?
    Mr. Patten: There is a backlog, which I hope is a one-off backlog as a result of the 1980 order. We have increased the staff dealing with grants applications by 100 over the past 18 months. We have increased expenditure by £6 million this year, so that it has risen by 223 per cent. since the Government came to office. There will be a further increase of 26 in staff dealing with applications. I hope that we shall be able to shift the backlog once and for all.
    Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister aware that not only can grants be given to householders by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but to disabled people by the Department of Health and Social Security? Is he further aware that there is occasionally a delay in the straightening
    1230
    out of the needs between the two granting authorities. Will he take steps to see that those problems, too, are sorted out?
    Mr. Patten: Yes, Sir.

    New Ireland Forum Report
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to meet the Irish Government to discuss the New Ireland Forum report.
    Mr. Prior: I often meet members of the Irish Government, in particular the Foreign Minister, Mr. Peter Barry, and on such occasions it is naturally open to them to refer to the New Ireland Forum report. I have no firm date at present for my next meeting.
    Mr. Dubs: The right hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that he wished to see slow progress, but progress, in resolving Northern Ireland's problems. Is he aware that many of us are watching with concern for evidence of that progress, particularly in relation to the various options put forward in the New Ireland Forum report, and that we should like to see clear evidence of progress on those lines in discussions with the Irish Government?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that his party, too, is committed to progress, but progress with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That has to be taken into account all the time and that is why I believe that progress will be slow.
    Mr. Molyneaux: In any such discussions, will the Secretary of State firmly reject any proposals for joint control of the security forces in Northern Ireland, which, if they were put into effect, would be constitutionally unacceptable and unworkable in practice?
    Mr. Prior: I do not believe that joint control, in the form that we should expect it to operate, would be appropriate in the circumstances of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Porter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us on these Benches think it inadvisable to consider the New Ireland Forum report, but that if he insists upon considering the report it must be essential to consider it only in relation to the Official Unionist document that was produced prior to it?
    Mr. Prior: There are a number of documents which have to be considered at the same time.
    Mr. Skinner: Can the Secretary of State tell us exactly what, during his tenure of office—taking into account the initiative in connection with the New Ireland Forum — he has managed to achieve? Many superstructures have been set up while I have been in the House in the past 14 years, but they do not seem to be getting anywhere. As reference has been made to his being on his way out, will he take a piece of advice from me? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is serious. If he wants to get hold of those directorships, he should go as quickly as possible, because his right hon. Friend the ex-chairman of the Tory party—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the New Ireland Forum.

    Trainee Doctors
    Rev. Martin Smythasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to enable expenses to be paid to trainee doctors for Northern Ireland removing to other parts of the United Kingdom comparable to those payable in Great Britain under the Whitley agreements.
    Mr. Chris Patten: These expenses are a matter for the Great Britain Health Departments and the general council of the Whitley councils for the health services in Great Britain.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister make representations to his colleagues in Great Britain to ensure that the same facilities apply to trainee doctors travelling here from Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Patten: I know the concern felt by the hon. Gentleman and others on that issue. I shall certainly speak to my right hon. Friend. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also get in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, not least so that the Whitley council can be aware of the anxiety in Northern Ireland about the matter.

    Prison Officers
    Mr. Fatchettasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend the training period for prison officers in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Scott: The content and duration of the initial training course for new recruits to the Northern Ireland prison service is currently being reviewed, with the intention that a revised longer course should be introduced at the beginning of next year.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does the Minister realise that there is widespread feeling among prison officers that their training needs to be extended? Will he undertake to discuss any new training modules with the Prison Officers Association, so that it can participate in those discussions?
    Mr. Scott: As soon as the content, broad outline and length of the course have been established, we shall, of course, consult the Prison Officers Association.
    Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister say what extra instructions are being given to prison warders regarding the searching of babies and prams belonging to female prisoners in Armagh prison?
    Mr. Scott: It would appear, from the line that the hon. Gentleman is taking, that he has swallowed whole the Republican propaganda that is being spread about a certain incident. Searching of babies does not take place in prisons in Northern Ireland.

    Criminal Inquiries (Compensation)
    Mr. William Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now undertake a review of the law governing compensation for criminal injury in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Scott: A review is already in progress.
    Mr. Ross: During that review, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that a young woman in my constituency died as a result of a bomb explosion? She was a single
    1232
    parent and because she was unemployed her child was unable to obtain compensation. Does the Minister not think that that is scandalous and should be rectified?
    Mr. Scott: The criminal injuries compensation scheme operates on the principles and practice of common law as normally applied. A review is in progress and any representations that the hon. Gentleman makes will be taken fully into account.

    Mentally Handicapped Children
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will now bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom by transferring responsibility for providing services for educating mentally-handicapped children from the Health and Social Services Department to the Department of Education.
    Mr. Chris Patten: A working group set up by the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland is currently considering this issue. When it has reported my hon. Friend and I will study its recommendations before taking a decision.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister agree that mentally handicapped children in Northern Ireland are at a disadvantage in this respect compared with their counterparts in the United Kingdom, and that this is something that should be dealt with immediately?
    Mr. Patten: I am not sure that I agree that such children are necessarily at a disadvantage, but we hope that the working party will give us the opportunity to take a decision in the autumn. There are two views about this, as there are about many other issues.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Bruceasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Bruce: The Prime Minister said on Tuesday that we need a merchant shipbuilding fleet for strategic reasons. In view of the comments this morning by the auditors of British Shipbuilders that the sell-off of the warship yard, which will be dependent on Government contracts, will leave the rest of British Shipbuilders as a hopelessly non-viable institution, will the Prime Minister now acknowledge that privatisation has become her party's clause 4 and that the latest decision is a triumph of ideology over common sense?
    The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the auditors Arthur Young McLelland Moores have issued a statement making it clear that they did not criticise the Government. They have denied expressing any opinion whatever on the merit or otherwise of privatisation. The report is wrong. The whole of British Shipbuilders has

    1233
    been dependent upon subsidies from the intervention fund for a considerable time, and since 1979 the Government have put in £1·1 billion to assist British Shipbuilders.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the chairman of British Shipbuilders said in evidence that there was no country in which merchant shipbuilding existed without Government support?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether that is correct. I know that large subsidies are given to shipbuilding the world over. Certainly considerable subsidies are given in this country. For example, the £1·1 billion given in support of British Shipbuilders since 1979 amounts to over £20,000 for each current employee.
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave earlier.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Mrs. Parry, the South Wales miner's wife —[Interruption.] who said in a radio broadcast—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We all have lapses of memory.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Mrs. Parry, the South Wales miner's wife —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to allow the hon. Gentleman to ask his question.
    Mr. Thurnham: Mrs. Party said that she would like the miners' union to hold democratic ballots and the miners to be free of intimidation if they return to work. Does my right hon. Friend not think it ironic that the leaders of the supposedly democratic Labour party are suddenly struck dumb—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question. The Prime Minister cannot be responsible for what Opposition hon. Members may think.
    The Prime Minister: I got the drift of my hon. Friend's question. He wants a ballot for the coal workers, and he believes that there should be a ballot while they are on strike. I know that in April the Leader of the Opposition also thought that there should be a ballot —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. David Steel.
    Mr. Steel: After the biggest rise in mortgage rates for five years, does the Prime Minister still agree with this sentence in the 1979 Conservative party manifesto—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Yes, I am reading. It says:
    "Mortgage rates have risen steeply because of the Government's financial mismanagement."
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is very well aware of the reasons why the interest rates went up. They had been kept disconnected from American interest rates for a very long time, but when we came to the period when strikes were beginning to have an effect those interest rates had to go up. The market took them up and the Government had to validate what the market had done. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, I always regret any increase in interest rates, and I am the first to wish for the time when they can come down again.
    Mr. Bermingham: Perhaps the Prime Minister might find time during her busy day to explain to hon. Members and others why, if the economy is in the healthy state that she and her Ministers claim, the City is so worried?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that the exchange rate, for example, was going very well yesterday. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the City is so worried when the financial index is well over 750—at about 770—what did he think when it was down to 140 under the Labour Government?
    Mr. Penhaligonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Prime Minister aware that the million or so residents of Cornwall and Devon are within seven to 10 days of having their water supply reduced to seven hours a day—and that is if they are lucky? Will she check today that her Minister is doing all that is possible to approve orders that will enable the water authority to increase the amount of water taken from rivers and reduce the amount wasted through reservoirs? Furthermore, will the right hon. Lady consider the temporary appointment of a Minister to ensure that all that can possibly be done is done to reduce the impact of this undoubted difficulty?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not think that the appointment of a special Minister for that purpose would help. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction will be making a statement tomorrow about the matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised, and that there will be a statement later today, about Wales.
    Mr. Kinnock: There was much concern this morning over the news that Standard Telephones had made a serious takeover bid for ICL. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear to all concerned that she will use her Government's power to ensure that ICL, our only major independent computer company, remains in British control?
    The Prime Minister: Standard Telephones is now a British company; it is not an American-owned company. The matter will be considered by the Director General of Fair Trading and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under the normal rules.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister appears to be misinformed. "Who Owns Whom" clearly states that Standard Telephones is a subsidiary of ITT, which is an American company. Notwithstanding that, and as the yobs behind her drowned out the right hon. Lady's words, I again ask her whether she will absolutely ensure, in everyone's hearing, that there can be no question of this major computer company being under other than British control?
    The Prime Minister: I inquired about the matter this morning and understand that Standard Telephones is now a British company. It has made a bid for ICL and the matter will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry after the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading under the normal rules.
    Mr. Ward: Since my right hon. Friend was not heard clearly earlier, will she now take the opportunity to say a word in praise of those miners who have had the courage to go back to work in the face of all intimidations?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Many of those who have returned to work were in areas where the National Union of Mineworkers branches had voted convincingly against a strike and for staying at work. Indeed, in the National Coal Board report there is a whole list of such areas. In Nottingham, they voted 73 per cent., in Cumberland 78 per cent., in South Derbyshire 84 per cent., in Leicestershire 89 per cent. and so on against a strike. I believe that it is right to want to keep the rule book of the NUM as the Nottinghamshire miners have done, that, it is right to give the industry a good prospect for the future, and that it is right to want to work to keep families. I do exactly as my hon. Friend asked and give every support to those who are returning to work for the future of their industry.
    Mr. Gareth Wardellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wardell: In view of the rumours circulating in my constituency that the BSC corporate plan is being deliberately delayed until the miners' strike is over, will the Prime Minister now give a guarantee to the House that there is and will be nothing in that plan that will create more unemployment among BSC workers?
    The Prime Minister: I have not seen the British Steel corporate plan and cannot say what it is likely to contain. I think that the threat to the jobs of BSC workers comes from the strike of the miners.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the presence of pickets outside the home of a man who wants to go to work is yet a further intrusion into individual freedom and liberty and can only harm the public standing and reputation of the trade union movement?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that some of the scenes of intimidation and violence that we have seen and the assembly of pickets outside houses, which is wholly and uttterly wrong, is recognised as wrong by all right thinking people. They wish to see that it does not happen and I hope that leaders of other trade unions will make their views felt about it.
    Mr. Loydenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Loyden: Will the Prime Minister have a look at the Standing Charges (Abolition) Bill, introduced yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington,
    1236
    North (Mr. Corbyn)? As many families and elderly and sick people are now finding the cost of heating a matter of luxury rather than need, will the right hon. Lady approve and support the Bill when it comes before the House?
    The Prime Minister: No. We inquired into standing charges some time ago and they were reduced under certain circumstances. There are quite a number of families for whom the abolition of standing charges would not be advantageous.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the report on the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), which is far more courageous than the attitude taken by the Leader of the Opposition? Is not that being responsible?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that most people are against the violence and intimidation that has taken place outside pits and the homes of certain miners. Most people believe that there should be a ballot in the coal industry and for the future of that industry it would be advisable for people to go back to work. I believe, too, that most people understand the case for the closure of uneconomic pits because of the tremendous burden on the taxpayer should they all remain open.
    Mr. Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition made a statement during Prime Minister's Question Time which concerns my constituency.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman started to say that it was a point of order which arose out of Question Time, but it must be a matter on which I can rule.
    Mr. Hayes: The right hon. Gentleman's statement was both inaccurate and positively dangerous to jobs in my constituency and this country. The Leader of the Opposition said that STC was owned by the United Stages of America.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Prime Minister clarified the matter.
    Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For many weeks we have had points of order and questions from both sides of the House about improving Prime Minister's Question Time. Would it be helpful if each night after 10.30 the questions that are planted by the Prime Minister and are unable to be read by her Back Benchers could be read out and the Prime Minister could have the opportunity to read the replies.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the most helpful suggestion would be for the Prime Minister to be heard in silence and for those who question her to be heard in silence, too.
    Mr. Terry Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we ensure that planted questions are remembered?

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for the week after the summer Adjournment?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the Army, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 23 OCTOBER—Motions on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order, and on the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order.
WEDNESDAY 24 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill.
Proceedings on the Rent (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Foster Children Bill (Scotland) Bill [Lords], and the Building Bill [Lords], which are all consolidation measure.
THURSDAY 25 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
FRIDAY 26 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the development of higher education provision, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House may also be asked to consider any other Lords amendments and messages which may be received.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that Government business will also be taken in the week commencing 29 October.
It is expected that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday 6 November.
Mr. Kinnock: We shall hear a statement later today about the water shortage in Wales. Why must be wait longer for a statement on the water shortage in England? The problem should be tackled nationally. Why are the Government so disorganised in their approach to a great and growing problem that is affecting so many areas of the country?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be a full statement on the Civil Aviation Authority report before the recess? The Secretary of State for Transport has created a civil war in the industry by implementing by stealth some of the CAA's recommendations on route transfers. In view of the great anxiety caused by the threat to thousands of jobs and to the future of civil aviation in this country, will he tell us why we have not had a statement already?
We shall want an early debate in Government time on the report of the Select Committee on Social Services on funding for the National Health Service as soon as we return in October. The report gives the lie to the Prime Minister's claim that the Health Service is safe in her hands by demonstrating that the rise in expenditure has not been 17 per cent. but, in truth, 7 per cent. There are other matters which deserve the consideration of the House, but I hope that we can look forward to a debate on the report as quickly as possible.
Mr. Biffen: On the question of a statement on the water situation in England, I am sorry that the right hon.
1238
Gentleman feels aggrieved that the statments are being made on successive days. If that is a difficulty which can be avoided in future, I am sure that through the usual channels we shall do all that we can to secure it.
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the important Civil Aviation Authority report was debated last night following the Consolidated Fund Bill, and I cannot helpfully add to what was said then from the Treasury Bench. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is giving urgent consideration to the CAS report, and I know that the Leader of the Opposition will agree that this is a complex and important matter which deserves the most careful consideration. Perhaps we might keep in touch through the usual channels.
Finally, as to the question of a debate on the report on the funding of the Health Service, I am sure that we can consider that in the autumn.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: In view of the fact that there is obviously a possibility that some agreement will be arrived at during the recess over the future of Hong Kong, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that should that happen we would hope for an early debate on any such agreement?
Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly bear that point in mind.
Mr. Alfred Morris: May I press the right hon. Gentleman on the need for a statement before the recess from the Secretary of State for Transport on the Civil Aviation Authority's report on airline competition policy? If there is no statement, may we have an assurance that no decisions will be taken behind the House's back during the recess?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot add to what I said to the Leader of the Opposition, but I shall most certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir Peter Emery: My right hon. Friend will know that the first report of the Select Committee on Procedure will be published tomorrow. As its recommendations concerning speeches will affect every hon. Member, will he do two things? First, will he see whether the report can be debated, if possible, during the week of 29 July, during this Session. Secondly, will he urge Members to read the report during the time that we are away so that they will be prepared to debate it when we return?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the authorship of the report will command the reading appetite of the House, but I am very happy to add my endorsement to what I am sure will be the opinion of many others about the importance of the report and its utility to the House. I shall bear in mind the necessity to have it debated as soon as soon as possible.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we have a debate on the "Ethnic Surveys of Non-Industrial Staff in the Civil Service in the North-West and Avon"?. The report was deliberately hidden by the Government so that when I asked a question last week the Minister involved said that the document had been lodged in the Library. It had just been lodged, in defective form, so that we could not get it before. That is no way to treat the House. The document shows a scandal which the Government were trying to hide. May we have a debate on the matter on the first possible opportunity?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. and learned Member is making serious allegations about the propriety of ministerial conduct. Of course I shall look into the matter as I am sure that there was no malice in anything that happened.
No provision for a debate has been made in the business that I have announced, and I cannot see any likelihood of its being included.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: The Leader of the House may be aware that some of us, on both sides of the House, who recently have had an opportunity to investigate and discuss this matter have concluded that Parliament would be well served by an organisation similar to the Office of Technology Assessment. He may not be aware that my attempts to raise this matter on the Consolidated Fund failed on the rather interesting ground that no Minister would be responsible for such expenditure—indeed, that the Chairman of the House of Commons Commission alone, who does not answer questions, would have to deal with it. As the matter arouses considerable interest and this example is now being followed by no fewer than three European Parliaments, may we have at least a half day's debate on it early when we resume?
Mr. Biffen: I am fascinated by the discovery of public expenditure for which there is no ministerial responsibility, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on having discovered such a concept. I very much hope that he will try his hand at all the opportunities available for a private Member to raise this matter, because I cannot immediately offer the prospect of Government time.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is to be an important statement on water and I have had notification of two Standing Order No. 10 applications. There then follows an important Back-Bench opportunity for debate, so I shall limit questions to a further 10 minutes on this matter.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cunmock and Doon Valley): Is the Leader of the House aware of the great concern at the effects of the drought in Scotland, in the south-west of Scotland in particular? With no disrespect to Wales or England, may I ask when we can have a statement on its effects in Scotland?
Mr. Biffen: I think that we are to have a measured experiment to see whether ministerial statements have absolutely any impact on the drought.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: In view of the fact that opinion among miners and miners' wives seems to be ebbing away from the intransigent line taken by Mr. Scargill, and since fears about that policy are being voiced even by Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), will my right hon. Friend stand ready to have an early debate when the House returns, if the miners' strike has collapsed during the recess?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of that proposition. I am sure that a debate would be of great interest to the House.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Leader of the House will know that the Secretary of State for Transport has now had in his possession since the end of June the British Rail strategy for the inter-city programme and electrification of the east coast route. Since the Secretry of State for Transport gave an
1240
undertaking that he would try to make a statement before the recess, will the right hon. Gentleman use his best endeavours to ensure that vie have one next week?
Mr. Biffen: I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that point about the railway programme.
Mr. David Crouch: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the limelight that has been attracted to the other place in recent weeks? Has he read this morning's report that the other place is to give a six months' trial to its being televised? Does he agree with the decision of this House when the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) raised the matter and we voted on it, and does he realise that we, too, should like a little limelight?
Mr. Biffen: When we exhaust the run-of-the-mill controversies of politics, we can turn to the sharp bitterness that this topic will evoke. I realise that many hon. Members have signed an early-day motion, which reflects the general interest of the House that the matter should be considered.
Mr. David Young: I am worried about the right hon. Gentleman's rather insipid reply on Hong Kong. Many of us with constituencies in the northwest have large Chinese communities who are extremely worried about the issues arising out there. They are particularly interested in knowing how people are to be consulted about their future. May I press the right hon. Gentleman specifically to state the Government's intentions to consult the House about the negotiations which are now taking place and which are due to be finalised by September?
Mr. Biffen: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is conducting most difficult negotiations with great skill, and certainly he is very anxious that the House should be informed at all stages. I take account of the representation just made, as I did that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle). Certainly I shall bear the matter in mind.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we on this side of the House are very pleased to hear that, through the usual channels, discussion will take place about whether it is possible to make an announcment before the recess about the decision in relation to the extraordinary CAA document on. British Airways? Will my right hon. Friend take account of the fact that it also impinges severely on the expected decision on a future London airport?
Mr. Biffen: I take account of that. My remarks to the Leader of the Opposition were carefully drawn and were intended to be as helpful as they could be. Certainly the subject raises wide-ranging considerations, including airport policy, as my hon. Friend says, so it would not be wise to proceed precipitately.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Is the Leader of the House aware that when at least two major Departments — the Departments of Social Services and Trade and Industry—prepare recommendations or regulations, they have extensive consultations outside the House, and that the advance documents are not available to hon. Members at that time? Will he seek to ensure that all Secretaries of State involve hon. Members in discussions at an early stage rather than too late?
Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He speaks with authority, and is respected in the House. If he has knowledge of a particular instance of general anxiety and refers it to me, I shall certainly have it investigated.
Mr. John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that if the miners' strike unfortunately continues into the summer recess the Government will make every attempt to make the issues clear to the public—the threat to personal liberty and the threat to constitutional government? Will the Government also make it clear that they will not hesitate to use emergency powers, should they be necessary, to safeguard the lives of ordinary people, particularly the humblest in the land, who are those most hurt by strikes?
Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for his faith in the efficacy of Ministers in the advocacy of the cause, and I hope that I can accommodate him on every point that he has raised.
Mr. Dick Douglas: If the Leader of the House has that faith in the Government's case, why is it that, although we are now in the 21st week of the miners' strike, the Secretary of State for Energy who, by reason of his office, is responsible for the nation's energy assets, has failed to meet the union's leadership? Can he persuade his right hon. Friend to do that? Will he ensure during the coming weeks—indeed, days—that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy lives up to the office for which he is paid?
Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has handled the ministerial aspects of this dispute admirably, and it is his very success that causes the grudging comments that I now have to listen to from the hon. Gentleman. I advise him to go away and have a good holiday.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Has my right hon. Friend any view about how or when the House will consider the first report of the Committee of Privileges, which vindicated the complaint against the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
Mr. Biffen: I think it would be wise for the House to have a chance to consider the findings of the Committee of Privileges, and we can perhaps consider the matter further in the light of reactions.
Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 931 about brutality in Hong Kong against civilians and children.
[That this House deplores the action of the Hong Kong Police in using physical violence against civilians in squatter areas, including women and children, the deployment of 40 Blue Berets from the Special Police Tactical Unit and the handcuffing of young children; reminds the Hong Kong Government that its colonial rule is coming to an end; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that similar tactics will not be used in the future.]
1242
Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to ensure that no similar disgraceful incidents occur during the summer recess, otherwise there may be serious riots in the colony?
Mr. Biffen: I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend is currently consulting the authorities in Hong Kong on this matter. I shall certainly draw his attention to it.
Dr. Keith Hampson: As there is such deep public concern about the fact that a local council can run up an advertising budget of £10 million on advertising against the Government, is it not surprising that we are not to have a statement from the Government to the effect that some action will be taken to stop the GLC and metropolitan councils from advertising on this scale? May we have an assurance as soon as possible that we shall not replace one irresponsible body in London with an advisory body in London?
Mr. Biffen: Initially, at any rate, my hon. Friend will have a good opportunity to ventilate that anxiety in the debates on Monday.
Mr. Donald Coleman: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the question of the death grant has been raised in the House from time to time. May we have a statement next week on the matter? If the right hon. Gentleman intends to take up the suggestion about Ministers propagandising on the miners' strike, will he arrange for Ministers to go to the mining communities where such matters are understood?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that all constructive suggestions about the Government's campaign will be thoughtfully received. There is no prospect of the death grant being debated either next week or in the first week after the summer recess.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend will probably have read a report of last night's debate on the Civil Aviation Authority and noted the overwhelming praise for British Airways, Lord King and the staff and the magnificent turnabout which they have achieved. However, during the debate there was massive criticism of the CAA document for the Minister to consider. Mention was made of public utterances by the chairman of the CAA. That was deplorable. Is it not time, therefore, to debate the CAA, bearing in mind the fact that it was formed well over 10 years ago?
Mr. Biffen: There is no prospect of a debate on the CAA next week and no arrangements have been made for such a debate in the first week after the summer recess.
Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind that you said that it would be necessary to curtail business questions because two applications under Standing Order No. 10 were in the pipeline, is it possible for you to rule out completely Standing Order No. 10 applications on Thursday?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that that is not possible.

Water Supplies (Wales)
3.50 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the water situation in Wales.
Since February of this year rainfall in the Principality has been abnormally low, and over the whole of the Welsh water authority area has only been 44 per cent. of the longterm average. The authority has been monitoring the water supply carefully since Easter and has taken measures to conserve stocks of water held in reservoirs by application for drought orders to reduce compensation water discharges from reservoirs and to increase abstraction from rivers. The authority also sought to reduce consumption by banning the use of hosepipes and garden sprinklers. In spite of those measures, reservoir levels have continued to fall and further action will be necessary to conserve the remaining stocks of water until there is sufficient rainfall to replenish them. Nobody can be certain when this will be, but meteorological records point to substantial rain by the third week of October and the WWA has formulated its emergency plans accordingly.
The areas most seriously affected are south-east Wales, Preseli, with a population of about 40,000 people, and the Lleyn peninsula where the influx of summer tourists more than doubles the population to about 66,000. However, the shortage of water in south-east Wales gives the greatest cause for concern because some 1 million people are involved. The WWA has therefore set up a drought liaison committee for south-east Wales with representatives from the local authorities, the health authorities, my Department, the CBI, the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales and other bodies. The committee met last Monday when the WWA presented the facts about the supply and outlined its plans for meeting the shortage.
In the first instance, there will be a ban on the non-essential users of water such as automatic car washing plant and a drought order has been signed to put that into effect. If the dry weather continues, the WWA will then need to ensure a further reduction in consumption to about 50 per cent. of normal from 1 September. It intends to do this by shutting off supplies to domestic consumers for up to 17 hours per day; industrialists and agriculturalists will be relied upon to make their own plans for reducing consumption by a similar amount. The organisations represented on the drought liaison committee now have a month to consider the implications of those measures and to make their own plans accordingly. Further meetings of the committee will take place as necessary to resolve any outstanding problems before the WWA begins to shut off supplies.
Problems of varying severity exist in other parts of the WWA area and appropriate measures are being taken to limit consumption and to make the best use of the available stocks of water. The powers available under the Drought Act 1976 are being, and will continue to be, used to the full and there is close contact between the WWA and my Department so that I am kept regularly informed of the situation.
Finally, I pay tribute to the great efforts being made by WWA personnel to overcome the problems caused by the exceptionally dry weather of recent months.
Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has made a serious statement. He used the word, "emergency". Why did he not come to the House earlier? Is it true that in one month's time half of the population of Wales—about 1,400,000—face daily shutoffs of water for up to 17 hours? Without substantial rainfall, our reservoirs will almost certainly fail to service our vital needs in two months' time. Why did not the Secretary of State for Wales rapidly complete the water transfer scheme for the Wye and Usk rivers, which would have enabled south Wales to cope effectively with the drought? Did not the Labour Government bequeath a scheme that could have been completed by 1983 instead of by May 1985? Have not Ministers recklessly gambled on there being no such drought again? Have they not failed to recognise the importance of the transfer scheme?
The chief executive of the Welsh water authority said:
"It is certainly true that were phase one of the River Wye-River Usk transfer scheme in operation now, the drought could probably have been averted… We would always have welcomed an injection of funds from central Government."
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the comment made by the Western Mail in its first leader yesterday? It said that:
"the Welsh Office is falling down in its duty to the people of Wales."
Are not the Government's cash limits disastrously inadequate to develop the water grid that Wales needs?
What is the estimate of potential job losses and lay-offs and the impact of cut-offs upon the manufacturing and service industries in Wales? The Minister should be aware that some Welsh valleys suffer male unemployment rates of more than 20 per cent. Long-term unemployment in the valleys rises to about 40 per cent. How precisely will the Minister assist the inceasingly vulnerable dairy farming and tourist industries in Preseli and Lleyn, for example? Does he promise that there will be no premature cut-offs in Blaenau Gwent, upper Cynon Valley and Rhondda areas? Our valley communities shelter some of Britain's poorest people and a high number of elderly citizens. They need special consideration. So do those factories located amid housing estates that face water cut-offs. The right hon. Gentleman has never had a mandate to lead the people of Wales. Is he aware that we have no confidence in him, that his stewardship has been poor and that he has let down the people of Wales?
Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman asked about a statement in the House. I have reported to Members representing Welsh constituencies in the Grand Committee and at Welsh Questions. I have come forward to make a statement today. During the previous drought in 1976, the then Secretary of State for Wales never made a statement on the subject in the House. Indeed, the reaction of the Labour Government in 1976 was to introduce expenditure cuts of £60 million in 1977–78 and a further £60 million the following year, after a 10 per cent. moratorium in 1976. The then National Water Council said that as a result
"Some… measures to provide against a recurrence of severe drought mentioned in the recent 'Water Supply Prospects in 1977' will now have to be postponed."
I also remind the hon. Gentleman that during that drought, which was not as severe as the present one, cut-offs began on 19 July and were extended at the beginning of August. Because of the substantial measures taken since 1976, we have been able to avoid the possibility of cut-offs until the beginning of September. A substantial number of schemes were completed during that period.

1245
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Wye transfer scheme. That scheme was not introduced to deal with the drought emergency in 1976. It was part of a longer plan, based on the judgment of water needs in Wales over the last part of the century. It was brought forward and looked at more urgently in the light of the 1976 experience. Very soon after coming into Government I gave approval for that scheme. It was then considered by the water authority, in the light of current assessments of water need, and plans were proceeded with on that basis. The intention was to complete the supply of 15 million gallons a day for the Wye transfer by next year. Those decisions were taken in 1981.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about cash limits. There have been no cash limits on the water authority. The water authority is provided with an EFL and in every single year since this Government came to office the Welsh water authority has substantially underspent its EFL.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Western Mail article. That article was extraordinarily ill-informed in that it suggested that supplies of water going to the Severn-Trent area were having some effect on south-east Wales. There is no truth whatsoever in that suggestion. The limitation is on the amount of water that we can pump out of the lower reaches of the Wye and the amount of water in the reservoirs of south-east Wales.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the effect on jobs. The 1976 industry showed itself extremely adaptable and I am sure it will meet the needs at the present time. The hon. Gentleman referred to problems, particularly those of the Heads of the Valleys, where there are major water shortages in the reservoirs on the Brecon Beacons that supply the Heads of the Valleys, but it is as a result of major schemes carried out since 1976 that we are able to transfer large quantities of water into south-east Wales, both from the Wye and the west, and to transfer water around a local grid and, indeed, up the lower reaches of the valleys. It is because of those measures that it has been possible to take the decision not to impose restrictions in the Heads of the Valleys before restrictions are introduced elsewhere in south-east Wales.
Mr. Ian Grist: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we could have had a lot more investment in our water industry if everyone had been prepared to pay much higher water charges, that there has been no restriction on investment by the water authority, that his statement this afternoon is greatly appreciated by those of us who remember the lack of any statement in the past from the Labour Government and that Labour Members are showing a fine turn of hypocrisy this afternoon?
Mr. Edwards: I can confirm that one of the factors that the water authority has to take into account in planning its long-term capital programme is the effect on charges. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that there has been no constraint as a result of borrowing limits set by the Government. What has constrained the authority is the effect on charges that a massively increased capital programme would have had. It has had to balance its priorities, both in terms of the needs of the capital programme and the effect on charges, and take an overall judgment.
1246
I can tell my hon. Friend that far from having cut the capital programme in any way, though we announced in advance what capital expenditure was likely to be, the water authority has exceeded those planned amounts in each of the last two financial years and no action has been taken against it. Indeed, it has received our congratulations on it efforts to contain expenditure.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Tourism, manufacturing and agriculture industries in Wales all need a comprehensive and reliable water system which will enable them to exploit the great natural resources of Wales. Will the Secretary of State come out of the corner, into which he regularly retreats, of political slugging and tell us when Wales will have the investment that will give it that comprehensive and reliable water system?
Mr. Edwards: Perhaps I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that over the past few years the following schemes have been completed—the Llyn Brianne-river Tywi scheme, which is enabling us to take 4 million gallons of water per day into south-east Wales at the moment, the Taf Fawr-Taf Fechan link, which is proving extremely important, the Taf Fechan-eastern valleys link; the Llandegfedd aqueduct-Taf Fawr link and the Wye transfer scheme which is enabling us to transfer this week some 10 million gallons of water per day. Therefore, substantial progress is being made to improve the system.
If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to urge water users in Wales to pay higher charges we could, of course, speed up that scheme even more.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not pretty sickening to hear both Opposition parties, who ruthlessly exploit the natural reluctance of the people in Wales to pay higher water charges, now rounding on my right hon. Friend and complaining that more money was not spent? It is particularly inappropriate for them to complain that the statement comes so late, as my right hon. Friend has taken the first possible opportunity to make a statement and no such statement was ever made by the Labour Government.
Mr. Edwards: I note that this is the second statement that I have made in 10 days on a subject on which my predecessor never made a statement. The other matter was commented on in an early-day motion. The Government have spent some £75 million on improvements to the water supply system in the area and the water authority is undertaking a massive capital programme. The constraint that it has to bear in mind is the effect on charges and the need to balance its overall priorities.
Mr. Leo Abse: Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that South-east Wales, where this grim visitation will take place in September, will not regard what is taking place as an act of God, but will rightly regard it as yet another piece of folly and irresponsibility on the part of the Secretary of State for Wales? Why does he not admit that his failure to monitor the capital expenditure of the Welsh water authority and the failure to ensure that the Usk-Wye scheme was implemented has led to this result? By trying to shift responsibility on to the Welsh water authority and by saying that it has underspent, he is only revealing still further his irresponsibility in not having identified the problem and put it squarely to the Welsh authority which could have saved south-east Wales from this disaster. It is high time that the Secretary of State

1247
for Wales made an apology to the people of Wales for what is happening. He should be contrite and not follow the example of his mistress, in always alleging that responsibility lies somewhere other than with himself.
Mr. Edwards: I shall not follow the characteristically charlatan pretence of the hon. Member that Ministers can somehow miraculously solve the worst drought since records began and the problems that that drought is bound to produce. I point out to him that in 1976, under the Labour Government, the first shut-off in his constituency occurred for 13 hours a day on 19 July. We are avoiding such cut-offs until the beginning of September. We all remember the stand pipes that were placed in Welsh valleys under his Government, which undertook a slashing reduction of water authority investment because they had made such a total mess of running the economy.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will have heard what I said earlier about the business which follows—important Back Bench business. I shall allow questions to continue until 4.20 pm, which will allow a full half hour on this statement. However, I ask hon. Members to put their questions briefly.
Mr. Donald Coleman: Nobody in Wales will be very impressed with the Secretary of State and what he had to say. Welsh communities face water rationing and heavy fines, and industrial users find themselves facing a serious future. The Secretary of State says that he is not God, but he is Old Nick here. Will the Secretary of State say on how many occasions drought orders have been applied for and restrictions applied to water supplies to domestic consumers since 1979? Despite what he has been saying he should accept that it is a fact that he has placed restrictions on the Welsh water authority which have prevented implementation of the plans drawn up in 1976 to deal with droughts, particularly in south-east Wales. Does he want to go down as the man who caused Welsh people to go thirsty and, perhaps unwashed?
Mr. Edwards: The scheme drawn up during the 1970s was not a drought scheme, and it was launched by this Government, not by their predecessors. There is absolutely no truth in the idea that it is constraints by this Government that have delayed the scheme. As I pointed out, the EFLs set have been under-utilised in every single year. The limit in 1982–83 set by the Government was £25·25 million, and the Welsh water authority spent £22·6 million. In 1983–84, we set a limit of £23 million, and the Welsh water authority spent £18·6 million.
Mr. Brynmor John: Does the Secretary of State accept what his Under-Secretary told the Welsh Grand Committee, that the Wye-Usk transfer could have been completed in May 1983? If he does, can he tell the House why he has not insisted that it should be completed?
Mr. Edwards: It was never intended or planned by anyone that the scheme should be totally completed by that date. Indeed, it has never been intended that the full transfer and full use of 30 million gallons should be available before the early 1990s. The decision was taken by the Welsh water authority in 1981 on the basis of its assessment of water requirements in south-east Wales in the latter part of the century, and the scheme was revised because it has now been assessed that water usage has
1248
declined. As I pointed out, although the scheme is obviously important during drought, that was never its prime purpose.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the Secretary of State seriously saying, in spite of all that was said at the time of the Select Committee report, that he did not interfere in the financial regime of the Welsh water authority—in respect of charges, for example'? What precisely did he mean when he said that industrial and agricultural users will be relied upon to reduce their consumption by a similar amount? What does "be relied upon" mean? Will there be monitoring, or what? How will that be enforced?
Mr. Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I was alone in asking the Welsh water authority to hold down its charges, that would be very hypocritical. It has been the universal demand of every Opposition Member and most people in Wales. It is one of the factors that the water authority rightly has to take into account. It is absurd hypocrisy for people to pretend otherwise. I utterly reject it.
We are having meetings with industry and asking it to restrict its usage to 50 per cent., and I am confident that it will make every effort to do so. If people can save water substantially in the coming weeks and there is moderate rainfall in August, we shall be able to postpone the introduction of the scheme, I hope. But that depends on significant rainfall during the period and a substantial saving in the use of water. There is no other soluion to the problem.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the work of the personnel of the Welsh water authority who are carrying out their duties at this difficult time. In my constituency lives the new technical services director of that authority, who takes up his duties next week. I see from the front page of last night's Evening Post that there was a horrible crash into Mr. Earp's house. His wife fortunately managed to escape with no injury whatever. None the less, she had been—I quote—
"watering flowers moments earlier."
May I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that when personnel of the Welsh water authority, their husbands or wives water their flowers, they use bath water and not water from the tap?
Mr. Edwards: I am not aware of exactly what restrictions apply in the area. South-west Wales does not have the same water problem that south-east Wales has. But I shall certainly take the opportunity, as the hon. Gentleman has asked, to say that everyone should be encouraged to use washing up water and so on to water their flowers, and should not use hose pipes, thereby wasting water.
Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Secretary of State agree that his statement this afternoon has been totally unacceptable? The people of Wales want water not words. The Secretary of State seeks to blame all our problems on inadequate rainfall. He makes no mention at all of inadequate financing of the Welsh water authority, of inadequate planning, of inadequate management or of inadequate leadership from the Welsh Office. In the light of the prevailing circumstances in Wales, will the Secretary of State reconsider first, his position on the need

1249
for a national grid and, secondly, his position on introducing rebates for industrial, commercial and domestic consumers?
Mr. Edwards: I really think that for the hon. Gentleman to make some of his remarks against the background of the worst drought since records began is to credit Ministers and, indeed, planners at the water authority with an ability to deal with every situation. Frankly, it is misleading to suggest that such an ability exists. As for a national grid, I agree with statements made by Labour Ministers at the time that to introduce a major national grid would be a massive and costly exercise that would take a very long time. What we are doing, and making considerable progress towards, is establishing a local grid in the south Wales area. It is because we have made substantial progress in this direction that we are making a much better success of handling this more severe drought than was made in 1976 by the Labour Government, who had water rationing in mid-July.
Dr. John Marek: Will the Secretary of State consider his answers to questions and realise that it is getting a little boring for the Opposition to hear him telling us about—and misrepresenting in the process—the actions of the previous Labour Administration? Will the Secretary of State concentrate his mind on the inadequacies of the present Administration? Will he admit that the drought in 1976 was of the order of seriousness of the drought of 1948 and that under the previous Labour Administration there was action to put together a plan for a water transfer scheme, which his Administration have delayed? Can he guarantee that he will now treat that
1250
scheme as a priority and ensure that the water transfer scheme, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), will be a top priority for his Department? If so, will the Secretary of State also undertake to have careful planning in his Department so that we do not need miracles?
Mr. Edwards: As the hon. Gentleman clearly has not been listening for the past half hour I shall tell him again that the records show that the present drought is by far the worst since records began. It is significantly worse than that in 1976. I shall also tell him that the Government have in no way restrained either the new Wye transfer scheme or the other schemes. Clearly, in the light of present events, the water authority will have to reconsider its priorities and take decisions accordingly.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Welsh wailing and wind that we have heard from the Opposition today carries little weight in my part of Herefordshire, which is served by the Welsh water authority? We already pay far more for our water than those living in Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the robust reorganisation that he undertook in his early days as Secretary of State has left the Welsh water authority far better equipped and financially better organised and prepared to deal with such emergencies in the future?
Mr. Edwards: It is undoubtedly true that not only did the Welsh water authority inherit a poor system in many parts of Wales but that the previous organisation was not well equipped to sort out those problems. We have made major improvements to the organisation and that is why the water authority is making such successful attempts to deal with an unprecedentedly difficult situation.

British Shipbuilders
4.19 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the true and parlous state of British Shipbuilders' finances as revealed in public statements today."
Yesterday we had a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which went on for a long time and which purported to review the state of British Shipbuilders and its plans for the future, including the sale of the warship-building yards, which were a notable and controversial feature of that statement. Now, 24 hours later, after two public sittings of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, it is apparent that major facts that were not available to us yesterday have now come into the public gaze that profoundly affect the urgency of the financial problems of British Shipbuilders.
I refer to two matters. First, it has become plain that responsibility for the completion of the British Petroleum oil rig at the Scott Lithgow yard remains with British Shipbuilders, in spite of the sale at very good terms and benefit to Trafalgar House. Unless that contract is completed—British Shipbuilders now has no possibility of exercising direct responsibility itself—a penalty of no less than £78 million, or the demand that it should purchase the oil rig from British Petroleum, will have to be met. That will have a profound effect on the accounts of British Shipbuilders.
The second fact that has been revealed by the chairman of British Shipbuilders in his evidence today is that the proceeds of the compulsory sale of the profitable warship-building yards that are to be taken from British Shipbuilders will not accrue to British Shipbuilders but will go straight to the Treasury. That is quite unlike the arrangements that have been announced for the sale of Jaguar in relation to British Leyland. Apart from the appalling lack of candour to which we were treated yesterday in our exchanges with the Secretary of State, there are now, inevitably—this reflects the gravity and urgency of the situation — serious doubts about the financial viability of British Shipbuilders.
1252
As the House knows, the auditors qualified their approval of the accounts in the report published yesterday with the Secretary of State's statement. The small print of the accountants' qualifications has now been given a far more visible and dramatic meaning in the proceedings before the Select Committee, which I have just revealed. I am urging that we should now adjourn and debate the motion that the financial state of British Shipbuilders has been left in a truly parlous and difficult position and that it is vital for the commercial reputation and for the ongoing viability of British Shipbuilders that all doubts be cleared up and removed at the earliest possible moment so that British Shipbuilders can carry out its proper functions.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the true and parlous state of British Shipbuilders' finances as revealed in public statements today."
I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Member has said but regret that I do not consider that the matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you consider referring the question of Standing Order No. 10 to the Select Committee on Procedure? The Standing Order makes it plain that even if you, Mr. Speaker, grant a request, the leave of the House must be obtained and there must be 40 hon. Members present to give that leave.
As there have not been anything like 40 hon. Members in the House, and certainly nothing like 40 hon. Members on the Opposition Benches during the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's submission, will you give some consideration to the matter, Mr. Speaker, as the time of the House is frequently wasted by such applications.
Mr. Speaker: Standing Order No. 10 applications are a rather precious Back Bench and Opposition initiative. If the hon. Gentleman feels that the procedure should be changed, it is up to him to refer the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure. I should then be bound by whatever decision is taken.

Bella Magalone
4.24 pm
Mr. Stan Thorne: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed deportation of Bella Magalone."
This is the case of a defenceless woman, rather than a shipbuilding industry, but, nevertheless, it merits the attention of the House.
Miss Magalone arrived in the United Kingdom 10 years ago. She overstayed, she was badly advised about immigration rules by a rather unscrupulous gentleman and she subsequently settled in Preston. She has been employed for some years at the Royal Preston hospital as an auxiliary nurse. The senior nursing officer there has written to me giving a high recommendation of Miss Magalone. She is active in St. John Ambulance and in the Catholic community in Preston, and is highly regarded there.
I appealed to the Minister of State, Home Office for compassion in this case. Miss Magalone is 30 years old. If she returns to the Philipines, she will undoubtedly end up living in a boat. In spite of the background to the case, after 10 years in the United Kingdom, in which time she has proved herself an admirable citizen, Miss Magalone should be allowed to remain. As the Minister of State has not given a favourable decision, which I think is deplorable, the matter warrants the attention of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed deportation of Bella Magalone."
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That this House do meet on Wednesday 1st August at half-past Nine o'clock, that no Questions be taken after half-past Ten o'clock, and that at half-past Three o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question. — [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Adjournment (Summer)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Wednesday 1st August do adjourn till Monday 22nd October, and that the House shall not adjourn on Wednesday 1st August until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Biffen.]
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the second amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
4.27 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed motion, to leave out '22nd October' and insert '13th August'.
The Opposition have taken the unusual course of tabling an amendment proposing that the House does not adjourn on 1 August. Hon. Members will also have seen on the Order Paper an amendment proposing that we return in the week commencing 13 August and thereafter as necessary. We are resolved to vote on the amendment that has been selected.
The amendment reflects our view of the gravity of the interlocking crises that confront us — economic and industrial, social and political—and our belief that those problems will only intensify in the weeks between 1 August and 22 October. Economic crisis is now upon us. The most vivid expression of that is the recent leap in interest rates of no less than 2¾ per cent. in a single week. The markets, which have been lulled and gulled by the Chancellor's Budget, by his tax cuts and his emphatic assurance that the economy was making a strong recovery, suddenly woke up to the fact that it was a pipe dream, that the recovery was not proceeding, that output was fast receding, that the money supply was growing faster than Ministers said it would or should, and that, more generally, the Government looked in almost every area of affairs that they touched just about as incompetent as they actually are.
In the past four months, the whole economic outlook has clouded and darkened. When he wound up the Budget debate on 19 March the Chancellor went out of his way to contrast the critical words and warnings of the Opposition with what he called a better test: the so-called impartial verdict of the market. He proudly pointed out:
"During the week that has elapsed since the Budget the clearing banks' base rates were cut 0·5 per cent. to their lowest level for six years, the mortgage rate was cut by 1 per cent. and the stock market rose by 5 per cent."
Now, just four months later, the minimum lending rate is not 8½ per cent., but 12 per cent.; mortgage interest rate is not 10¼ per cent., but 12¾ per cent.; the share index is not 894, but 770 — a drop of some 14 per cent. The Chancellor himself stressed the enormous importance of interest rates, when he said:
"Such reductions are of immense benefit to industry, business and the country".—[Official Report, 19 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 789.]
If that is true of a reduction of a half per cent. in March, how much more damage and harm to industry, business and the country does an increase of 3½ per cent. in July entail? There is not much mystery about that. Every 1 per cent. increase in bank minimum lending rates inflicts an increase of about £250 million in the costs of manufacturing industry.
What we have had since the confident presentation of the March Budget is an increase in the cost burdens on manufacturing industry of about £850 million a year. It is

1255
not just industry that has been clobbered by steeply rising interest rates. Millions of housebuyers, particularly young people struggling with their first mortgages, now face a sharp cut in their living standards and expectations.
No one should imagine that there are corrective forces at work to counter such trends as the year proceeds. The whole structure of interest rates for months ahead has now been altered, as the latest issues of Government stocks and national savings intruments have clearly revealed. The trade deficit is growing, output—at the very best—is on a plateau and unemployment will leap yet again when the school and college leavers register this autumn. The Prime Minister's claim, on 10 July—two days before interest rates shot up by a further 2 per cent.—that
"The economy is in good shape"—[Official Report, 10 July 1984; Vol. 63, c. 875.]
is there for all to see, in all its absurdity. On present trends, we could be in deep financial difficulty and economic crisis before the summer is out.
I turn now to the mining dispute—in its 20th week. It is our most ardent wish that a resolution will be found —and long before 22 October. But we are far from certain about that. With the House in recess, there will not be the constant probings of the Government's intentions and of the state of play, nor the pressure for constructive action which the Opposition have persistently advocated thoughout the course of the long dispute.
It is all too plain to us that the Government lack the will to find a solution. Throughout the past 20 weeks they have been active and diligent in organising for victory—and inert and negligent in searching for a reasonable solution. The Secretaries of State for Energy and for Employment have washed their hands of the whole dispute. No talks have been arranged. There have been no initiatives, no mention even of inquiry, conciliation, arbitration or any other means by which men of good will and sense seek to achieve solutions to difficult problems. Even the limited, but indispensable, role of listening to and making contact with the parties has been left to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who hopes to intervene later in the debate.
What are the Government's aims? Bluntly, they believe that with the backing of the state—
Mr. Francis Maude: As the right hon. Gentleman has stepped into the breach, would he like to comment on the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) last night, when he condemned secondary picketing and called for a ballot? Does he accept that that was the first sign of leadership that has come from the Labour Benches?
Mr. Shore: It is up to my hon. Friend to make his own remarks, and to justify them, as I have no doubt he did when he spoke last night when I was not here.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Perhaps my hon. Friend will recall that when my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) spoke at the parliamentary Labour party meeting about three months ago in a debate on this very matter, he did so in extremely strident tones. Those of us who observed and listened to his speech last night came to the conclusion that he is coming over our way. His speech last night was not half as bad as his one three months ago. We are winning him round.
Mr. Michael Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it for this House to be told the internal workings of the parliamentary Labour party in its meetings?
Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) gives way to an hon. Member on either side of the House, that is a matter for him. What that hon. Member says is equally a matter for that hon. Member.
Mr. Shore: I have learnt my lesson about the absurdity of giving way to mischievously motivated Conservative Members with their absurd points of order. Let us keep our eye on the ball.
I was asking what are the Government's aims. Bluntly, they believe that, with the full backing of the state, Mr. MacGregor can win—and they are prepared to pay a very high price to secure that victory. But let us he clear about one thing: the economic crisis that I have already described cannot be blamed upon the mining dispute. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was emphatic about that only three weeks ago on 4 July. When answering the question whether he would give an estimate of the effect on our trade and current national industrial performance of the present coal dispute, he said:
"The whole House will be pleased to know that the dispute has had no effect on the output and performance of the vast majority of United Kingdom industries."—[Official Report, 4 July 1984; Vol. 63, c. 303.]
But if it will not do as an alibi for the underlying and intensifying economic crisis, there can be no doubt that, as every week goes by, the costs of the dispute mount. Today's figures of the NCB's losses of £800 million for the year ending 31 March 1984 included only three weeks of the miners' strike, although many more weeks of the ban on overtime. But, as the Government well know, the direct and indirect costs of the strike in public expenditure terms must now be running at well over £1,500 million. The costs in terms of social divisiveness, physical confrontation, hardship for mining families and for whole mining communities and damage to police-community relationships cannot be quantified, but they are appallingly high; and, as the dispute continues, attitudes become increasingly hardened and unyielding.
The Government are weak in many areas, but in their understanding of political and human psychology and their reading of the character of the people of this country they are conspicuously defective. The miners and their communities will not be coerced; they will not be brow-beaten; they will not surrender to the whips of privation. Indeed, such tactics only strengthen their resolve. So the Government can put away any idea that, by fining miners' families £15 a week, by withholding tax rebates, by "toughing it out", by tightening the screws of the social security system, they will win. They will not. What will win in the end is not coercion of the miners but persuasion; and that persuasion will succeed only if it meets the separate but linked anxieties of the great majority of the mining communities.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shore: No, I will not.
The Government have to be seen to abandon their original intention of applying to the coal industry and to the sharp question of pit closures the short-term, profit and

1257
loss calculations that they insist on applying almost everywhere else in the economy. Second, the Government must show that they are committed to a thriving and expanding coal industry. Third, they must demonstrate that coal has a seriously considered place in an up-to-date, national fuel economy policy.
Although progress was made at the last round of talks, there is no doubt that the gap that remains is wide and deep. It would be foolish and misleading to suggest that all that is now needed is an acceptable alternative to the words "beneficial exploitation". The dispute is about something much larger: it is about the costs — human and social, direct and indirect, as well as financial—that are to be taken into account in deciding pit development and pit closure policies; it is about the way in which, if that agreement on criteria can be reached, it is to be subsequently implemented at local level; and it is about the whole complex area of specialised economics, the husbanding and costing of non-renewable energy resources, which cannot be dealt with by the conventional and simple approach of short-term profit and loss.
Based on the original "Plan for Coal", a new and serious debate on energy needs and policy in the 1980s and 1990s is long overdue, and it may well provide a framework within which more immediate and pressing matters can find a solution and a proper perspective.
Mr. Hickmet: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are now on the summer Adjournment, and I have always understood that this was a day for Back Benchers. Back Benchers find it difficult enough to get any time to speak in the House as it is. But I note that the Front Bench of the Labour party is here in force. Is that in order, on what is essentially Back Benchers' day?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Every hon. Member has the right to speak, and to give good reason why the House should or should not go into recess. I have heard nothing so far which is out of order.
Mr. Shore: As I was saying, the House of Commons can assist in all the matters that I have reviewed. It would be a tragedy if, in some 12 weeks' time, we were to reassemble with none of the problems of the coal strike in any way advanced, and with the cost and damage, in human and economic terms, still further increased.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shore: We are very conscious that 1984 has brought us a summer of discontent. There is anger, bitterness and violence in the coal fields; there is frustration and deep discontent at the sight of a democratically-elected Government abdicating their responsibilities, and putting the dead weight of their own negativism on to the backs of uniformed police. There is, indeed, the feeling that we have a Government who are completely insensitive to the needs and feelings of the majority of people in the country.
It is not only in the coal fields, but in the inner areas of our great cities that discontent is simmering this summer. In those urban centres today we have terrifyingly high unemployment, idle and alienated youth, racial tension, environmental decay and a pervasive pessimism about the future. Already they have suffered immense direct damage at the hands of the Government.
1258
Councils have been first denied financial help by the Government, then fined and penalised for overspending, and finally—in the case of the metropolitan counties and the GLC—threatened with complete abolition, with their electors refused the right to vote. Then, only two days ago, the Secretary of State announced his appalling decision for the coming year. With yet another cut in the rate support grant — from 51·9 per cent. to 48·8 per cent. —every council in the land faces a reduction in Government grant. The most that any council can expect is that its position in 1985–86 will be no worse than it was in 1984–85. But most councils, including those of all the major cities, are destined to suffer at least a 4 per cent. cut in real terms in their unchanged monetary grant. Now, on top of that, 18 named authorities are to be rate-capped so that their loss will be 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. in a single year.
What is remarkable about the list is that it includes most of the worst-hit areas of inner London, and both the ILEA and the GLC which serve them. The named councils are virtually a roll-call of the inner city partnership priority boroughs in London, together with many other major metropolitan centres in other parts of the country.
Not only our economy but our society is under strain this year. There is thunder in the air: this is indeed a summer of discontent. The House cannot afford to absent itself, at such a time, for so long a span as the Government have provided for. The nation will not understand if Parliament, which is the lightning conductor of its own anger, concerns and frustrations, absents itself during the critical weeks and months that lie ahead. That is why we shall vote for our amendment this evening.
4.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): I apologise to hon. Members on both sides of the House for intervening, albeit briefly, in the debate. But, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has pointed out, this is an unusual Adjournment motion debate, because the Opposition have seen fit to table an amendment and, although the right hon. Gentleman barely referred to the date of 13 August in his remarks, the Opposition amendment is on the Order Paper for all to see.
In my short contribution I shall seek to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's claim that the need to review the crisis in the coal industry is a reason for not adjourning in accordance with the Government's proposals. Let me say that I see no need to accept the right hon. Gentleman's advice on this matter, although my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will wind up in the usual way and will deal with the wide-ranging issues raised in the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Government are not interested in the future of the coal industry is a bit rich. He said that he wished that he could believe that the Government were more committed to the future of the coal industry. That was prerequisite. He should know from the discussions and debates that we have had on coal that this Government have done more than any in recent years to provide for the future of the industry.
The Government have done more than any other in providing for an investment of £2 million a day, in securing a further £3 billion investment over the next four

1259
years and in improving the wages of miners who have now been offered a basic rate of £144 if the 5·2 per cent. is accepted.
Furthermore, this Government have done more than any other to provide for the right, correct and humane way of dealing with those who see fit to leave the industry, while at the same time guaranteeing a job to every single miner who wishes to remain in the industry. If that is not a convincing demonstration of the Government's commitment to the industry, I do not know what is, and frankly I think that the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Shaw: No, I shall not give way, because I seek to optimise the amount of time available for Back Benchers, who rightly wish to participate in the debate.
There is not a state of emergency over the mining dispute of a character as would require the adoption of an amendment such as the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to move. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, electricity supplies will continue well into 1985. CEGB coal stocks are at a high level and consumption is diminishing them by only 1·5 per cent. per week.
Industrial production has not been disrupted, and, despite the massive attempts made by the NUM, steel producers are still producing; indeed, they achieved a higher level of production in the last full week than at any time since the dispute began. Railways and other transport services are not at a standstill and active support from other unions seeking to escalate and widen the dispute — a characteristic of such disputes on past occasions—has not been forthcoming.
The present situation in the coal industry is that part of the National Union of Mineworkers is on strike but a significant part is not. The first and critical determining factor is that the union is widely divided on the issue and that more than 60,000 miners and other persons within the industry have elected to exercise their right to work. The Government have provided for the right to work to remain, despite the massive intimidation and pressure that have been brought to bear on individuals.
If the Labour party had seen fit to pay more attention to the fact that the NUM appears to be most unwilling to ballot its members on the issue, more credence might have been given to its attempt to move the Adjournment of the House and to seek its reassembly on 13 August. But there has been little attempt by the Opposition to come forward officially with proposals in relation to balloting the NUM work force. In that regard I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) because he has used his own contacts to provide prospects for discussions. I welcome his achievements but at the end of the day it must be said that after 35 hours of intensive negotiations there has not been a settlement. That is not because the National Coal Board has failed to offer attractive terms but because the NUM has made no attempt to accept that the gut issue in this dispute has been whether pits that offer no economic benefit to the industry should remain open.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney should remember that the National Coal Board has offered to re-examine its proposal of 6 March, based upon the 4 million tonnes contraction, and to review the objectives in individual areas. It has offered the continuing operation of the five collieries specifically referred to by the National
1260
Union of Mineworkers, providing the union can agree guidelines for future decisions relating to the closure of collieries. The board has offered to establish those guidelines more clearly. It has also offered no compulsory redundancies. In addition, generous redundancy terms are available for those who leave the industry.
Frankly, it defies belief that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney can dismiss completely all that the NCB has offered and say that no serious attempt to negotiate is being made. It is a massively serious attempt to resolve a major problem.
Mr. Tracey: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Shaw: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I seek to conclude very shortly.
There is an interesting ray of hope. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the costs within the National Coal Board's finances. The costs today are clearly shown in the accounts for 1983–84. Certainly some £200 million of that was attributed to the needless strike and the needless overtime ban which preceded it. But he will recognise that the loss before deficit grant of £875 million is broadly equivalent to 18 per cent. of the board's turnover. In the last four years the National Coal Board has lost nearly £2 billion. That is the underlying problem facing the industry.
The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that every possible mine should remain open, whether or not it makes a contribution beneficial to the industry, would undoubtedly increase the degree to which the coal board is basically insolvent and incapable of running its own affairs. It is the taxpayer who will ultimately be required to pick up the bill. In 1983–84 the bill to the taxpayer was a massive £1·3 billion, which was the equivalent of £130 per week for every employee in the coal industry. The Opposition wish to see such bills continue to escalate.
Mr. Skinner: Not as much as the farmers.
Mr. Shaw: Not as much as the farmers. I can tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that the rate of subsidies in the British agriculture industry for the 265,000 members who work within that industry works out at £65 per head. In the mining industry it is £130 per head. The sooner the—
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman has had his say from his customary sedentary position. That is enough of the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues wish that state of affairs to continue the House can make a judgment. It can judge that he will indeed require the House to return so that the bankruptcy of the nation can be continued at a scale that suits him and his friends.
Finally, I refer to the Leader of the Opposition. He is absent from these discussions and I understand that. On 12 April the right hon. Gentleman asked the Prime Minister whether she welcomed the fact that a national ballot of the National Union of Mineworkers was now a clearer and closer prospect. The Leader of the Opposition has written to Labour Members to suggest that it is important to consult the membership, and how right he is. He laid down clear guidance to them, saying that those who oppose the proposal of direct membership voting believe that a great majority of members of the party cannot be trusted to make a judgment. He has won that argument. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that his letter in the Daily Telegraph could, with a change of only four words, if he saw fit to

1261
write to the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, be paraphrased thus: "Do those who oppose the proposals of direct membership voting really think that a great majority of union members cannot be trusted to make a judgment? If they do, they had better say so. They had better admit it. They had better tell the people of the NUM that it is their membership that is wanted, not their opinion; that they are a respectful audience, not a union. Those who oppose the change have to explain how, in the name of democracy, they can deny the chance to vote to the people who make up the union."
That is the challenge that the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to make to his own party membership. I only wish that that challenge had been written to the National Union of Mineworkers, asking it to make the contribution that is required—that it should consult its membership on the terms offered so as finally to resolve the dispute.
4.56 pm
Dr. David Owen: I wish to support the amendment. My only qualification is that I wonder whether we should be wise to commit ourselves to 13 August. We should ask the Leader of the House, before the House commits itself to going into recess for three months, to state that, if the miners' dispute is still continuing into the third week of August, the House shall be brought back at the start of September, before the party conference season, so that we may have at least a two-day debate on the issue.
Mr. Skinner: Will you turn up next time? You did not turn up for the last one.
Dr. Owen: The hon. Member for Ballsover —[Interruption.] Ballsover or Bolsover, it makes no difference to many hon. Members. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) cannot take it. He likes handing it out to everyone else—
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Right hon. and hon. Members must resume their seats when I am on my feet. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will wait his turn and perhaps make his contribution in the ordinary course of debate.
Dr. Owen: The hon. for Bolsover has already spent five days out of the House. He will have to learn that his constant comments and interjections, usually from a seated position, are getting him nowhere. When he carries the support of the Nottinghamshire miners, and when his brother carries the support of the miners in his own pit, we may listen to him a little more. When I wish to go on a European election — I know that it is difficult for the hon. Member to understand—
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not want you to be misled. I wish to put on record that my brother in the Nottinghamshire coalfield has just been re-elected to the political committee by the group known as moderates.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member have a personal difference, I wish that they would settle it outside the Chamber.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is becoming increasingly difficult to hear the right hon. Gentleman who is trying to speak. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) constantly interrupts him. I submit to you that it is not correct to attribute the blame to the right hon. Gentleman. I ask you to order the hon. Member for Bolsover not to go on making remarks from a sedentary position.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that I had made it clear that I was being equally critical of both right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. Perhaps they will have listened to what has been said both from the Chair and from elsewhere in the House.
Dr. Owen: The debate must now focus on the central issues, the first of which is the miners' dispute. We wish to hear from the Leader of the House the assurance for which I have asked, that if the miners' dispute goes into the third week of August and looks as if it will go into September the House will be recalled so that we may debate it before the party conferences. That is what the House and the country expect, and I do not think that it is asking too much of the right hon. Gentleman.
The other reason why I think that it is prudent for the right hon. Gentleman to make that commitment is that the country's economic state is not such that the House can legitimately be expected not to sit for three months. I put to the right hon. Gentleman the same point that I put to the Prime Minister. A Government public expenditure review is currently taking place. It is not confined to public expenditure for 1985–86 but is considering public expenditure commitments for Government Departments for the current year, and the reason is not difficult to imagine. The fact is that on all the basic parameters on which the Government's economic policy is based they are way off target.
As regards the targets for the public sector borrowing requirement of £7·25 billion which the Government have accepted and have asked us all to worship at its altar, for the first quarter January to March it reached £4·7 billion, or two-thirds of the target. In the first quarter of 1983–84, it overshot by only £2·6 billion. It appears that the Government will have great difficulty in meeting their targets this year. Most people are forecasting an overshoot of £1 billion at least, and perhaps £2 billion. On the money supply figures, sterling M3, the main indicator, rose by 2 per cent. last month, making a rise of an annual rate of 15 per cent. since February, which is way above the Government's target of 6 to 10 per cent., and most City commentators are forecasting an overshoot of 10 to 12 per cent.
As regards local authority overspending—
Mr. Maude rose—
Dr. Owen: No. We must keep speeches reasonably short.
Despite rate-capping procedures, overspending on local authorities' budgets is currently £850 million above the Government's target of £2·5 billion for 1984–85, while capital spending is overrunning by £350 million on an annual basis. That produces a total overshoot of £1·2 billion for 1984–85.
On public sector pay, for which the Government had a target figure of 3 per cent., the outcome following the

1263
6 to 9 per cent. increases announced on 7 June by the five public sector review bodies is that public sector basic pay rates will rise by between 5·5 and 6 per cent.—nearly double the Government's target. That is an overshoot of between 5 and 6 per cent., which adds directly £400 million to the Government's bills.
That is nothing compared with what is in the pipeline. There is a dispute over Civil Service pay. The question of teachers' salaries has gone to arbitration after the deliberations of the Burnham committee, whose reference the Government opposed. If we add the figures—the local authority overspend of £1·2 billion, public sector pay £0·4 billion and the miners' dispute, which has been conservatively estimated at £1 billion—there is already an overshoot of £2·6 billion. That means that the contingency reserve has already been overtaken almost totally for that figure is £2·75 billion.
The Leader of the House, a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is well aware that there are serious forecasts about the problems that face the Government. My objection is that it now looks as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not come to the House and make clear what he intends to do about public expenditure and announce cutbacks and be answerable for them, but will eke them out over August while we are on the beaches and we shall hear announcements about increased charges and more cutbacks. That is no way to treat the House or the country on a matter that is of fundamental importance.
I turn to the statement by the Minister who is responsible for the coal industry — and no one would deny that he has shown a great knowledge of that industry. What was missing from his statement was any sign of how the Government will approach the coming month. Will there be a fight between the NCB and the NUM, with no initiative and no new action? As long ago as April we put forward proposals for the NCB actively to involve itself in doing something about creating jobs in areas of high unemployment where there might be pit closures.
We suggested the creation of NCB Industry Ltd., but that proposal has not been acted upon despite constant demands for it. I wrote to Mr. MacGregor in May asking him to consider the suggestion. In June, I went to see him and again put to him the proposal for NCB Industry Ltd. I now hear that there is a possibility of some movement in that direction. Again, any progress should be reported to the House. I hope that we shall be told by the Leader of the House whether NCB Industry Ltd. is to be created. If it is, let us be told what capital is to be put into it and the extent of aid to be given in terms of management and lower interest rates to help create jobs, and of any special arrangements to make NCB Industry Ltd. the success that BSC Industry Ltd. is.
Secondly, what action is to be taken about the continued secondary picketing? To many of us it is unacceptable that the law should have been ignored for 20 weeks. The Government are losing sight of the much wider perspective, and secondary action is being legitimised. If no action is taken, in a few months' time it will not just be claimed that the law has proved to be inadequate and unacceptable, but it will be demonstrated that the Government have effectively accepted secondary action. That is not good enough. Pressure must be put on the NUM, and the House has the right to know what form it takes.
Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
Dr. Owen: I shall not give way, as time is very short.
Mr. Skinner: Where are the Liberals?
Dr. Owen: The hon. Member for Bolsover still cannot keep quiet.
The third question which I put to the Leader of the House is what action will be taken about those who have had a charge made against them but have not come before the courts? That causes deep concern with regard to the wider issue of law and order. It is high time that matters were brought out into the open.
Labour Members have made it absolutely clear that they back the NUM completely. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover says, "We are backing the winners", but some of us want the dispute ended, although not at any price. We feel that it is time for pressure to be applied and for the momentum to be maintained. Illegal secondary action should not be tolerated, the intimidation that has gone on in mining communities should not be allowed to continue, and the house of a man who wants to work, and is free to do so, should not be picketed. Again., a policewoman should not be staying at the house of a family whose men are working. It is disgraceful and intolerable that there have been abuses of civil rights and liberties.
Mr. Skinner: On both sides.
Dr. Owen: Yes, there have been occasions when the police have exceeded their powers. Those incidents should be exposed with the same vigour as others have been; indeed, that has happened. But let no right hon. or hon. Member try to equate the actions of the police with those of the pickets. Day after day and week after week, the police have shown incredible control. Of course there have been isolated incidents in respect of which the officers involved should be disciplined; there is a procedure for investigation. If we do not stand up for civil liberties—
Mr. Ray Powell: The right hon. Gentleman has not seen what is happening.
Dr. Owen: I have seen it; I have visited Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire.
We have a duty to make our voices heard on these issues. All I ask of the Leader of the House is that he gives some indication of the Government's intentions. If we go through August with no action being taken, it will not be long before we come to winter, when the demands on energy will increase. We are told that it is not possible to import coal but we are entitled to hear why it is not possible.
It is perfectly legitimate for the House to know how the Government intend to handle some of the questions which I ask calmly and carefully. I believe that it is necessary for us to put together a package of measures which will maintain the law in all its aspects and does not accept that we will effectively be starved into submission through a lack of coal in the winter months, which is the tactic of the NUM. As long as it is made clear to the people that the Government do not intend to do that or to apply the law of this country, both criminal and civil, equally and impartially, the NUM will carry a great deal more conviction.
The fact is that the Government lost the initiative in this strike about six to eight weeks ago. They have probably regained it in the past week or so, and that is to be welcomed. The chairman of the NCB went as far as most

1265
people would think was reasonable—some would say he went further — to find a form of words which was acceptable. However, we are now deadlocked, so it is reasonable for the House to be told how the Government intend to handle the problem. With the background of economic statistics and loss of target figures that the Government now face, a much wider audience than that in the United Kingdom wants to know how the miners' dispute will be handled, and the House, too, is entitled to know that.
It is not my job to give a definition of an uneconomic pit; that is a matter for negotiation between the NCB and the NUM. I merely say that I would not accept it as possible that the NUM should say that it will never consider the closure of any pit on economic grounds. That appears to be the position adopted by Mr. Scargill. It is Mr. Scargill who has divided the union. It is Mr. Scargill who has ensured that the members of a union which was one of the most united of all trade unions find themselves so severely split. It is Mr. Scargill who has made this a political strike. It is Mr. Scargill who has not been prepared to make any concession or compromise. It is time that an alternative voice was heard loud and clear saying that Mr. Scargill's tactics of intimidation, violence, bullying and distortion are intolerable to the people of this country.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not intolerable that, when the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was making his speech, a speech in parallel was being made from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Is not that a total abuse of the traditions of the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Sedentary interruptions are to be deprecated from whichever part of the House they come. I agree with the hon. Member that those from below the Gangway were intolerable. However, I believe that the whole House will realise that we are discussing a serious and highly emotional issue, so it would be totally unreasonable to expect the House to behave as though we were discussing a minor matter.
Mr. Hickmet: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many hon. Members wish to hear what the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, (Dr. Owen) has to say but he is a most difficult person to hear, precisely because of the sedentary interventions made from below the Gangway on the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No doubt the House will take account of what has been said, but points of order will only delay the opportunities for hon. Members to take part in the debate.
5.14 pm
Mr. Fergus Montgomery: The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said that he would support the amendment. Therefore, he wants the House to sit in the middle of August, which is perfectly fair. However, later in his speech the right hon. Gentleman warned the Government that statements must not be made by Ministers during August when he would be on a beach somewhere. I cannot help feeling that were my right hon. Friend to accept the amendment a lot of right
1266
hon. and hon. Opposition Members would be in a state of shock because they would have to cancel the holidays they have already planned.
I wish to raise three issues with my hon. Friend and hope that he will give the House a statement before we rise for the summer recess. The first issue was mentioned during business questions by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and concerns the Civil Aviation Authority's report on airline competition policy. We are very worried in the north-west of England because there is an international airport at Manchester and we are concerned about its future. Every hon. Member with constituencies in the north-west would say that he is proud of that airport's achievements. If the CAA report is implemented it could be a catastrophe for Manchester international airport. To suggest that British Airways should lose all its European services from Manchester, leaving it with domestic services only and the flight that will operate from April three times a week to New York, could lead to British Airways withdrawing completely from Manchester airport and a consequent loss of jobs. We are not being offered competition but substitution.
Therefore, a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should be made before the House rises for the summer recess. If he cannot make a statement by then, he should wait until we return in the autumn. It would be unforgivable if a statement were made on such an important issue while the House was in recess when we had not the opportunity to question my right hon. Friend on a matter of vital importance to the north-west.
The inquiry into the third London airport was completed a year ago. The decision taken will be of vital importance to the north-west too. It is ironic that the people in Essex do not want the third London airport at Stansted and the people in greater Manchester would welcome an expansion of Manchester airport. That would mean the provision of more jobs. Rumours are circulating that the inspector is in favour of Stansted—I hope that they are only rumours. I should like an undertaking before we rise for the summer recess that when that report is published a debate will take place in the House before a decision is reached. That would give us a chance to make our case before a decision is taken.
It seems daft that there is any argument about the issue. If the decision is taken in favour of Stansted, the people in that area will be up in arms, as will those in greater Manchester. If Stansted gets the thumbs down, those in that area and in greater Manchester will be delighted.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House should understand that 40 per cent. of United Kingdom international passengers originate outside the south-east of England. They are entitled to some consideration, so I hope that we shall be told before the House rises that a debate will be held before a final decision is reached.
I know that my right hon. Friend would be disappointed if I took part in this debate without mentioning my hobbyhorse—the reform of the rating system. A year ago, I warned my right hon. Friend when I said:
"I have raised this issue often before. I make no apology for raising it again today and I shall go on raising it until something is done to find a fairer system, and if that does not put the fear of God into my right hon. Friend I do not know what will."—[Official Report, 25 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 811.]

1267
My right hon. Friend must be fearless because he has not taken a blind bit of notice and we are left with the same iniquitous rating system. I admit that the Government have tried to help the hard-pressed ratepayers with a measure called rate capping and the proposed abolition of the metropolitan counties. I am astonished that the Government have taken so much abuse from the Opposition parties when they planned to abolish the same councils. I remind my right hon. Friend of those parties' manifestos. The Labour party manifesto states:
"Unitary district authorities, in England and Wales, could be responsible for all the functions in this area that they could sensibly undertake."
If there are unitary authorities, the metropolitan counties must automatically go.
The alliance went further. Its manifesto states:
"It would inevitably involve the eventual abolition of the Metropolitan Counties, and the GLC".
I remind my right hon. Friend, too, that some weeks ago there was an interesting discussion on Sir Robin Day's programme, "Question Time". Ms. Polly Toynbee, who stood as the SDP/Liberal alliance candidate for Lewisham, East and fortunately was not elected, had a field day attacking the Government for their plans to abolish the metropolitan counties. When she was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) that she had fought on exactly that programme, she denied it. The poor, bemused lady did not even know what policy she had been fighting on at the last general election.
Mr. Skinner: It is called hypocrisy.
Mr. Montgommery: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that my right hon. Friend should point out that what we are seeking to do was being sought by other parties at the last election.
We are still left with the problem of finding a fairer system of raising local authority finance. No one can dispute that the present system is manifestly unfair, because no account is taken of a person's ability to pay. Everyone knows cases of two identical adjacent houses where in one there is an elderly widow and, in the other, three or four wage earners, with both houses paying the same rates bill. I cannot see any justice in that. The unfairness is compounded by the system of water rates, which are based on a hypothetical rental value rather than on consumption. I have never had a satisfactory answer from anyone as to why there are property rate rebates but no water rate rebates. I mention that because I believe that water rates are another burden that bears heavily on the poor and elderly.
We are always being reminded that the Conservative party is pledged to get rid of the rating system. There was a pledge in the October 1974 manifesto, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was shadow Environment Secretary. The 1979 manifesto gave rating reform a much lower priority because the Conservative party's view at that time was that direct taxation had increased so drastically that a reduction in direct taxation must take precedence.
There are basically three options for changing the rating system. There is, first, the sales tax, which seems to work well in the United States. The United States is a very large country and, in a smaller country such as ours, if there were a substantial variation in shopping patterns it could be very difficult for traders. There is local income tax, which is fairer than the present system because it takes into
1268
account a person's ability to pay. The argument was always used that the present system was easy to administer and easy to collect and that if there were a local income tax the administrative cost of collection could be expensive. I should have thought that with the new technology and computers that argument could now be destroyed.
The third alternative is a poll tax, which would spread the burden evenly on everyone on the electoral register. It would be easy and inexpensive to collect. The Green Paper forecast that a £30 poll tax would yield £1,200 million annual revenue. I am beginning to wonder whether a mixture of a poll tax and a much reduced domestic rate is the answer to the ratepayers' problem. If one looks at the back of a rate demand, one will find that education is far and away the biggest spender. Teachers' salaries take the highest percentage of the education budget. I am convinced that teachers do not want to be civil servants. They want to keep the local connection and to be employed by their local education authority. Therefore, those local education authorities must have some financial responsibility. Perhaps we could have a scheme whereby teachers' basic salaries are paid by central Government and any additional payments are shared between central Government and the local education authorities. If that scheme were adopted it would lift an enormous burden from the shoulders of ratepayers. I admit that it would add to the burden of the direct taxpayer. It must not be taken as a signal to spendthrift councils that when the burden for the ratepayer has been reduced they can press on with their wild, extravagant schemes so that the ratepayer will be back to square one.
I have tried to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I realise the enormous demand that there is to speak in the debate. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will note the points that I have made and that before the House rises I can have some assurances on the three points that I have raised.
5.24 pm
Mr. Jack Dormand: I shall be very brief in developing two points which I believe to be crucial in the mining dispute and which the Government have completely failed to comprehend. The first is the utter determination of the miners and their families to stay out. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) spent so much time and emphasised that so strongly when he made the initial contribution from the Opposition at the Dispatch Box. There was never any doubt about the miners' resolution from the first day of the strike, but I tell the Government that their determination grows stronger every day.
Mr. Maude: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dormand: I always do, but on this occasion I am making a five-minute speech and, in those circumstances, I think that I am justified in not accepting interventions.
If the Government are counting on a break in the miners' resolve, they are making a fundamental error that will have far-reaching effects not only on the coal industry but on the country as a whole—and I refer to social as well as to economic effects. I cannot emphasise too strongly to the Minister and the Government that the reality in the pit villages bears no resemblance whatever

1269
to their view of the present situation. I could give many examples, but one from my own area—the north-east—will suffice. Two weeks ago, the northern-eastern area of the National Coal Board sent out personal invitations, every one individually signed by each colliery manager, asking the men to return to work, saying that 200 buses would be laid on to take them to the pits and that anyone restarting work would qualify for pay during the annual July holiday period. Not a single member of the north-east's 22,000 work force attempted to return to work—and that after 18 weeks of strike and all the hardship entailed.
The Government must recognise that determination. They must realise the implications of their mistaken view of the feelings in the mining communities. There is a saying that I hear every weekend when I go home to my mining constituency. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides have heard the miners say, "We are now through the pain barrier. After 19 weeks of this, we can carry on indefinitely", and intend to.
The Government have the responsibility for the pits. We hear almost every day about the deterioration of coal faces and expensive pit machinery. Do the Government wash their hands of all that? If so, it is a criminal abdication of their responsibility for a great industry. The Government had better remove from their balance sheet, if I can so describe it, from their plans, the possibility of breaking the miners' spirit and determination, because it will not happen.
The Government's second major error is one made on their own chosen ground, namely, the economics of the coal industry. From the beginning, the Government have taken a short-term myopic view of the industry. They have not taken into consideration the full financial implications of pit closures — social security payments, redundancy payments, about which the Government are always boasting, the often underrated costs of demolition, raising machinery, transfering machinery, and so on. I can give many other instances.
Some months ago, the National Union of Mineworkers produced a paper arguing that closing a pit produced a net loss to the Exchequer. I do not expect this Government to pay too much attention to an NUM document, but it is significant that they have never attempted to refute that NUM case. I go further. I believe that there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that a net loss does result from closures, and the strike has encouraged a number of investigations into that aspect. For example, several respected academics have produced reports and papers, and if the Government have a genuine desire to bring the dispute to an end, they should establish their own inquiry into the financial situation with an instruction to report within a short period. Sufficient work has been done to ensure that a quick report could be produced.
Any normal, humane Government would realise, of course, that a narrow financial investigation such as I propose is not sufficient. No civilised society should contemplate deliberately throwing a man on the unemployment scrap-heap — because that is what it means—with no alternative work available. Let me give an example from my constituency, where the only major job-finding agency is the new town development corporation. It is the only organisation or institution that is bringing jobs to my area. Nevertheless, the Government
1270
propose to abolish it next year, at the same time as proposing to close pits. That is the kind of lunacy that faces us. Shops have already closed in my area, and even professional people — lawyers, doctors, dentists — are feeling the draught. These and other developments are part of the economic decline that results directly from pit closures.
I hope the Minister will agree that, in this brief contribution, I have tried to be constructive. I am pleased to have his assent to that.
Many other aspects of the dispute cry out for comment, but if the Government do not recognise the importance of the two issues that I have raised I fear that we shall not make much progress. They are vital to a sector of society which, for decades, has contributed to the nation's well-being. Coal mining, in spite of all the improvements that have been made, remains a dirty, disagreeable and dangerous job. I go down the pits regularly, so I know. Nevertheless, miners and their families accept it, provided they feel that they have the security that such an occupation deserves.
The Government have shirked their responsibility in this dispute, but I hope that the arguments from this side of the House — except, if I may say so, those of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) —will lead them to a fundamental change of policy. Their intervention is both necessary and urgent.
5.31 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: A simple and cogent reason why the House should not adjourn on Wednesday 1 August, which has not been mentioned so far, is the grim situation in Northern Ireland. Unless there is an emergency recall of Parliament, the House will not meet again until 22 October. During the long summer recess, when the people of England, Scotland and Wales will enjoy a relatively peaceful and contented time, the people of Ulster will continue to live under the frightful shadow of the terrorist thug and murderer.
In moving the amendment, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) gave a number of reasons why the House should not adjourn. He spoke of a summer of discontent. I wish indeed that the only problem facing Northern Ireland was that of the mining industry that is now facing this country. I have the greatest sympathy with that problem, because I regret to see miner confronting miner and miner confronting the police, but I ask my parliamentary colleagues to ponder the plight of the decent, law-abiding people of Northern Ireland, who have been subjected to 15 years of horror and bloodshed by a vile group of evil beings. These obscene thugs show no compassion or mercy to their innocent or helpless victims, but when they are arrested they demand —loudly and clearly, as always—the full protection of the British legal system, which they are intent on destroying. When they are arrested, these terrorist thugs protest vehemently about any alleged rough handling on arrest or in detention.
It is sad that those criminals will continue to mutilate, murder and commit appalling atrocities during the three months of the summer recess. Sadder still is the fact that the police, the Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment —which have shown great courage and dedication, and deserve the thanks of the entire nation — do not yet receive full, unequivocal support from everyone in the Province, especially not from all the clergy, even though

1271
all are prepared to condemn terrorists whenever a singularly violent and shocking crime is committed. There is little use in expressing sympathy to the bereaved or attending victims' funerals unless all the clergy and elected representatives who reject violence are prepared to take an implacable and unequivocal stand against terrorists.
Terrorists are the enemies of all decent people in Northern Ireland. They stop the political progress and peace which would bring prosperity and create a future for the young who live against the background of such a nightmare. The terrorists are like the Mafia of old, who obtained a rich and easy living by terrorising everyone and killing without compunction.
As everyone in the House knows, or should know, Northern Ireland is one of the finest places in the world. Its success in the past depended on its diversity. I believe that the future success of the Province depends on the diversity of its people. Protestant and Roman Catholic can each act as a catalyst and help each other to make a worthwhile future for their children. No one will have a future if terrorists are allowed to keep their boot on the neck of those living in the Province.
There could yet be a magnificent flowering of culture and learning in the best tradition of Samuel Beckett, Oscar Wilde, Dean Swift, Goldsmith and other great figures—the hosts of the past who brought great credit to the Province and to the rest of Ireland. All the ingenuity possessed by the people of Northern Ireland could recreate the spirit that would make Ulster peaceful and prosperous once again.
That is why the Northern Ireland Assembly—which has just completed its second year of existence, despite political predictions that it would not last two days or two weeks — has such an important role to play in the Province's future. If the elected representatives of different political and religious hues get together in the Assembly to exchange ideas and humour, confidence can be restored in the Province. With the creation of confidence, all things are possible.
I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has held that office for nearly three years. As I have said before, he is a man of integrity; he is caring and compassionate and epitomises what is best in English political life. The good wishes of the Ulster people will go with him and his wife in whatever career he may follow.
Finally, before the debate returns to the mining industry and miners' representatives recreate an explosive situation in the Chamber, I close with a personal comment. Before the House resumes on 22 October I shall have attained the 20th anniversary of my first election to Parliament.
I am proud to have had the opportunity of representing the people of Northern Ireland. I wish to pay a tribute to the Ulster people who, despite the defamation that has been spread about them by Republican terrorists, have great qualities and traits. They have great heart, charity, and humour and they are to be admired. I am proud to have represented them in the House over a considerable period. I pray to God that over the summer months nothing will happen in the Province that will create bloodshed. I hope that before long the people of Northern Ireland will be able to enjoy once again the peace to which they are entitled.
5.40 pm
Mr. Allen McKay: As the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) suggests, I will return to one of the most important aspects
1272
of the debate. I notice that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has left the Chamber. Not one representative of the alliance party remains to say why we should not adjourn.
We have heard many comments on the mining dispute over the past few weeks and one of the most inflammatory was that made by the Prime Minister and some of her colleagues at the weekend. They said that the leader of the mineworkers was like Galtieri and that the miners were like the enemy within. I remind the House that it was the sons and brothers of "the enemy within" who fought in the Prime Minister's Falklands war, and we should never forget that. My constituents were insulted by the remarks, and the Prime Minister and her Ministers owe my constituents an apology.
The first mistake was the appointment of Ian MacGregor. When he was appointed after his butchery of the steelworkers, the miners knew what to expect. It was then that they decided that the battlelines were drawn. It was the closure of Cortonwood that set it off, but I shall not go through that again. When people ask about the closure of Cortonwood, I always say to them that one never throws a match into a gas-filled room. That is what the Government did by allowing Cortonwood to close.
During the many years that I worked for the board, I closed collieries. There was no problem. The way to do it is to follow the agreed procedures. There is a review procedure. I do not know one person at Cortonwood who did not expect the pits to last for more than two years. It would not last for more than five or seven years, as was suggested. The men knew that the pit would be in jeopardy after two years. However, the closure was premature, unnecessary, unprecedented and caused the problems.
It is said that people are screaming out for a ballot. However, Yorkshire had a ballot in 1981 and 84 per cent. of Yorkshire miners said that if there were closures on economic grounds industrial action would be taken. The miners' conference, mandated by its members, said exactly the same thing—that there would be a strike if there were economic closures. The evidence was there. Cortonwood was an explosive situation and its closure was all that was needed to set off the dispute. Therefore, there was a strike in Yorkshire, agreed to by ballot, and the pickets from Yorkshire and elsewhere went to bring their colleagues out with them.
We should consider what is meant by a promise of a job for everyone and why workers in my area regard that with suspicion. My constituents went from Elsecar to Cortonwood because there was no other place to go and then Cortonwood closed. They did not want to go to Cortonwood in the first place but had to because there was no alternative. Electricians, fitters and some of the men were found jobs, not as underground electricians or mechanics, but as surface electricians and mechanics because no other jobs were available. Some people had to go in to the workshops. They did not want to go to those jobs some 20 miles away, but nothing else was available.
Therefore, when the Secretary of State and the Minister say that there is a job for everyone, we must ask "Where, how far and for how long?" In happier times I brought miners down from Scotland and Durham to Yorkshire but the heartbreak of having to leave home has to be believed.
How do the Government expect a man to leave home when his children are taking O and A-levels? How can they expect 20,000 people to move? That is what is asked when we are told that there are 20,000 jobs available

1273
elsewhere. What arrangements will be made for housing and schools? That is not an easy task—it is a planned task over many years. Those are the things that the Government and the board have failed to consult the men about. One cannot say "I will close that pit" and expect everything to work out. That was tried in the 1960s when Schumacher decided that he would put collieries into three categories. That is what the Government and the board are trying to do now, to put collieries into categories A, B and C—the ones that make a profit, those on the border line and those that are unprofitable. Therefore, the C pits are closed. However, what was forgotten in those days, and what is forgotten now, is that a man can be asked to move and he can say, "I ain't going." What happened was that the B pits became unprofitable because the C pits were closed and the men did not move. Therefore, we run in a spiral. It is wrong to deal with the problem in the coal fields in such a way.
Mr. MacGregor brought an American system into English industrial relations and made a hash of it. It did not work. As has been said about the strike, there is no going back. That is sad and a bad reflection. The men and women in my area have lost everything except their pride, dignity and integrity. There is no going back and the Government and the board should realise that fact. All that is left to these people is their pride, dignity and integrity. Everything else has been taken from them — cars, videos, and so on—and they are in debt. However, they will be fed because those who are in work will feed them. Schools will feed the children and they will have a roof over their heads. People in the area will see to that. There will be no one starving and there will be no going back.
However, an honourable settlement can be achieved, if not easily, and the House should not adjourn until the miners strike is settled and the miners in the coalfields are back at work, where they should be.
5.48 pm
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I want to concentrate on House of Commons matters because by tradition this debate has never before been hijacked by the Opposition Front Bench. I believe that that is wholly wrong. I will make passing reference to the speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). He revelled in Britain's economic problems. His speeches have become increasingly waspish, which is a clear indication of his reselection problems. I can only suggest that his priorities are wholly wrong and that when he ceased to be a Minister he should have given up reading his speech. That is what he did this afternoon.
Although the debate may have moments of emotion, that does not excuse the behaviour we experienced while the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was speaking. The rules of the House should be observed whether or not the debate is emotional. If we allow that tradition to go, we allow the procedures of the House to degenerate into what goes on behind the Iron Curtain. I would defend the right of the right hon. Gentleman to make his speeches, and he should be heard in the same silence as anyone else in the House. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr.
1274
Skinner) mentioned earlier the absence of the right hon. Member for Devonport. His absence is preferable to the presence of the hon. Member for Bolsover.
The House of Commons eighth report from the Committee of Public Accounts was published on 12 December 1983. It referred to the National Audit Office, and the Exchequer and the Audit Department. On page viii, referring to the new headquarters for the C & AG and the National Audit Office, it states:
"We recommend that authority to proceed be granted by the Public Accounts Commission at the earliest possible date. We trust that every effort will be made by the NAO to keep the cost of moving to a new building as low as possible."
When I read that, I cast around for a way of questioning on this matter. After consultation through the usual channels, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was good enough to arrange a five-minute slot every few weeks for the hon. Member who answers for the Public Accounts Commission. So far, so good. Therefore, on 22 May I was able to ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), as Chairman of the PAC, for the detailed reasons why it is not intended to locate the headquarters of the National Audit Office outside London. I had a long, helpful reply from him. As former Ministers, we both know that certain answers are drafted so as not to give the maximum amount of information. As a Minister one is taught to give only bare information in order to answer the question. I agree with that. It is good, as it teaches people to ask questions properly.
However, then I thought that it would be useful to hold an Adjournment debate on the National Audit Office. For example, I wanted to ask why it had to be looking for accommodation in central London, which is very expensive, when it could have gone to the London Docklands area which is being developed and which has substantially cheaper accommodation. I was not able to do that because I was informed by the Principal Clerk in the Table Office, when I applied for a balloted Adjournment, that in view of the fact that
"the present rule regarding Ministerial responsibility for Adjournment debates has been adhered to ever since the war, the Clerk of the House has concluded that we would have to advise the Speaker that he should not, on his own authority, change the rulings of the House so as to permit an Adjournment debate on a subject for which a Minister has no responsibility, or a debate to be answered by a Member other than a Minister."
We are able to question the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission at Question Time, but we cannot question him in an Adjournment debate. I am informed that those responsible for the National Audit Office have no Minister responsible to them in such a way that it is possible to question a Minister on the Floor of the House in an Adjournment debate on this subject.
That is an important issue. The new National Audit Office is producing some useful and informative reports. It is true that one can question the departmental Minister on his particular subject, but one cannot question the philosophy behind that body or the rulings and decisions of the Commission.
I ask my right hon. Friend a very simple question. He knows me of old; I do not ask him difficult questions. Before the House rises for the summer recess—I trust that he will not advise the House to accept the amendment —will he make it possible for an Adjournment debate to be held on the subject without changing the rules? If not, then I ask him to arrange for the matter to be considered by the Procedure Committee at a very early date, preferably at its first sitting after October 22.

1275
Finally, can my right hon. Friend tell us before the House rises that, in the light of the nonsensical farce which has resulted from the general election in the State of Israel, the Government will in no circumstances tolerate any form of proportional representation?
5.56 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I am pleased to participate in the debate, because, like my right hon. Friend who moved the amendment, I believe that the House should not adjourn until it has seriously considered the miners' strike.
I listened attentively to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. Some of his statements rather amazed me. From all the rhetoric to which we have listened over the past 20 weeks, it appears that the Government do not get the message. I shall repeat the messages that have been delivered in the House in the past 20 weeks and particularly the past 10 weeks: in no way will the Government win this issue. The miners, their wives and families are now more determined than ever that they will win.
Mr. Marlow: They want to get back to work.
Mr. Powell: If the hon. Gentleman shuts up, listens and learns something, he may try to put pressure on his own party to settle a dispute that needs to be considered very seriously, in his own interests in particular, because he probably has shares stocked up somewhere bringing in capital. I shall come to that in a minute, because the issue is affecting not only the miners, their wives and families, whose televisions, cars and holidays have gone, which they are quite prepared to suffer.
We have heard over the weeks about the number of collieries that were closed under the last Labour Government and under Labour Governments before that. There are not many collieries left now because of those closures. But in Ogmore since the Tory Government took office the Caerau colliery was closed—in 1979—and in 1981 the Coegnant colliery was closed. The miners had to find jobs elsewhere. There were no redundancy agreements. They had to move out of their areas to find jobs five, 10 and 15 miles away.
On January 7 this year, without the normal negotiations with the NCB and the NUM in south Wales, the Wyndham Western colliery, the last colliery in the Ogmore valley, was closed, with a loss of 550 jobs. The last colliery in the Llynfi valley, which employs 824 miners and for us is at the top of the hit list, will be closed unless the miners win the battle. To the Llynfi valley and to Maesteg it will mean that male unemployment in that area which is now 24 per cent. will escalate to 45 per cent., with no chance of other jobs in the Ogmore area. That is what the fight is all about.
There is an abundance of coal in the Llynfi and Ogmore valleys. There is now talk of sinking a new pit in Black Mill which is only three miles from the colliery which was closed on January 7.
Since I was elected in 1979, I have constantly advocated a new mine at Margam, and that was being sympathetically considered until the Government appointed Ian MacGregor—that geriatric with one foot in the crematorium—
Mr. Marlow: He has done very well for a geriatric.
Mr. Powell: We do not think that he is doing very well. He was responsible for the fact that in my constituency the
1276
number of unemployed steelworkers escalated from 1,000 to 7,000 during the two years that he was chairman of the British Steel Corporation.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) should drive, walk or catch a train to some of the areas where pickets are on duty and witness, as I have witnessed, some of the police brutality—
Mr. Hickmet rose—
Mr. Powell: Has the hon. Gentleman been to those areas?
Mr. Hickmet: My constituency has been on the receiving end of considerable violence from pickets, both at Orgreave and in Scunthorpe itself. Were it not for the actions of the police, the steel works would have been in great difficulty, if not closed. The consequences of that for a town of 66,000 people would be far more horrendous than anything of which the hon. Gentleman is speaking.
Mr. Powell: I shall not take long to reply to those remarks, other than to suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads last week's publication of Police, which is issued to every hon. Member, takes note of what it said about Orgreave and studies the photographs that it has published. He should read other documents about Orgreave, which show how brutally the police have behaved.
I have visited the steel works in Margam and Llanwern. I saw lorry loads of coking coal and iron ore being transported from one place to another, sometimes using 150 lorries at a time. The miners tried to stop the lorries, and I saw the police deliberately provoking them to take action to keep the lorries out of the works. I have seen lorries run over people—
Mr. Hickmet: Rubbish.
Mr. Powell: It is not rubbish. I have witnessed all that. If Conservative Members want to speak with authority, they should witness it for themselves.
Today's edition of The Standard announced National Coal Board losses of £875 million for last year—£390 million more than in 1982–83. That is undoubtedly due to the industrial dispute. Why are not the Government taking that fact into consideration? An early-day motion was tabled this week signed by 50 Opposition Members, and stating that the cost of the dispute was £10 billion. Yet it was tabled not by Opposition Members, but by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet), who is chairman of the all-party minerals group. If the dispute is costing the nation £10 billion, surely the Government should take action. We want to know why they are not seriously considering taking action to resolve the dispute.
When Ian MacGregor was appointed chairman of the NCB, a number of Opposition Members objected strongly. Mr. MacGregor has been in office for less than 12 months but has created more disruption in the industry than anyone anticipated, although some Opposition Members warned the Government of the dangers of a dispute such as this, which I believe the Government have deliberately provoked. I will not develop that because a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak in the debate.
Mr. Don Dixon: The alliance Bench is empty.
Mr. Powell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for making that point. Members of the alliance are called more frequently to speak than are some of the 206 Labour

1277
Members. The right hon. Member for Devonport addressed the House and then made a quick exit. You should not do that in this House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to reflect adversely on the Chair.
Mr. Powell: I apologise for using the word "you," Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not dream of criticising the Chair. After all, I am hoping to be called to speak in future debates. I was simply pointing out that alliance Members tend to turn up, make a contribution and, within no time, depart.
It is a disgrace that the right hon. Member for Devonport is no longer in his place. I wanted to comment on his remarks about the actions of the Government and the NCB in trying to whip up propaganda to get some of the striking miners to return to work. Silver Birch, who is said to be visiting certain areas, is a mythical figure; or, if he exists, I suggest that he has contracted Dutch elm disease. He will not persuade miners in Wales to return to work.
Since 1979, we in Wales have endured not only mass de-manning in the steel industry, but today we have heard about a shortage of water. Hon. Members have said that they never imagined that Wales would be short of water. That shortage has come about because of the planning, or lack of it, by the Government. We have even had earthquakes since the Conservatives came to power. It is a wonder that they have not tried to blame Arthur Scargill for those.
I assure the Government that 80 per cent. of the miners who are on strike support Mr. Scargill. He has the support of Opposition Members because his fight is not for money but for jobs, and the miners know that if the pits close there will be no jobs for them. I appeal to the Government not to rise for the summer until the dispute is settled.
Yesterday afternoon in Committee Room 9, NUM-sponsored hon. Members and others addressed Civil Service staff members of the House. At the conclusion of the meeting the staff made a donation of £30 to the strikers' fund and held a raffle in support of the miners. It is significant, therefore, that the staff of Parliament join Opposition Members in demanding a settlement of the dispute and in appealing for support for those who are on strike fighting for their jobs.
6.9pm
Mr. Tim Yeo: I am sorry that the debate was introduced with a 17-minute reselection speech by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). As he took that much time, it was a pity that he did not mention Labour's discovery yesterday of democracy, because if that discovery were passed on to the NUM the strike would be over before the date on which it is suggested that we should reassemble.
I agreed with part of the speech of right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who has left the Chamber. No doubt he has gone to the beaches to which he referred. However, it was ridiculous that the right hon. Gentleman should suggest that the House would need to be recalled in September. What would there be for us to debate, except a compromise or some fudging?
The right hon. Gentleman made unfounded comments about spending cuts and suggested that they will be
1278
introduced in a hidden way during August. If he wishes to battle against those cuts, I suggest that he fights that battle on the beaches.
I regret that the first 50 minutes of the debate, which is usually allocated mainly to Back Benchers, was taken up by party spokesmen.
I wish to discuss the provision of neonatal intensive care, a subject which is of greater long-term interest than the coal strike, which will no doubt be settled shortly. The Select Committee on Social Services produced an excellent report last month on the general issue of perinatal and neonatal mortality. The report correctly identified the progress made in recent years. There has been a sharp fall in the perinatal mortality rate over the past five years from 15·5 per thousand births to 11·3. There has been a similar fall in the neonatal mortality rate.
The Select Committee, when it reported on the subject in 1980, and the Spastics Society pointed out that there was scope for a reduction of up to 5,000 a year in the number of baby deaths. The Government dismissed that suggestion as unrealistic, yet, only four years later, we are halfway to achieving that target, with a reduction of about 2,500 baby deaths. I hope that, as the Select Committee and the Spastics Society were proved right on that occasion and that the Government were proved wrong, Ministers will pay more attention to the recommendations in the Select Committee's latest report on the subject.
Our perinatal mortality rate is still higher than that in many countries, and there are still wide regional variations within Britain and wide divergencies between the perinatal mortality rate in different social classes. It is particularly worrying that that divergence is showing signs of increasing.
After more than 35 years of the NHS, a mother's risk of having a severely handicapped baby still depends partly on where she lives. The risk is much higher for families in social classes four and five and for mothers born in Pakistan.
If we are to redress the imbalance in the NHS between prevention and reactive and curative treatment, what better starting point could there be than the prevention of baby deaths and handicaps? For those who prefer not to be swayed by emotional considerations, there are powerful financial arguments. The cost of caring for a severely handicapped person is borne not by that person's family, but largely by central and local Government expenditure.
The success of neonatal intensive care in reducing the incidence of handicap has resulted in a great increase in the demand for resources and skills that remain limited.
There has been controversy about whether neonatal intensive care results in the survival of a larger number of handicapped babies. On this issue, I can do no better than quote the views of Professor Osmund Reynolds of University College hospital, one of the country's leading authorities. He has said that:
"The development of a proper national structure for neonatal intensive care must not be impeded by unwarranted concern about the possibility of handicap in survivors. A much more likely cause of handicap is inadequate provision of facilities for intensive care, because the partial treatment of vulnerable infants may allow avoidable damage to occur."
In the light of those views, I believe that a number of the recommendations of the Social Services Select Committee, which reflect the views expressed at a conference organised by the Spastics Society last September, are worthy of serious consideration. In the interests of brevity, I will not enumerate them now.

1279
Closely related to the whole issue of neonatal intensive care is the lack of any minimum standards for obstetric and neonatal care in this country. In October 1981, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) promised that the Government would ask the maternity services advisory committee, which was then being set up, to consider this question. In January 1983 my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) announced, through a parliamentary answer, that the advisory committee had recommended that discussion of minimum standards be absorbed into its second report on intrapartum care. However, when the report was published a year later, though excellent in many respects, it lacked any reference to the maintenance of minimum standards, with the aid of checklists, for staffing and equipment levels, as the Government and the advisory committee had originally promised. We should be given an explanation of that omission.
Mr. Alfred Morris: If the hon. Gentleman is calling on the Government to make a statement on neonatal care before the House rises, is he prepared also to call on them to reconsider their attitude to the Black report? The hon. Gentleman has made a strong case for the reconsideration by Ministers of their attitude to that report.
Mr. Yeo: I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman says about the need to reconsider the conclusions of the Black report. That is an increasingly urgent issue. However, I shall not suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should make time available for a Government statement on the matter in the next four or five days. I could not, in all honesty, expect such a request to be granted. We should devote some time to the issue as early as possible in the autumn, because it is of considerable national importance.
I welcome the Government's initiatives and the considerable progress that has been made since the publication in 1980 of the original Social Services Select Committee report. The perinatal mortality rate has fallen and is continuing to fall. The work of the maternity services advisory committee has been significant in changing attitudes within the maternity services. However, I urge the Government to pay more attention to this issue. I believe that neonatal intensive care is a fruitful area for further Government action, although I do not hold this view so strongly that I believe that the House should do other than adjourn on 1 August and return on 22 October.
6.18 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: I rise to support the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I represent a mining constituency, and at present all the communities in my constituency are suffering great hardship because of the need to fight against job losses in the area. The House ought to recognise that miners in the Yorkshire coalfield are on strike because we foresee that a further rundown in the British coalmining industry will mean even higher unemployment and even greater poverty. Unemployment levels in my constituency are far above the national average, some being twice that level. If one discounts the youth training scheme — which, in my view, is a fraudulent scheme—about 70 per cent. of people under the age of 20 in my constituency are unemployed. Any
1280
further job losses in collieries in my area will mean greater suffering. The House and the country should realise that the strike is about job losses, not individuals or politics. My constituents have to stave off unemployment and poverty.
I have a special problem in my constituency—the Orgreave coking works. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members have seen it in the past few months. Today, coal is being taken into Orgreave. Presumably it will be coked and brought out again. I understand that some of the coal comes from Poland. I take great exception to that. Opposition Members have made representations to the Polish embassy to stop the coal coming in. I hope that those representations are effective. Orgreave has been supplied with coal from my constituency since it was built. I understand that the coal has been sweetened occasionally by coal from Staffordshire. Since the strike began, coal has been supplied to Orgreave to keep it going and many of my constituents in work.
There have recently been terrible scenes outside the coke works. I hope to get down to the reasons for the disgraceful action of the police, and sometimes pickets, outside that plant. On 10 April 1984, a meeting was convened at the British Steel Corporation plant at Scunthorpe. Those who attended included the head of marketing in the Yorkshire area of the NCB, the head of administration for the south Yorkshire area of the NCB —who is one of my constituents—a team from British Rail management, a management team from the BSC at Scunthorpe, and officials of the NUM Yorkshire area, and it was chaired by the director of the Scunthorpe BSC, Mr. Danny Ward. It was decided to supply Scunthorpe steelworks with 15,700 tonnes of coal a week. The vice president of the Yorkshire area of the NUM, Mr. Sammy Thompson, asked, "Do you want any coke?" BSC management replied, "No. We do not want any." Coal came from the Yorkshire coalfield from 10 April until 23 May. Cortonwood colliery supplied 1,000 tons of that coal a week. That is the colliery which was told that it had five weeks' work left because of the lack of markets for coal. It started the strike that has now been going for 20 weeks. It is the one that could never sell its coal. Members of Cortonwood NUM have loaded coal to be sent to BSC Scunthorpe for wages of £1 a day and what they would have earned has been given to charity. The House and the country should know what has happened in regard to Scunthorpe. Until 23 May, the coal was supplied by contractors or mineworkers who worked for £1 a day.
On 22 May, the NUM, which was party to the agreement that I have described, received a telephone call from a trade union — not the management — in Scunthorpe steelworks. The union said that it had been told that 5,000 tonnes of coke were to be taken into the steelworks. It asked when that was likely to happen and was told, "Tomorrow." That is what led to the dispute in and around the Orgreave coke works. To find the culprit, one need look no further than the man who chaired the meeting on 9 April and who said that he did not need coke for Scunthorpe steelworks — the director of BSC Scunthorpe.
On 23 May lorries, some of them marked "Bulk Grain" and driven not by BSC drivers but by people who had never moved coke before, and with police protection back and front, have been run in and out of the coke works. It is to the credit of the people at the coke works that on every occasion they have walked out of the plant because they

1281
disagree with the behaviour of the BSC management. They know that the BSC's taking stupid, unilateral action of that kind instead of discussing the matter with the people who could have supplied the coal and then allowed the coke to go out has prejudiced the position of the coke works. We hear a great deal from Conservative Members about parts of the BSC having to close, but if that coke works closes—I certainly hope that it will not close—the Yorkshire NUM will be in no way to blame.
When I asked officers of the Yorkshire NUM whether they would be prepared to attend a reconvened meeting if BSC said that it needed 5,000 tonnes of coke per week from Orgreave to save a blast furnace —that was the phrase used in the media to justify the unilateral action —they said that they would be prepared to attend such a meeting, to decide whether the coke was needed to save a blast furnace and, if so, to allow it to go from Orgreave coke works. That coke would then have gone by rail, just as the coal was going to BSC by rail, with the agreement of the rail unions and the British Railways Board in a sensible manner to keep jobs at BSC Scunthorpe instead of prejudicing the position. In the circumstances, the south Yorkshire NUM did all that it could for the BSC, so criticism from Conservative Members is completely unjustified.
The other aspect of the situation at Orgreave concerns the actions of police and pickets. On previous occasions in the House I have condemned people who throw stones and use violence against the police and I shall continue to do so, but I must put on record what I have seen with my own eyes and on tape. I note that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has left the Chamber. He referred to actions by police and pickets causing problems. I have told the Home Secretary about what has been happening. I have seen police run up to people cowering on their knees to protect themselves and baton them to the ground. People have had their limbs broken by truncheons at Orgreave. They have had their legs ripped open by the dogs let loose on them.
There are regulations providing that dogs, truncheons and other police actions must be used in a proper manner under legislation passed by this House, but on numerous occasions at Orgreave the police have ignored the regulations. I condemn that and the Home Secretary should also condemn it instead of sitting in the Chamber smiling and talking about law and order. Law and order means working together. It is not just for the people. The police must also ensure that law and order is dealt out properly and fairly. That is affecting many of the communities in my constituency. I believe that the effects of the police action in and around my constituency will be felt for a long time to come. I say to the Government that we cannot replace industrial relations and sensible industrial relations policies by police action and by attacks on people's state benefits. That is what is being attempted at present. By stopping state benefits to miners, it is hoped to make things more difficult for them and to make them afraid to go out on strike, as happened during the strike in my constitutency. Industrial relations cannot be replaced by such methods. The British people will make this clear. If the Government do not get the message soon, the British people will tell them at the next general election.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg,) who has just left the Chamber, I understand was
1282
a coal miner during the last war, one of the so-called Bevin boys. While he was working down the mines to help fight a world war for the country by supplying coal for the armaments race so that we could stave off Naziism. I wonder whether he thought that he would ever be described as the enemy within for wanting to defend his community. We should remember the loyalty of the coal miners and how they kept the country's economy running not for one or two years but for generations in order to maintain electricity supplies and to keep industry going. It is an utter disgrace to question that loyalty.
I deal next with the utter contempt that the Prime Minister showed in her utterance last Thursday at the 1922 Committee. It is not, as she keeps telling us, a sign of strength. The right hon. Lady talks about leading the country from a position of strength. It is a position of weakness and cowardice to use the law and to try to abuse people and families in this way. It will not work.
I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment. The House should discuss even further what is now happening in the country.
6.31 pm
Mr. Michael Morris: The enemy within is certainly not the mining communities. I was at the meeting of the 1922 Committee, and no reference was made to the mining communities. I hope that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will accept that from me.
The amendment is a highly mischievous and irrelevant one, and I believe that it is also irresponsible. It reflects all too clearly the Walter Mitty world of the shadow Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and, I am sorry to say, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), whom I imagine will catch your eye soon, Mr. Speaker.
The shadow Leader of the House suggested that the only man in Britain who had tried to bring the two sides together was the right hon. Member for Salford, East—and a lot of success he has had in 26 weeks in getting Mr. Scargill along to negotiate sensibly in any meeting that we have had. As every hon. Member knows, the chairman of the National Coal Board and the NCB itself have been willing to negotiate sensibly from the beginning, but the truth is that Mr. Scargill and his militants have ignored anything that has been put on the table except that, if they see something that they like, they take that bit, say that they will consider it, and then discuss something different. Mr. Scargill believes that he should ignore the NCB, and that he should ignore his members' interests. Above all, he shows that he totally ignores the Labour party.
Although it has been said many times in the House, it is worth repeating that the miners have been given a good pay offer. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Salford, East agreed that the miners had had a good pay offer. There is no compulsory redundancy for miners. That needs to be re-emphasised. The 34,000 people who went out of the shoe industry were never offered compulsory redundancy or alternative jobs, and some of them are still employed.
Criticism was made of the investment programme by two Opposition Members. The £7·6 billion investment programme envisaged for the period of the Conservative Government which was completed two years early is a major success. It is a commitment to the coal industry, and the shadow Leader of the House ought to acknowledge that fact.

1283
The argument between the two sides revolves around the word "beneficially". It is worth reminding the House of the words discussed between the NCB and the NUM. They agreed that
"where a comprehensive and in-depth investigation by their respective mining engineers shows that a colliery has no further mineable reserves that are workable or which can be beneficially developed, there will be a joint agreement between the board and the union that such a colliery shall be deemed exhausted."
With the exception of the word "beneficially" those words were written by the NUM.
Reference has been made by Opposition Members to the losses announced this morning—about £800 million last year and £2 billion over the last four years. Opposition Members who have had power in the past, and may wish to have it again, suggest that the country can continue to mine from coalmines that are not capable of beneficial output. They cannot honourably suggest that any Government would contemplate that.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East is genuine in his attempts to find a settlement. If he really wants to make a helpful contribution he should have some guts, go out into the field and spell out the benefits of the existing offer the the mining communities. He and all Oppossition Members know that this is the best offer that any miners have had anywhere in westen Europe. It is as good an offer as any Government would make. It is a better offer than the right hon. Gentleman's Government ever made.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I represent a constituency in which a high proportion of those in work have moved several times in their careers and expect to move several more times in the future. That is a natural part of being employed.
Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) who makes an important point.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East could also disown Mr. Scargill and the statement that he made on Channel 4, which has been repeated so often, that he has no intention of abiding by civil or criminal laws which restrict the ability of trade unions to fight for the rights of their members. The right hon. Gentleman would do much for the Labour party if he stood up and said that Mr. Scargill, any other militant, and everyone, must obey the law of the land and that the new kangaroo courts are unacceptable to working people of all opinions.
The right hon. Gentleman could also chivvy the Leader of the Opposition—he needs some chivvying. He could tell him that he should stop paying homage to Mr. Scargill and stop licking his boots at miners' rallies. The right hon. Gentleman should stand up for the rights of ordinary miners who want a ballot, the right to vote and the right to say what they believe in. If the right hon. Gentleman did that he would do a lot of good for his own party, for himself and, more importantly, for the mining communities.
The mining communities are suffering needlessly. Every hon. Member knows that the offer is good. The industry has a good future and the miners are being sadly misled. I am confident that the Government can sit out the difficulty, but I wish that they did not have to. I wish that the leadership in the mining community would put the genuine facts to the ordinary miner and show to them that there are prospects for the future.
1284
If the right hon. Member for Salford, East really wants to do something to improve the position, he should hurry from here to the mining community and spell out the benefits of the offer on the table.
6.40 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Before the House rises for the summer recess I believe that further attention should be given to what must be done to deal with the still serious security situation in Northern Ireland. It would be wrong of me not to recognise that the death toll has decreased since the mid-1970s, but equally wrong of the House to believe that that is due to a drop in politically motivated murders.
There have been two distinct types of murders in Northern Ireland over the past 15 years, especially following the prorogation of the Stormont Parliament in 1972. At that time people felt that their elected representatives had been denigrated. They turned, by and large, to community leaders from both sides who sprang up from street to street, and who led them into community violence. The IRA capitalised on that fully. The death roll in those years was from 400 to 500 people.
The community of Northern Ireland does not desire that type of violence. It gradually reasserted itself and drove out from its midst those false leaders. The death toll has gradually declined, until now we can count, sadly, on 80 to 100 deaths each year.
These deaths are caused almost exclusively by the IRA and by the so-called Irish National Liberation Army, for political reasons. That is why the House should consider what is happening along the only land frontier that the United Kingdom has with another country. There, the vast majority of these murders take place. Across that frontier, the weapons of war—the guns and the explosives for bombs—are being carried. Indeed, from the other side of that very frontier, terrorists at times make attacks from the safety of the Irish Republic on members of our security forces. In the past two weeks an attack was launched from within the Irish Republic on members of the security forces in Northern Ireland. The attack led to the death of two UDR soldiers—one a young man, and the other a young woman aged 20.
We know that the IRA is not only attacking security forces, who are locally based, but also members of the regular Army who come from constituencies represented by English, Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament.
The IRA also kills isolated farmers living close to the frontier who are not connected with the security forces in any way. The IRA chooses to kill members of the community that it claims to protect and represent: members of the minority Roman Catholic community. Today, indeed, a body is lying on a road close to the frontier with the Irish Republic. It is the body of a man who had been missing from his house for several days. I do not know his name, but I am fairly certain that when his name is released we shall find that he is a member of the Roman Catholic community who has been murdered by the IRA because he did not obey some of its directions.
Other Catholic members of the community have been murdered over the past few weeks because they refused to pay money to sustain the IRA. Therefore, we must realise that not just the majority community but the entire community, or at least all those who want to live normal lives within the United Kingdom, is suffering at the hands of the IRA.

1285
During August, when the House is in recess, we shall have an invasion of Irish-American agitators, members of Noraid, and for their benefit the IRA will put on displays of armed strength. The IRA will execute a few people, as they call it, and display the ferocity that they have displayed each August for the past 10 or 15 years.
Unfortunately, we shall allow those American agitators into our country. We will not impose any restrictions upon them. The House should consider that and the Government should attempt to do something about it. It is folly. We are already committing one folly when we allow on to our television screens members of the IRA such as Gerry Adams and Danny Morrison. On television, they advocate, without the law taking action against them, violence against the community, and urge people to go to the ballot box with a rifle in one hand while casting their vote with the other. We have not learnt to deal with that. Those are the indigenous terrorists. We should not commit the double folly of importing Noraid representatives from America.
We should remember that in Northern Ireland one month of the school holidays has already gone. The children are beginning to get restless. The time has not been wasted by the terrorist godfathers, however. They have been stamping their influence on schoolchildren for four weeks now. They have been telling them to get their petrol bombs primed and to wait for August because at that time, as they say, "We shall have a go at the police, and it will all be good fun." The House must be aware of that. Sadly, in the next few weeks some of those young people will be misled by their godfathers. I make no apology for saying that they will be misled by Gerry Adams and Danny Morrison. When they are hit by a rubber bullet fired by policemen, who must have some means of defending themselves, and when one of them dies we shall hear a great outcry about police violence.
The debate has been mostly about the miners' strike rather than what I believe should have been discussed. It is significant that the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) and myself have chosen to discuss subjects where lives are at stake, matters of life and death. Those who, on behalf of some of the miners, point a finger at the police and criticise them and who try to run down and undermine the authority of the forces of law and order, could do well to look carefully at what happened 15 years ago in Northern Ireland when certain people tried to run down the efforts of the police to maintain law and order. Now the vast majority of them are sad to find that they have placed themselves under the control of men of violence and men who exploit the weaknesses and injustices which are bound to occur from time to time in any society. Weaknesses and injustices can be put right, but if we undermine the real institutions of Government, and undermine law and order in the way that I have heard it advocated that we should, we are likely to plunge our nation into a greater tragedy than we can envisage.
To return to the IRA, if we allow American agitators to come in, if we allow the incursions from the Irish Republic across the border, and if we allow the godfathers to exploit the young people who are now on school holidays, we shall be committing a great crime ourselves.
I implore the Government—not only the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office but the Secretary of State for Defence and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces—to consider very carefully what
1286
may well happen within the next few weeks in Northern Ireland. The Government must take steps to ensure that it does not occur.
Why do I emphasise the need to have the security forces increased along the frontier with the Irish Republic? Anybody who reads today's Official Report will see that yesterday I asked two questions. One was addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I asked him how many formal protests he had made during 1984 about incursions from across the frontier with the Irish Republic. His answer was:
"None. We are satisfied with the excellent co-operation that we receive from the Government of the Irish Republic in countering terrorism."
I asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for extradition of persons wanted in connection with scheduled offences had been made to the Irish Republic in the last three and a half years. His answer was:
"Since 1 January 1980, 53 warrants … have been forwarded by the Royal Ulster Constabulary … in relation to terrorist-type offences. Of these, one application has been granted."
That is less than 2 per cent. Some co-operation! That is one reason why I ask this House to increase the security forces available, so that I do not have to come back here—whether it is earlier or in October—and recount a series of murders which have taken place in Northern Ireland constituencies.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: One of the important facts is the morale of the British forces serving in Northern Ireland. Will not the news that an additional allowance is to be given to them help to maintain security in Northern Ireland, and help to stop the very things that we are worried about in regard to the IRA?
Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's interest in the welfare of the security forces in relation to the Northern Ireland allowance. His was a helpful effort, and I am happy to say that the conclusion was correct. Our security forces operate under the most arduous conditions which affect not only the soldiers but their families. The members of the security forces appreciate the efforts made on their behalf by hon. Members.
It is apt that in conclusion I should mention the young men who are detained in prison on the Secretary of State's pleasure. I had hoped to raise this matter on an Adjournment debate, but I realise that it is difficult for the House to find time to allow each hon. Member who applies to have an Adjournment debate. However, I shall be trying again in the new Session. Some men aged about 26 or 27 who are now in prison were induced to commit serious crimes from 1972 onwards. They were induced in the same way as I predict young people will be induced into commiting crimes this August. I hope that the House will find time to consider what has happened to those young men 10, 11 and 12 years later. They have known nothing but the prison system. If the House could find time to debate their position, that would be a constructive way of remedying one of the tragedies. With the request that we look to the future with both strength and compassion, I shall now sit down.
6.57 pm
Mr. Greg Knight: I shall introduce a new matter into the debate. It is a subject of national importance that must be aired before the summer recess

1287
—the scandal of at least sharp practice and, some would say, fraud carried out by some motor vehicle garages and quick-fit centres. There is a dual problem: the first part concerns Ministry of Transport testing—[Interruption.] I would rather continue without interruptions from the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). I listened in silence to his speech, which contained much vigour but precious little else, and I hope that he will do me the courtesy of listening to my speech in silence. I fear that he wishes to become the understudy of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
The problem with MOT testing by garages arises from the fact that garages can charge up to a maximum fee, but there is not a minimum fee. Some garages, believing that this may be a way to attract extra business, have decided to discount the fees that they charge for MOT testing by offering half-price tests or, in some cases, free tests. Hon. Members may ask, "Why does it matter? Does it not mean that the customer gets a good deal?" But the problem is that if a garage undertakes an MOT test at half price or for no fee, it will make a loss, unless it is asked to carry out other work.
I have evidence that many garages which, on the face of it, may seem to be giving a good service to the customer are failing vehicles that should receive a certificate. They then offer to carry out relatively minor work, such as adjusting the headlights or replacing brake pipes, and say that they can do the work the same day at a fairly small cost. They are therefore making a profit because that vehicle should have been passed and not failed. The public think that they are getting a good deal but in reality they are being ripped off.
I am grateful to Mr. Ken Reeves of the Market Bosworth service station in Leicestershire and also to Sitwell garage at Spondon in my constituency, who have brought these matters to my attention. The matter has received some publicity in the east midlands and I have received a large postbag on this subject. However, as I am aware of the lack of time, I shall read only briefly from two of the letters that I have received, which highlight the problems. One letter comes from a gentleman in Derby. He refers to the occasion on which he took his car for an MOT test and says:
"It failed on what the testing examiner said was perished front flexible brake hose pipes and corroded steel pipes across the rear axle … Not being prepared or in the position to afford astronomical garage fees … After taking the relevant brake pipes off my car I went to my Lada specialist to obtain … new pipes".
He took the pipe to be sure that the correct size was obtained. He continued:
"My Lada specialist asked me what was wrong with my old brake pipes."
The motorist told him that they had caused the car to fail the MOT test. The specialist was amazed and said that the pipes were in good order, and that the car should not have failed the test.
Mr. Hart, who is the proprietor of the Sitwell garage, wrote to me in the following terms:
"As a proprietor of a well known garage business in Derby and personally carrying out between seventy and ninety M.O.T. tests every week, I am naturally most concerned. I can also confirm that there are many cowboy garages … carrying out M.O.T. tests."
He then referred to a comment that I had made in the local press. He also said:
1288
"On the matter you have mentioned, I am aware that this is a disgraceful episode and I would like you to draw the matter to the attention of the public."
The other matter that I wish to raise briefly concerns the so-called quick-fit centres, which we have all seen. They offer new exhaust systems and shock absorber systems at attractive prices, often saying that the work will be done while the customer waits. However, the customer does not know that in many of these cases the employee is on a commission on the number of new parts that he can sell. Therefore, there is a temptation that, when a car is brought in for checking over, and part of the exhaust system is defective, the fitter says that the whole system needs replacing.
The Sitwell garage says about this matter:
"I would also like to bring to your attention unscrupulous practices which are being carried out by apparently reputable national companies from impressive premises and which are all labelled as garages. There are four of these outlets in Derby, all owned by either component, tyre or exhaust manufacturers, but not, of course, in the main, using the main manufacturers trading title. I have been approached on many, many occasions by customers"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. 'There are a number of hon. Gentlemen who wish to speak in this debate. It is a little unfair to go into detail about these matters. The hon. Gentleman must convince us of his case as to why the House should not adjourn.
Mr. Knight: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I thought perhaps that a similar comment might have been made about another hon. Member's speech.
This is a matter of national importance, and only the tip of the iceberg is emerging. It is clear that members of the public are being taken in by offers of cheap garage servicing and of cheap repairs to motor vehicles. This subject should receive the widest possible publicity before the House adjourns. I accept that garages have a right to make a living, but they do not have a right to make money from members of the public by deception and by an abuse of their position.
7.4 pm
Mr. Stanley Orme: I intervene briefly to support my right hon. and hon. Friends who have concentrated on the mining dispute. We make no apology for that. The House should not go into recess with this major dispute now in its 20th week, because another three months could spell disaster for the industry and the economy and cause further problems of law and order.
I listened carefully to the speech of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy. He is normally a fair man and concentrates on the subject, but he did not deal with the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends or about how the dispute can be resolved. That is the key issue facing the country.
This dispute is about jobs and about saving areas of the country from lasting unemployment.
Mr. Maude rose—
Mr. Orme: I am sorry, but I have very little time.
This disputes takes place at a time of mass unemployment. The unemployed figure is now 3 million, and much of that unemployment has been created by the Government's run-down of industry. We need look only at steel, shipbuilding, motor vehicles, heavy engineering and textiles—to name but a few—to know that that is so. The miners have said, "Enough is enough." They will

1289
stand up and fight for their jobs as well as for the future jobs of young people. That has led to great hardship, but, as some of my hon. Friends have said, the pain barrier has been passed and the miners will continue to fight.
Unfortunately, the Government have thrown their full weight behind the political and financial fight against the miners. This dispute has already cost the nation more than £2 billion, including lost coal production, lost taxes, social security payments and a massive bill for policing the strike.
We were told that there was an excess of 4 million tonnes a year which Mr. MacGregor wanted to remove. Since this dispute began, we have already lost 48 million tonnes, or 12 years of excess. The Government may say that some of this is uneconomic in that it is deep-mine coal which costs too much, but coal is an asset which is precious beyond what simple profit and loss accounting methods would have us believe. The value of our supplies goes way beyond the balance sheet.
The closure of pits will not release other valuable resources that are of benefit to the nation. These pits can be put to no other use, and there is little likelihood of redundant miners finding alternative work. Coal left in the ground means a net loss to the nation now and in the future.
In The Guardian on Tuesday, Lord Kaldor said in a letter:
"But even this ignores that uneconomic pits, though they cause financial losses, bring a net benefit in the form of an additional supply of exhaustible resources which otherwise would not be retrievable. The gross national product, now and in the future, will therefore certainly be higher if they are kept working than if they are closed down."
That is the answer to the uneconomic pit argument.
Some Conservative Members have criticised my role. It has been said that I have achieved nothing in 20 weeks. My achievement has been to bring both sides together—[Interruption.] I do not find the issue funny. People are suffering in mining communities and we are endeavouring to bring about negotiations.
The last negotiations did not break down when they ended last Wednesday evening—they were adjourned, and we must attempt to restart them. I have spoken to Mr. Scargill, Mr. Heathfield and Mr. MacGregor about resuming talks, while acknowledging the difficulty about the word "beneficial". However, that is a big word which deals with the uneconomic pits. It is an important division that must be bridged, and I believe that it can be bridged.
The Government are wasting money when they should be putting that money into the areas that need it. We shall need the coal from those pits in a few years' time, but we cannot reopen any pits that are closed. We might need that coal sooner rather than later if there is another oil crisis in the middle east. We are already importing too much coal.
There is a different way to deal with the issue, which requires a vision of the coal industry and energy generally. It should be based on "Plan for Coal" — which, incidentally, the Government endorsed in 1981. I see a smile on the Under-Secretary's face. It is not, as the Prime Minister said, that the Government endorsed the 1974 document — they endorsed the 1977 document, from which the word "uneconomic" was removed.
It would be absolutely wrong for the House to go into recess during such a major dispute. The Government must intervene to resolve it—not to extend it. We do not
1290
want to hear any nonsense about the Government agreeing to close pits and make redundancy payments as a way to split the mining communities. We are past the stage where the mining communities can be split. Those working will probably continue to work, but those who are not working will remain on strike, and they form some 80 per cent. of the mining industry's workforce.
Conservative Members should apply their minds to the question of how the dispute can be resolved. The Leader of the House, as a senior member of the Government, has a responsibility to answer our points. This dispute can and must be resolved by negotiation, but any agreement must be acceptable both to the unions and to the NCB. I believe that that can be achieved, but it needs a Government who believe in the mining industry. The Government must approach both sides in the dispute to bring them together. They must use their role—which they are entitled to do —on the tripartite basis of "Plan for Coal". It is on that basis that we move the amendment. The Government have a case to answer. They should—indeed, they must—intervene. We believe that this dispute can be resolved.
7.15 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I begin by commending to the House the motion which stands in my name and invite the House to reject the amendment.
On a previous occasion—doubtless it is apocryphal—the late Iain Macleod was confronted by an amendment broadly similar to that which has been tabled on this occasion by the Opposition Front Bench, and he threatened to accept it, with more dire consequences than almost anything else that had happened in the previous weeks.
As for the device which has been adopted today, the House of Commons is an innovative and adaptive organisation, and I have no hostility to this debate proceeding within the framework of an Opposition Front Bench amendment. However, I am entitled to place on record that when we moved to a timed debate for the recess motion we did it on the assumption that that was of merit to Back Benchers, and the original Procedure Committee recommendation of 90 minutes was set aside by the House and a three-hour debate placed in its stead. This has been described as exceptional. I do not mind, so long as the exception does not become the Front Bench rule. Back-Bench interests are secured by our eternal vigilance, and, although I am perfectly happy with the procedure that has been adopted today, I suggest that every Front Bencher should have a Back-Bench instinct within him and should wish this debate to remain in its normal form.
Reasoned objection to the motion was argued by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). I confess to a growing affection for the right hon. Gentleman and the arguments that he puts. [Interruption.] In their content, fashion and persuasiveness they increasingly become like a Daily Telegraph editorial, and that is marking out for him and for us an interesting future.
Having paid my fee by way of those compliments, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that under the Standing Orders there is every provision for the recall of Parliament should circumstances so determine. No Government could contemplate a deteriorating situation of the character that has been portrayed by some hon. Members today without

1291
being conscious of the possible need for such a recall. As our history is studded with such precedents, there is hardly any need for me to dwell on that.
The right hon. Member for Devonport harmed his proposition by making it not into a rather open offer but into a conditional and mechanistic one related to certain times and dates. The only circumstances of which I might have been persuaded would have been a formula which enabled me to avoid the orgy of standing ovations at the Conservative party conference. What the right hon. Gentleman had devised was a quite different formula. It was one which would enable him to attend and receive a standing ovation. I do not want to anticipate Tuesday's debate, but I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman will not be giving up his spot to the leader of the Liberal party on that occasion.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen rose—
Mr. Biffen: No, I will not give way.
The economy is not quite in such a disastrous condition as the right hon. Member for Devonport suggested. Any economy which is growing at the rate of 2.75 per cent. in gross domestic product per year and which has the supporting good evidence of industrial, investment and export output—
Mr. Budgen rose—
Mr. Biffen: I will not give way. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has not got into today's debate and I am sorry for him, but that was not my fault. I am taking up much less time answering the debate than many Back Benchers took up in contributing to it.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Devonport will understand when I say that, even on the ground of merit, I was not persuaded by his argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) emphasised his anxiety about the rating system and said that until it was reformed he would continue speaking in these debates. One normally says after a maiden speech that we hope to hear from the hon. Member again, and my hon. Friend has fulfilled that criterion.
My hon. Friend is also worried about the Civil Aviation Authority report and its considerable impact on airline policy and airports policy. I note what he said and will pass it on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, so that there is no misunderstanding, I must say that I cannot go beyond what I said at business questions today.
The hon. Members for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) spoke of the continuing security difficulties in the Province. We have an obligation to them, because they reminded us that all our problems, which are serious, and go to the heart of social and economic policies, do not have the fundamental seriousness of the conflict and problems of Northern Ireland. Familiarity over the past few years has perhaps disarmed our realisation of the threat that exists in the Province.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) mentioned the National Audit Office. I will see how the matter can best come before the Procedure Committee and perhaps I might have the chance
1292
to discuss the subject with my hon. Friend before the recess. He is crusading effectively on an important House of Commons matter.
My hon. Friend also invited me to comment on the outcome of Israel's general election. As I am trying to build bridges with the alliance, I thought that the outcome of that election needed no commentary from anyone interested in stable government and that the lesson could stand on its own.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) helpfully reminded the House of the importance of neonatal intensive care and the great interest that the House has properly shown in that subject, not least through the report of the Select Committee on Social Services. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend in the autumn when, no doubt, he will be trying to secure parliamentary time to have the matter considered further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) mentioned the problems of the motor industry. The best way for me to help him is to draw his speech to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It seemed to me that my hon. Friend raised matters that could be dealt with by the Office of Fair Trading.
The remaining speeches in the debate were devoted to the mining dispute. The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) spoke about the determination of the mining community. I accept that. One of the great challenges in the debate is not to live by the caricatures that are created of both sides. I have no doubt that there is a powerful will and determination in the mining community, where it is felt that justice lies with its cause. However, I suspect that that is also true of those in the mining communities that are at work and feel that their motives have been cruelly and viciously misrepresented and that they have as much right to the concern and judgment of the House as has any other section of the industry.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) made a measured and effective speech. I realise that I am about to damage irreparably his reputation and status in the Labour party, but I could not help thinking that if there has to be a dialogue and an attempt to get a better understanding—and perhaps, eventually, an agreement in the dispute—they can be achieved only through the voice represented by the hon. Gentleman. I could not help but contrast that voice with another voice frequently mentioned in the debate today—that of Mr. Scargill—and I realise that there is a distance of light years between the hon. Gentleman and Mr. Scargill in terms of temperament and approach. Temperament and approach are matters of real significance in such issues.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) again rehearsed his hostility to the police and his charge of police brutality. I do not believe for a moment that the resolution of this industrial dispute will be brought any closer by speeches such as that we heard today from the hon. Gentleman. I am convinced that the overwhelming belief is that the police are being used for a legitimate end—enabling those who wish to go to work to do so—and that the violence that has been engendered derives entirely from that point. If the moral authority of the dispute was so overwhelming, there would be no need for pickets other than a token number to inform people of the nature of the dispute.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) made a persuasive speech. He talked about the need to stave off

1293
unemployment. Unemployment must of course be a factor which governs all those who operate in industry and commerce, but one cannot fight unemployment by taking refuge in economic unrealities. There is no future for the coal industry now or next year unless it is grouped around its lowest-cost productive outlets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Moms) advanced a stout and well argued defence of Government policy, and particularly the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this matter. In my view, the Prime Minister is quite right to identify the unwholesome elements in this dispute — violence and extra-parliamentary ambitions — and to contrast them with the legitimate interests and traditions of the mining work force.
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, That the amendment be made, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Periodic adjournments).
The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 261.

Division No. 436]

[7.27 pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

Douglas, Dick

Alton, David

Dubs, Alfred

Anderson, Donald

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Eastham, Ken

Ashdown, Paddy

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

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Ashton, Joe

Ewing, Harry

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Fatchett, Derek

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Barnett, Guy

Fisher, Mark

Barron, Kevin

Flannery, Martin

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Beith, A. J.

Forrester, John

Benn, Tony

Foulkes, George

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

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Bermingham, Gerald

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Bidwell, Sydney

Freud, Clement

Blair, Anthony

Garrett, W. E.

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

George, Bruce

Boyes, Roland

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

Gould, Bryan

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

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Hancock, Mr. Michael

Bruce, Malcolm

Hardy, Peter

Caborn, Richard

Harman, Ms Harriet

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Heffer, Eric S.

Clarke, Thomas

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Cohen, Harry

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Coleman, Donald

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

John, Brynmor

Conlan, Bernard

Johnston, Russell

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cowans, Harry

Kilfedder, James A.

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Craigen, J. M.

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Crowther, Stan

Kirkwood, Archy

Cunningham, Dr John

Lamond, James

Dalyell, Tam

Leadbitter, Ted

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Leighton, Ronald

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

Litherland, Robert

Dewar, Donald

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Dixon, Donald

Loyden, Edward

Dormand, Jack

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

1294

McGuire, Michael

Rowlands, Ted

McNamara, Kevin

Sheerman, Barry

Madden, Max

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Marek, Dr John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Meacher, Michael

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Michie, William

Skinner, Dennis

Mikardo, Ian

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

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Snape, Peter

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Soley, Clive

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Spearing, Nigel

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Straw, Jack

O'Brien, William

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Tinn, James

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Torney, Tom

Park, George

Wainwright, R.

Parry, Robert

Wallace, James

Patchett, Terry

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Pavitt, Laurie

Wareing, Robert

Pendry, Tom

Weetch, Ken

Penhaligon, David

Welsh, Michael

Pike, Peter

Winnick, David

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Woodall, Alec

Prescott, John

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rogers, Allan

Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Robin Corbett.

Rooker, J. W,

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Chope, Christopher

Alexander, Richard

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

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Amess, David

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Ancram, Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Arnold, Tom

Cockeram, Eric

Ashby, David

Colvin, Michael

Aspinwall, Jack

Conway, Derek

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Coombs, Simon

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Cope, John

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

Cormack, Patrick

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Corrie, John

Baldry, Tony

Cranborne, Viscount

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Crouch, David

Batiste, Spencer

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Bendall, Vivian

Dicks, Terry

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Dorrell, Stephen

Benyon, William

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Berry, Sir Anthony

Dover, Den

Bevan, David Gilroy

Durant, Tony

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Dykes, Hugh

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Eggar, Tim

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Evennett, David

Body, Richard

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fallon, Michael

Bottomley, Peter

Farr, Sir John

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

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

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Forman, Nigel

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Braine, Sir Bernard

Fox, Marcus

Bright, Graham

Freeman, Roger

Brinton, Tim

Fry, Peter

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Gale, Roger

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Browne, John

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Bruinvels, Peter

Glyn, Dr Alan

Buck, Sir Antony

Goodlad, Alastair

Budgen, Nick

Gorst, John

Bulmer, Esmond

Gow, Ian

Burt, Alistair

Grant, Sir Anthony

Butcher, John

Greenway, Harry

Butterfill, John

Gregory, Conal

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

Carttiss, Michael

Grist, Ian

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Chapman, Sydney

Haselhurst, Alan

1295

Hayes, J.

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hayhoe, Barney

Merchant, Piers

Heddle, John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Henderson, Barry

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Hickmet, Richard

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Miscampbell, Norman

Hill, James

Moate, Roger

Hordern, Peter

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Howard, Michael

Montgomery, Fergus

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Moore, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Hunter, Andrew

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Murphy, Christopher

Jessel, Toby

Needham, Richard

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Nelson, Anthony

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Neubert, Michael

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Newton, Tony

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Nicholls, Patrick

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Norris, Steven

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Onslow, Cranley

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Lamont, Norman

Osborn, Sir John

Lawrence, Ivan

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Lester, Jim

Parris, Matthew

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Patten, John (Oxford)

Lightbown, David

Pattie, Geoffrey

Lilley, Peter

Pawsey, James

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

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

Lord, Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

Luce, Richard

Powley, John

Lyell, Nicholas

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

McCrindle, Robert

Price, Sir David

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Proctor, K. Harvey

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Maclean, David John

Raffan, Keith

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

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Maginnis, Ken

Rathbone, Tim

Major, John

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Marland, Paul

Rhodes James, Robert

Marlow, Antony

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Mather, Carol

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Maude, Hon Francis

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

1296

Roe, Mrs Marion

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Thorne, Neil (IIford S)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Thurnham, Peter

Rowe, Andrew

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Tracey, Richard

Ryder, Richard

Trippier, David

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Trotter, Neville

Sayeed, Jonathan

Twinn, Dr Ian

Scott, Nicholas

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Viggers, Peter

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Waddington, David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Silvester, Fred

Waldegrave, Hon William

Sims, Roger

Walden, George

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Waller, Gary

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Ward, John

Speed, Keith

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Speller, Tony

Warren, Kenneth

Spencer, Derek

Watson, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Watts, John

Squire, Robin

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Steen, Anthony

Wheeler, John

Stern, Michael

Whitfield, John

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Whitney, Raymond

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Wolfson, Mark

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Wood, Timothy

Stokes, John

Woodcock, Michael

Stradling Thomas, J.

Yeo, Tim

Sumberg, David

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Tellers for the Noes:

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Wednesday 1st August do adjourn till Monday 22nd October, and that the House shall not adjourn on Wednesday 1st August until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

Royal Assent
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Finance Act 1984

2. Appropriation Act 1984

3. Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1984

4. Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984

5. Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984

6. Health and Social Security Act 1984

7. Trade Union Act 1984

8. Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council Act 1984

9. Dartford Tunnel Act 1984

10. Portsea Harbour Company Act 1984

11. Cornwall County Council Act 1984

12. British Railways (No. 2) Act 1984

Housing Defects Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Housing Defects Bill
  Clause 1

    DESIGNATION OF DEFECTIVE DWELLINGS
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 21, after "dwelling" insert
    "by virtue of the designation in question"
    7.40 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 28 and 54.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we clarify the position of the rights of Back Benchers when Divisions take place this evening on Lords amendments in view of the Government's hope that they will be supported by a majority? Will we be given an opportunity to divide on those amendments in the event that Members believe that those amendments are sufficiently important to be divided upon? May we have an assurance at the commencement of the proceedings that, in so far as hon. Members have a right to divide, we shall be able to exercise that right in a perfectly normal and reasonable way?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman need not ask such a question. He knows that every Lords amendment is put to the House, and the Question is put from the Chair. If any hon. Member wishes to divide against it, that is exactly what may happen.
    Mr. Ancram: These are lengthy but technical amendments to ensure that there is no overlap or conflict in the provisions in cases where the same dwelling house is subject to two designations, for instance, national designation under clause 1, and a local designation under clause 10. The principal amendment is this rather lengthy new clause. Hon. Members might find it helpful if I were to explain briefly the effect of the provisions in these cases of what might be called double designation.
    There are four basic elements in the new clause. First, it deals with a case where an owner has applied for assistance under one designation, and has been notified by the authority that he is entitled to assistance by way of repurchase. In that case, the clause provides that he should not be eligible for assistance under any subsequent designation because obviously it would be pointless to allow the application to be processed in the normal way where it had already been decided that the house must be repurchased.
    Secondly, the clause deals with the situation where a person is entitled to assistance by way of reinstatement grant and it becomes apparent to the authority that he is eligible for assistance under a subsequent designation. In that case, the clause provides that the authority should reassess the case in the light of the subsequent designation, and give the owner a further notice under clause 4(2) stating the form of assistance to which he is entitled. It would not be necessary for the owner to submit a separate application. Where assistance is also to be by way of

    1299
    reinstatement grant under the subsequent designation, the clause provides that fresh notices should be issued by the authority relating to the work required to make good the defect and to the amount of expenditure to be incurred. In such cases, the expenditure limit will be the aggregate of the expenditure limits applicable to each of the designations.
    Finally, the clause makes provision for cases where an owner may be committed to, or has undertaken, work with a view to reinstatement under a first designation, and then becomes entitled to assistance by way of repurchase under a subsequent designation. In such cases, the owner is to be allowed to complete the work and receive payment for it.
    I appreciate that this is a complex matter. I hope that I have been able to give the House some idea of how the scheme is to work where one dwelling might come within the scope of two separate designations.
    Mr. Max Madden: Will the Minister advise the House what opportunities there are for people to apply to local authorities for ex gratia grant payments from local authorities if they occupy dwellings that come within the provisions of the legislation in advance of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and being implemented? I was advised by Department of the Environment officials that ex gratia payments could be made by local authorities. Two of my constituents have applied for them.
    Mr. Ancram: I shall look into the cases which the hon. Member mentions and write to him. I should like to be sure that he receives a correct answer.
    These are complex matters. I hope that I have explained how the new provision will work and that the House will support it.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Terry Davis: I am not satisfied with the Minister's explanation of the amendments. I am particularly worried about the effects of Lords amendment No. 1 which changes clause 1. Under the clause as it stands the Secretary of State may vary or revoke a designation, but
    "no variation or revocation shall affect the operation of the provisions of this Act in relation to any dwelling if … it is a defective dwelling".
    The Lords amendment refers to a defective dwelling
    "by virtue of the designation in question".
    That seems to limit the clause. Under the clause as it stands the Secretary of State cannot vary if a building has physical defects. According to the amendment, the Secretary of State will not be able to vary if the dwelling is defective
    "by virtue of designation".
    I raised the problem of Smith houses on Report on 21 June when I asked the Government what they intended to do about the problem of Smith houses in Birmingham. I declare a constituency interest because there are several hundreds of Smith houses in my constituency. The same houses can be found in constituencies represented by Government Members. We have been waiting for a long time for a decision by the Government on whether such houses should be designated as defective dwellings under the Bill.
    People have been led to believe by the Government and by the Birmingham city council that Smith houses will be designated, but whenever we have pressed the Minister he has dodged the issue. On 21 June the Minister for Housing
    1300
    and Construction assured the House that a decision about Smith houses would be made at the earliest opportunity. That was five weeks ago. The issue was raised twice in the House of Lords by Lord Graham of Edmonton. The Government had at least two opportunities in the other place to make an announcement.
    Perhaps the Government have made an announcement in a press release, but I have not read anything in the local papers about it. I have read every issue of Hansard since 21 June in case the designation was announced in response to a written question, perhaps planted by a Government Member, but I have not seen anything about it.
    I shall not be put off. I ask the Minister to make an announcement tonight. The problem affects not only Birmingham, but several other constituencies. People who have bought Smith houses in other constituencies have contacted me. In the last few weeks I have been told about houses sold in constituencies such as Aldridge-Brownhills and in Walsall.
    The Minister has said that the problem is the material used for the foundation of Smith houses. We are aware of that problem. The use of untreated shale in the foundation of Smith houses built in Birmingham, and in my constituency in particular, is a contributory factor, but it is not the only reason for the defects in Smith houses. There are many other defects that cannot be attributed to shale. Those defects are affecting Smith houses in Birmingham and outside the city.
    I make no apology for raising the matter again tonight. We are still waiting for the announcement that we were promised would be given at the earliest possible opportunity. The Minister said in the debate on 21 June that he would have "a further word" with me later. We have certainly had casual conversations, but I am still waiting for an announcement. Casual conversations in New Palace Yard and expressions of sympathy will not cut much ice with my constituents who have bought defective houses.
    I hope that we shall hear an announcement tonight, although I would not describe it as being given at the earliest opportunity if the Minister announced tonight that he had designated the Smith houses. I shall thank him if he does so on behalf of my constituents; but I shall make the point that he has made the announcement at the last possible opportunity.
    Sir Reginald Eyre: I associate myself with the doubts about the amendment that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). I follow him in saying to the Minister that there is concern in the city of Birmingham about this enormous problem. More than 500 owner-occupied Smith houses are suffering from defects.
    As the Minister knows, the BRE report was received in December last year. From our examination of the report, we are sure in Birmingham that the Smith houses there qualify under clause 1 to be accepted within the national scheme, because of their defective design and construction.
    My hon. Friend the Minister was kind enough to come to Birmingham on 25 May. He visited several defective Smith houses in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) and in my constituency in Hall Green. Earlier, the Minister was good

    1301
    enough to visit houses in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King).
    We know that the Minister is very much aware of the problems, but when he replied to the hon. Member for Hodge Hill on 21 June he said that the decision must take account of whether the defects were common to the Smith houses as a class, or whether the problem was local.
    The Minister may be helped by knowing that defects in Smith houses in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) are similar in nature to the defects of the houses in Birmingham. I feel sure that that will help the Minister to decide the main question to which he referred on 21 June. Consequently, I hope that when he replies he will be able to say that, in the circumstancies, a decision to designate the Smith houses in Birmingham as one of the groups coming within the national scheme will be coming shortly.
    I do not want to speak at undue length. I know that, as a result of the Minister's visit and the representations that have been made to him, he knows well the serious nature of the problems affecting houses in Birmingham. I hope that the Minister will be able to reply in the reassuring terms that I have asked of him, especially having regard to his knowledge of the problems.
    Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I should like to follow the queries of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) by referring to the proposal to amend the wording of clause 1.
    The wording will remain substantially unchanged, but the point in question is the designation of properties. That designation is all-important to my constituents in Yardley and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Hall Green and Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and the hon. Member for Hodge Hill. We have been patient about awaiting the pronouncement of my hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Construction. It is significant that it was at this time a year ago that I approached my hon. Friend to ask about this very point. I had been allowed to raise the matter on an Adjournment debate, when I questioned the structural nature of Smith houses.
    The report that my hon. Friend was kind enough to authorise and that we all awaited bore out the contention that not just local strata of clay cause sulphate growth and that there were generic problems in this type of housing regardless of the geographical area in which the houses were built. It was found that there was structural steel in those properties, in the shape of carrying handles that interwove and therefore became a structural feature between the blocks that they supported. There were other defects.
    I should like to ask the Minister whether he feels that those houses come within the designated type of property, the first type of property that was investigated—that is, properties of reinforced steel. I hope that my hon. Friend can now say that our constituents will be entitled to compensation in the same way as the owners of other houses in the main group so far affected.
    The Minister was good enough to inform the House that numerous houses—about 28 types—including Boot and
    1302
    Wates houses, were subject to remuneration and would come within the designation of the clause. I should like to ask what the effect of the amendment is.
    My hon. Friend was also good enough to visit my constituency in Yardley as well as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green. He diligently sought out Smith houses, including the house of Mr. Kyte, but first he went by accident to a Boot house opposite that Smith house. I pointed out to my hon. Friend that the Smith house was in abysmal condition compared with the pristine condition of the Boot house that he visited by mistake.
    It would be appropriate if at this time we could finally know whether Smith houses are included and subject to designation and whether they will be automatically on the pay-out list for refurbishment or purchase by the local authority. I would deeply appreciate it if at this time, just before the recess, all of us could go home to assure our constituents, who are worried beyond any measure of doubt, and have been worried for a long time, that the amendment means that Smith houses will be eligible for the proper and correct compensation under the designation and that it will be automatic compensation after the procedures have been gone through, and not at the discretion of the local authority.
    8 pm
    Mr. John Marek: I am very concerned about the clause because it results from legislation by the Government that was not properly thought out. Having been elected in 1979, the Conservative party, with its dogmatic zeal, was very keen to introduce legislation allowing people to buy their own council houses.
    I should like to make it clear that I am not against people buying their own council houses, provided that the stock of council houses is maintained and that waiting lists are kept down. When the Government introduced legislation allowing people to buy their council houses, theydid not, apparently, look beyond the first two or three years. It is now becoming evident that some people who bought their council houses are now unable to sell them because of defects that were not apparent at the time that the valuations were made and the contracts entered into. That happened with the Airey houses which are within the designation.
    If people have substandard Airey houses they can look forward to some redress. It is by no means clear that everyone who lives in an Airey house will benefit from the provisions or that the repairs will be done 100 per cent. The construction of Airey houses is well known to hon. Members. Some of the defects are very hard to find. In some cases the houses are of such poor quality that no amount of repair and redress can make them suitable. Even if an Airey house has been repaired and is structurally sound, there is still a stigma attached to the house and it is more difficult to sell than a house built on more traditional lines.
    Although Airey houses are within the designation, there are many other houses which are not. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) referred to the Smith houses which are not within the designation. Surely there is inequality in that respect. If the Government apply principles or laws to one set of people, I should have thought they would be keen to apply those laws or principles to everyone. Why should some people be incapable of benefiting from the legislation?

    1303
    When people have council houses valued, the valuation is not particularly lengthy or thorough. The valuer will spend 10 or 15 minutes in looking round the house. Valuers are busy people and have not got all day in which to look at council houses, so that, if a house appears to be the same as the others in the street, they will simply decide to value the house at £X thousand. Valuers do not necessarily go into every nook and cranny to see whether a house is in good order.
    What happens, then, to people who, having bought their council houses, suddenly find that there is a serious structural defect that was not obvious to the valuer when he looked round a typical council house? There are houses which do not fall into any particular class but which people have bought only to find that they are disadvantaged later by being unable to sell them. The people concerned may wish to retire or to go to a different part of the country, but because they have council houses which are not in the designation they are not able to sell them.
    One would have hoped that the Government would, certainly at this late stage, come back to the House with a Bill which did not have glaring inequities in it. I would have expected to find some degree of generosity, with the Government being prepared to look at each individual case. Could not some funds have been provided by the Government to help people in the circumstances that I have outlined?
    If that is not done and the Government insist on accepting these amendments, some people will be disadvantaged. A new class of citizens will be created—people who have bought council houses but who cannot move from them. It is a new form of feudalism, as we had with tied cottages for agricultural workers. In this case the Government are performing the role of the squire and are saying, "We shall not move you because it will cost us more money. Therefore, you must stay in your tied cottage or house although it may have structural defects. You can reduce the value by 50 per cent., or knock £7,000 off its price—you can even make a loss on the house—but you still cannot sell it."
    I do not wish to continue for too long, because the evening is young and we still have 65 amendments to discuss. Will the Government do a little more for those individuals who will suffer and who must have a grievance, because people who have bought Airey houses will nearly always be recompensed, but those who live in Smith houses or in other houses with defects will not benefit from the legislation? It is clearly iniquitous, and it shows that the Government are not worried about whether people buy council houses. They are more concerned with political dogma and with winning general elections. They promised people a carrot, so that they believed that they would benefit. Some have benefited, and I welcomed the Government's increase in the discounts from 50 to 60 per cent., because the more discounts that are given to people who live in council houses, the more wealth will be redistributed. That is a good thing.
    If these amendments are accepted, a category of people will believe that others in similar positions will have been looked after by the Government but that they have not. The Government must be generous and say, "We shall think again. We shall try to tidy the amendment so that everyone is treated equitably." However, they may say, "We are not worried about this. All that we care about is political
    1304
    dogma, and as long as the Bill gets on the statute book, we shall have done our duty." I await the Minister's reply with interest.
    Mr. Tony Durant: I had not intended to speak to this amendment—
    Mr. John Fraser: Sit down then.
    Mr. Durant: —but I wish to mention the designation—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly saw an hon. Member representing the Government, and also the payroll vote in the House, turn to an hon. Member speaking during our debate and heard him ask him to sit down. That raises substantial constitutional issues. If an hon. Member, elected to the House by the people of the country, is subjected to intimidation from a Front Bench spokesman or a Government appointee—in effect, a Minister—surely the hon. Gentleman who is asked to resume his seat during his speech should bring an allegation of contempt against the hon. Member who issued the request.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I do not think that a point of order arises. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for a long time, and he will know that representations are made to hon. Members. The Chair knows nothing about those representations, and I am glad that it is not involved.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You say that the Chair is not involved, but I distinctly heard a statement being made by a Minister to a Conservative Back Bencher, in the Chamber, requiring him to sit down. Many of us have decided over the past few months that this Government need firmer and more strenuous opposition, because it has come to our knowledge on a number of occasions that statements such as this are being made to Conservative Back Benchers and indirectly to my hon. Friends. We believe that it is for the Chair to intervene and give a ruling, arising from what has happened here today. It is important that, during our proceedings tonight, every hon. Member who wishes to speak is not prevented from speaking, and that clearly is a matter for the Chair. In the event—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. If he is referring to the amendments with which we are dealing, he can rise with the hope of catching the eye of the Chair. This matter is not a point of order for me.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order. The issue that I raised in my point of order does not necessarily relate to the amendment. It can equally relate to the proceedings of the House. I am saying that a Minister is in default of the procedures of the House by turning to his hon. Friend and requiring that he resumes his seat. This matter requires a ruling from the Chair. In the event that you feel that, in the circumstances, it is not possible for you to make a ruling, I ask that Mr. Speaker be asked to attend the House to rule, so that the position is clarified.
    We have heard a Conservative Member being asked to take his seat during the course of a debate, when he had risen to speak on an amendment that he felt was sufficiently important, in so far as he is representing his

    1305
    constituents, to warrant his intervention. I ask you to rule, not about anything that I may wish to say on an amendment, but on a procedural matter that I have raised —the question of the rights of Back Benchers to speak freely on the Floor of the House, and not be intimidated.
    Mr. Durant: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, remind the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that Conservative Members do not need instructions from him on how to behave. We make our own decisions as to whether or not we shall speak, and we do not need to be instructed by him on that either. Therefore, I believe that this is not a point of order for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was sitting on the Treasury Bench when it is alleged that words were used by one of my hon. Friends. No one sitting on the Treasury Bench sought to give any advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant). If such advice had been given, my hon. Friend would probably have disregarded it. In so far as any advice was tendered to my hon. Friend, it was tendered by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). He sits on the same side of the House as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: If I understand the feeling in the House, it would be to the advantage of all of us if we got on with the debate.
    Mr. Durant: I rise to speak on behalf of my constituents, and that is what I am here to do. That is what Parliament is about. I do not need the hon. Member for Workington to tell me where my duty lies.
    Before I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Workington, I said that I had not intended to raise this matter on this clause. As there has now been discussion about designation, I wish to make an important point for my constituents. I have studied the Bill carefully. On page 2, clause 1(4) says:
    "The Secretary of State may vary or revoke a designation under this section".
    I understand that completely. He will publish that designation in the London Gazette, and that is provided for under clause 1(5)(a). On what terms will my hon. Friend the Minister decide the designation? Whose advice will he take and how might a new designation be introduced? A number of my constituents are at present in other houses which at this stage have not been designated, and they are concerned. There is no evidence that their houses are defective, but if defects become apparent they should like to know how they can be designated.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I have been informed that a clear undertaking was given to the citizens of Birmingham immediately prior to last year's general election. I wish to address my remarks in part to that undertaking and to ascertain to what extent the Government, having given that undertaking, are now required to be far more positive and forthcoming about the concessions which some may feel are being given in the Bill.
    1306
    During the general election constituents throughout Birmingham were promised by their Conservative candidates that the Government would look favourably on the inclusion of Smith houses in any legislative changes.
    Mr. Roger King: I had the honour to be a Conservative candidate in Birmingham during the general election, and I just wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is putting words in my mouth. I cannot recall making such a commitment, and I am not sure whether any of my colleagues did so. On what evidence does the hon. Gentleman base that assumption?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman says that as a candidate in Birmingham he did not make that statement. I hope that the Minister will not prevent him from speaking, because the hon. Gentleman has the same right to speak as the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant). I had to rise to my feet to exercise the rights of the hon. Member for Reading, West and to defend his interests—
    Mr. Durant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I crave your indulgence as Deputy Speaker in charge of the Chamber. I do not seek to be defended by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I am perfectly capable of making my own case. When the hon. Gentleman interrupted me, I was already on my feet. It is, I believe, an effrontery to the House for the hon. Gentleman suddenly to take on the role of defending Back Benchers.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The only person who is stopping me from speaking is the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who is the only nobbler in this House.
    Mr. Roger King: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Workington said that somehow I had been persuaded not to make a contribution in the debate. I was not persuaded in any form whatever and, therefore, resent his suggestion.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will realise that hon. Members are raising points of argument in the guise of points of order. It would be very much better if hon. Members were to try to catch my eye and to make their contributions in debate.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) said that he was not persuaded. That is a curious construction of words, because it suggests that attempts were made to persuade him. That only confirms my point—that to some extent Conservative Members are being prevented from expressing their views—
    Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has again stated—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with a number of points of order. It would be very much better for our proceedings if we were now to have an orderly debate. There is plenty of time and I shall do my utmost to call any hon. Member who wishes to speak.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Northfield rises like a trout on the Tay after the fly. If he wishes to stay this evening, I shall present him with many flies which will be well laid, and I hope that he takes and bites them.

    1307
    I apologise to the hon. Member for Reading, West. He knows that I would not wish to offend him. If I have, he must accept that what I said was in the spirit of our debate. I am sure that he knows precisely what I mean.
    The hon. Member for Northfield is aware that during the general election certain statements were made, especially in the Northfield constituency. The information has come from many sources. Labour supporters who attended the election to help the Labour candidates spoke from public platforms and drew attention to the undertakings from Conservative candidates. I understand that it was believed that the Government would concede the case after the general election. I am informed that an inquiry was set up, investigations carried out and conclusions reached. That showed that there were defects.
    The constituents of the hon. Member for Northfield want to know whether he believes that the Government are responding to those investigations in a reasonable manner and whether they accept that the properties should be designated in the Bill. I understand that the properties will not be designated, and some of us must, therefore, express reservations about that part of the Bill. Indeed, we feel strongly on this matter and may divide the House to express our concern about the Government's failure to make the necessary concessions.
    Many local authorities and housing groups in the Birmingham area have expressed great dismay and displeasure at the news that the Government have not yet decided whether they will designate Smith houses, in this or any other Bill, as one of the groups that would qualify for the national scheme. It is more than a year since the Government accepted the need for an investigation into Smith houses. They did so under pressure not only from my hon. Friends but from Conservative Members. I am sure that the hon. Member for Northfield at that time, when it was more politically opportune, was vociferous in his support of designation. It appears that he is not so strenuous tonight in the interests of those who own Smith houses.
    At that time we were told that the problem affected many people throughout the Birmingham area and in other parts of the United Kingdom. Many hon. Members said that there was all-party agreement when the Government announced at Easter 1983 that there would be an investigation by the Birmingham research unit—
    Sir Reginald Eyre: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a national body, which has nothing to do with Birmingham—the Building Research Establishment.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I thank him for correcting me. None of us is too proud to admit that on occasions we need correction. I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has successfully done would have been done by those writing the Official Report.
    As I say, there was all-party agreement at Easter 1983 about the need for an investigation into a number of systems and that Smith houses should be added to the list. Up to then, it was not thought that Smith houses would be included. We on these Benches — I am sure that many Conservative Members felt the same — were disappointed with the report on Smith houses, which came out, significantly, a few weeks after the report on other types of system built houses, because it did not deal with Smith houses in the way that we had hoped.
    1308
    Six months have elapsed. The Government have had sufficient time in which to reach a decision on the matter. Indeed, the people in places such as Birmingham—who believe that the Government owe them a decision in view of the promises that were made of the likelihood of a decision being made in their favour—feel that sufficient time has elapsed and that the Government should now reach a decision.
    On Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) sought undertakings from the Government, but the Minister dodged the question. When pressed to say what would happen to Smith houses, he said that he was still considering whether they should be included in the mandatory scheme and added that he expected to reach a decision following a visit to Birmingham later in the year.
    Time has passed, no decision has been forthcoming and we are still waiting for the Minister to make up his mind. There is still time for him to do that. It might be possible for him to introduce additional legislation.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Additional legislation is not required. The Minister need only make an announcment. He announced the other types of houses to be designated either through a written answer or a press notice, and the information was made available to hon. Members. He could make a similar announcement tonight from the Dispatch Box.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for clarifying the position. The people of Birmingham will be pleased to know that it is a simple matter for the Government to change the arrangements and ensure that their property is included. I think I see the Minister indicating that he wishes to intervene. I hope that he will make the concession which my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill is seeking.
    Let us not forget that while the delay continues, people in Birmingham and elsewhere who bought these houses are living in a state of uncertainty about the future. The Government repeatedly refer to the importance of owner-occupation, claiming that it leads, among other things, to greater output and effort. I cannot believe that they wish to impede those who, having purchased these houses, want to improve them to ensure that any stigma that may attach to them is removed at the earliest opportunity.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Gow: It may help the hon. Gentleman, and may even curtail his speech, if I say that I understand the anxiety expressed by him and by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). Alas, this is not an easy decision. If it had been, it would have been made earlier. However, the hon. Member for Hodge Hill has expressed deep anxiety about the matter and I can tell him that I shall be announcing a decision on Smith houses before the end of the month.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: We have been debating the matter for nearly an hour.
    Mr. Terry Davis: The Minister said that he will make an announcement before the end of the month, which is five days away. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be better if the announcement were made in the House tonight, so that if that decision is not a favourable one the Minister could be cross-examined by Birmingham Members on both sides of the House? Our suspicions are

    1309
    bound to be raised by the fact that the Minister says that he will not make a statement today, but wishes to make it in a nook-and-cranny way.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I had not been as suspicious as my hon. Friend of the Government's motives. However, my hon. Friend may be right in saying that the Government intend to make an announcement during the recess.
    Mr. Gow: No.
    Mr. Terry Davis: The Minister said that he will make the announcement before the end of the month and we have decided to rise on 1 August. Therefore, the decision will be announced before the recess, but I fear that the announcement will not be made in the Chamber which, in view of the pressure exerted by hon. Members, would be the most appropriate forum. If the decision were a favourable one, I imagine that the Minister would have curtailed the debate by making that favourable announcement tonight. His refusal to do so suggests that it will not be a favourable decision.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I was elected to the House only in 1979, but I have studied the work of the previous Labour Government and, although once in a while they strayed from the good way and published decisions in written answers, they came to accept that there was a need for oral statements on the Floor of the House in the name of open government. In the past few years, there has been a return to the bad old ways. Written answers are supposed to satisfy hon. Members. The Minister said that the reply would not be made during the recess and we must therefore assume that there will be a written answer on Tuesday. What good is that?
    Mr. John Fraser: The House is discussing designation and the expenditure by a local authority of many millions of pounds which may not be subsidised by the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that we cannot be told the decision on 26 July but that we shall be told, in a nook-and-cranny way, by 31 July?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is right. It is extraordinary, but we all know what the decision is likely to be. If it were to be favourable to the people of Birmingham and other parts of the country, it would have been announced during the debate. It has taken us an hour to elicit from the Minister the statement that he is likely to give us a written answer on Tuesday next week. We shall have no opportunity to question him on that statement. It is an affront to our procedures.
    If the House were sitting all next week hon. Members could raise points of order and object about an important statement being made in a written answer. They will be objecting to the fact that the Minister is issuing by means of a written reply a major statement which affects the lives of hundreds of people in Birmingham. Surely in our society, which values individual freedom and in which the rights of small groups of people must be fully protected, Ministers are big enough to stand at the Dispatch Box and to face the wrath of my hon. Friends, in the event that we had to object to the Government's decision. Perhaps, having heard my hon. Friends' comments today, the Minister will wish to reconsider his position. Perhaps in
    1310
    the light of those comments he will feel it wiser to make the announcement today. If he does not do so, he must tell us why we are being required to wait for 120 or 130 hours for a statement which could just as well be made now.
    The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) keeps tabling questions about the cost of answering parliamentary questions. No doubt a parliamentary question will be tabled next week in the name of the Minister's parliamentary private secretary. Or, indeed, the question may have been tabled already. If the Minister would tell us now that the houses are to be included, the expense of a question could be avoided and, furthermore, there would be no need for a Division. I am obliged to divide the House only because the Minister refuses to reply to my intervention.
    Dr. Marek: Is it not possible that the Government are holding back the statement because they intend to designate perhaps only half or two-thirds of the houses, and they wish to avoid discussion here? It would be predominantly Labour authorities which would be torn between doing what was right for their citizens and making extra designations which they had to pay for, thus creating extra problems for themselves. Is it not possible that the Government relish the prospect of such developments in the latter part of the year, or am I being too cynical?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) is not known for his cynicism. He sees matters in a clear and straightforward way. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill, he does not address himself to the cynicism of the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill is wrong about the Government. We must live in hope.
    Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the hon. Member for Northfield has been required to table the necessary parliamentary question which the Minister may answer next Tuesday. If he has, I hope that the burghers of Birmingham will be told that it was the Labour Members who pressed the Government on this matter and that when we asked the hon. Member for Northfield to put the case for this concession to be made for the hundreds of people who own such houses, he kept his seat.
    After a curious visit from the Minister, who went to sit beside him, the hon. Member for Northfield kept his seat. The hon. Member must feel that he cannot defend the position of the Government. No doubt he will defend it publicly in the newspapers in Birmingham next week. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends must remember that their constituents are among those who own these houses, which suffer from defects of all sorts. My hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill has referred to people with failing eyesight who have to cope with the problem of wavy floors. They have trouble focusing on the floors, which are wavy as a result of constructional defects. If the Minister gives a negative response next week, people with failing eyesight will have to continue to suffer from the problem of their wavy floors.
    There are other people who are tied to their properties because they cannot sell them. I believe that there is no market for these properties until the Government intervene.
    Mr. Terry Davis: The market is reduced.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: We all remember when, last year, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who

    1311
    was then the Secretary of State for Employment, told us that people should get on their bicycles and go looking for work. We all know, however, that mobility of labour is dependent on housing mobility. We are merely asking the Government to respond to the demands of people, especially the unemployed, who want to move but cannot because of the Government's intransigence.
    When the Minister replies to the debate next week in the form of a written answer, he should ponder over his pen about what he is doing for people who want to move. By refusing the change he will be telling them that they cannot move because the Government believe that the money should be spent on tax concessions for stud farmers. We all remember the stud farming debate of a few weeks ago. It was disgraceful that capital transfer tax concessions should be given to stud farmers. Throughout the Budget, tens of millions of pounds have been given away to minority interests, most of which are hardly represented in our constituencies.
    Mr. Durant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if you would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with a Lords amendment. I urge you to bring him back to the subject.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for Workington will not wander into stud farms.
    Mr. John Fraser: My hon. Friend would not be well served if he did.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Indeed. We are considering an amendment that is a most effective result of the activities of another place. I hope that the Minister will note the protests of my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill. I shall have to divide the House on this important issue. I shall do so with slight reservations, but the Minister, by answering in the form of a written reply, is abusing our procedures.
    Mr. Kevin Barron: Last November the Minister made a statement naming 28 types of defective building. Many of us have problems with such buildings in our constituency. In my area, we have the Reema type. On that occasion we were able to question the Minister about the Building Research Establishment report and what the legislation would do to help. Surely the Minister should answer questions now if he was referring only to the Smith type of housing.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the Minister will make a statement today giving the Government's reasons for excluding that type of housing. Unusually, I was not present when the earlier statement was made, but I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill questioned the Minister about exclusions. Clearly he expected the Government to give way and grant his constituents that concession. What are the Government afraid of? Why will they not make the announcement today and thus avoid wasting time on Divisions simply to show the people of Birmingham and elsewhere how unsatisfactory the Government's attitude has been? We could avoid all that nonsense if the Minister would be more forthcoming. At the very least, will he assure us that a clear undertaking will be given in the written answer?
    Mr. Terry Davis: It may not even be a written answer. It may be a press release.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In that case, the Minister had better tell us today exactly how he intends to make the statement.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Peter Bruinvels.
    Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order to move, That the debate be now be adjourned?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I am not prepared to accept that motion. I have called Mr. Bruinvels. I shall, of course, call the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) if he wishes to participate in the debate in due course.
    Mr. Bruinvels: I shall be brief as my hon. Friend the Minister has made it clear that there is to be a statement, no matter what its form, about the position of Smith homes. There are 500 such homes in Leicester, East. The problem is especially worrying on the Netherhall estate on which many of my constituents have bought their homes and are anxious to have reassurance and compensation as soon as possible.
    Leicester has had many housing difficulties in the past few years. In the constituencies of my two colleagues, though not in my own, there have been considerable problems with Boot homes. My hon. Friend the Minister visited Leicester recently and saw at first hand the difficulties experienced by the owners of those homes. At that time, however, the problems of the Smith homes had not yet come to light. Perhaps on his next visit my hon. Friend the Minister will come and see some of those homes, too.
    The Lords amendment is clearly welcome for people with homes of other types, but I very much hope that the Smith houses will be designated under clause 1 at an early date. There is concern throughout the country that those homes have not yet been included. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister cares passionately about this problem. Unlike the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), I do not care how my hon. Friend announces this help and hope so long as he makes the announcement.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Bruinvels: We should be grateful that there is to be an announcement by the end of July.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
    Hon. Members: Give way!
    Mr. Bruinvels: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) explained carefully what was going on.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
    Hon. Members: Give way!
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It seems clear to me that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) is not giving way, at any rate at this moment.
    Mr. Bruinvels: My hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green carefully and succinctly explained the difficulties experienced in Birmingham. I hope that in my short speech I have been able to put forward the concern that is felt by hon. Members and by the people living in Leicester, East who desperately need help. They should not be penalised in any way for having opted to buy their

    1313
    homes or, indeed, blamed if they have not bought their homes. I know that the Bill as amended by the Lords amendments will be acceptable to my constituents, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to include Smith homes in clause 1.
    Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned. I do so because of the quite extraordinary—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by saying that I am not prepared to accept the motion. If he wishes to intervene in the debate, I will of course be prepared to call him.
    Mr. Fraser: Of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    This seemed to be a comparatively uncontroversial set of amendments until the intervention of the Minister a few moments ago informing us that he will be making an announcement about the designation of Smith houses before the end of the month. We are at the tail end of a Session and at the tail end of a Bill. We are concerned about the designation of a number of houses in Birmingham that are defective as a result of the use of shale in them and the coming apart of the walls. There is no political or party point in this matter. Concern has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about these homes. It seems extraordinary to have an announcement from the Minister that he will say something about the designation of Smith homes by 31 July when the House is sitting on the evening of 26 July. That seems to be holding the House in contempt, not in the technical sense of the word, but by dealing with second class houses in the way that some other people deal in second hand cars. That is not good enough.
    There is an essential difference between the designation of houses under clause 1 and the designaion of houses under clause 10. If they are designated under clause 1, the local authority—in this case Birmingham,—will receive subsidy at the rate of 75 per cent. of the loan costs if the houses are repurchased by the local authority, or at the rate of 90 per cent. of the servicing costs of the reinstatement grant.
    If the Minister decides that designation will be left to Birmingham council under clause 10, no subsidy will be attracted to Birmingham as a result of that designation made by that local authority. In an area that has considerable housing problems with substantial incursions into its housing investment programme, this is a matter of importance. Millions of pounds are involved in capital expenditure, and hundreds of thousands of pounds are involved in subsidy.
    It seems to be holding the House in contempt not to be able to make an announcement tonight about Smith houses rather than wait at the latest until Tuesday 31 July. This is not a new matter. As I understand it, a delegation of Members of both parties went to see the Department of the Environment about these matters prior to the last election, and the expectation was created in Birmingham and in Northfield that Smith houses would be designated. It is true that the Minister has referred Smith houses to the Building Research Establishment. The report has come back from the establishment.
    All the evidence is before the Minister to enable him to make the announcement tonight. I ask him to think
    1314
    again. I am sure—at least I hope—that he intended no discourtesy to the House in saying that he would be making an announcement before the end of the month. We are perfectly prepared to accommodate him by agreeing to adjourn proceedings for a short time so that he may consult his colleagues. He can make a telephone call. He has a number of telephone conversations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seems to be directing a large part of housing policy. It would be possible to make arrangements to contact other hon. Members in the Department and to make an announcement to the House before the end of these proceedings.
    It is important for the Minister to tell the House about Smith houses and designation in general because people are waiting with bated breath to know when the Bill will bite. The Bill cannot come into force until the commencement order is made, and even then it will have no effect until designation. The designation triggers the procedure for operating a purchase notice.
    We do not know when designation will take place. It is important for people who want to move, perhaps from one part of the country to another, to be certain about when the Bill's provisions will be operated, particularly since the Minister has already announced that 26 classes of dwelling will be designated in due course.
    The time of designation is also important to local authorities because the moment that designation occurs there will be an incursion into their housing investment programmes for the current year. They are already under severe constraint as a result of the announcement made on 18 July.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does my hon. Friend recall the comments of our former hon. Friend who represented Birmingham, Northfield—Mr. Speller—who repeatedly drew attention to the problem in the Birmingham area? Should not a tribute be paid to Mr. Speller for the work that he did? I hope that the present hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) will join us in the Lobby to express his support for what we are doing.
    Mr. Fraser: I pay tribute to Mr. Speller, who was a good and valued colleague in the House. I do not know what his successor will do, but I hope that we shall go through the Lobby together in support of the Bill which we want put on the statute book. The hon. Gentleman could serve his constituents, and follow the tradition established by Mr. Speller, by pressing the Minister to make an announcement in the House tonight rather than making it in some other way before 31 July. If the hon. Gentleman cares for his constituents and has the same integrity as his predecessor, he will leap to his feet and demand that an announcement be made tonight rather than next week.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said that the Bill will provide relief for people who purchase their council houses, but that it continues the inequity of giving no rights to those who remain tenants of local authority housing. The problems of local authority tenants will be made worse as a result of the announcement on 18 July.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said that he supported the sale of council houses when funds can be reinvested. We are told that capital receipts from the sale of council houses will be put into new housing. On 18 July local authorities which accumulated capital receipts before

    1315
    the financial years 1981, 1982 and 1983 were told that they were debarred from doing that. The electors and local authorities have been defrauded.
    I urge the Minister to reconsider his decision, unlock money in local authority coffers and make an announcement about Smith houses which have caused so much concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    9 pm
    Mr. Gow: I hasten to reply to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I hope that I do not need to assure the hon. Gentleman or the House that I would never knowingly or willingly commit any discourtesy to the House.
    I made an announcement a short while ago about a decision whether to designate Smith houses under clause 1. The decision is not straightforward, because it can only be taken formally after—indeed, I may add, if—the Bill receives Royal Assent.
    Mr. John Fraser: That is synthetic.
    Mr. Gow: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will listen to me.
    My right hon. Friend announced in a written answer the names of the 28 types of house that he has decided to designate under clause 1, if the Bill receives Royal Assent. The reason that I cannot tell the House tonight what my right hon. Friend's decision will be is that my right hon. Friend and I have not yet made a decision. A decision will be made and announced before the end of the month after I have had a meeting with my advisers on Monday next, at which a final decision will be taken about the matter. A decision will be announced to the House in the same way in which we announced previously the 28 types of designated houses.
    At the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) I visited Birmingham and looked at several Smith houses in his constituency, and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), and for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan). I mean no discourtesy to the House, Mr. Speaker. An announcement will be made before the end of the month. My right hon. Friend and I will be accountable to the House for our decision.
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 6.

    Division No. 437]

    [9.02 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Body, Richard

    Amess, David

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Ancram, Michael

    Bottomley, Peter

    Arnold, Tom

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Ashby, David

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Bright, Graham

    Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

    Brinton, Tim

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Browne, John

    Baldry, Tony

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Barron, Kevin

    Burt, Alistair

    Batiste, Spencer

    Butterfill, John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Carlisle, John (N Luton)

    Berry, Sir Anthony

    Cash, William

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Chapman, Sydney

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Chope, Christopher

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    1316

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Needham, Richard

    Conway, Derek

    Nellist, David

    Coombs, Simon

    Newton, Tony

    Cope, John

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Craigen, J. M.

    Norris, Steven

    Crouch, David

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Osborn, Sir John

    Dixon, Donald

    Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Dover, Den

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Durant, Tony

    Pike, Peter

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Powley, John

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Price, Sir David

    Evennett, David

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Eyre, Sir Reginald

    Raffan, Keith

    Fallon, Michael

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Forman, Nigel

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Fox, Marcus

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Freeman, Roger

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Gale, Roger

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Gorst, John

    Rowe, Andrew

    Gow, Ian

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Greenway, Harry

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Harvey, Robert

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Hayes, J.

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Heddle, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Henderson, Barry

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Howard, Michael

    Speed, Keith

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Spencer, Derek

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Stern, Michael

    Jessel, Toby

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

    Sumberg, David

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Lester, Jim

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Lilley, Peter

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

    Thorne, Neil (IIford S)

    Lord, Michael

    Thurnham, Peter

    Luce, Richard

    Tracey, Richard

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Trippier, David

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Waddington, David

    Maclean, David John

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Madden, Max

    Walden, George

    Major, John

    Waller, Gary

    Marland, Paul

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Mather, Carol

    Watson, John

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Watts, John

    Merchant, Piers

    Whitfield, John

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Wolfson, Mark

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Wood, Timothy

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Yeo, Tim

    Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Michael Neubert.

    Murphy, Christopher

    NOES

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

    Wareing, Robert

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hancock, Mr. Michael

    Mr. Tony Lloyd and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

    Marek, Dr John

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Were the consequential amendments taken with Lords amendment No. 1?
    Mr. Speaker: They will be taken when they are reached. There were no consequential amendments to Lords amendment No. 1. There are no amendments grouped with the Lords amendments; they will all be taken later individually in due course.
    Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At one point I asked whether I could move, That the debate be now adjourned. That was ruled out of order by Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I understand and accept his ruling.
    During the course of the last Division, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) tabled a question asking the Minister to make a statement to my hon. Friend before the end of the month about the designation of Smith houses. Would it be in order for the Minister for Housing and Construction to give the House an undertaking tonight that he will answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill and not make an announcement to the House in any other way?
    Mr. Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I repeat to the House and to the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I gave earlier, and I repeat in exactly the form for which the hon. Gentleman asked the assurance that he seeks.

  Clause 2

    ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE
    Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 25, at end insert
    "(3A) A person who holds a relevant interest in a defective dwelling is not eligible for assistance in respect of the dwelling at any time when that interest is subject to the rights of a person who is a protected occupier within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 or a statutory tenant within the meaning of that Act."
    9.15 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): 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 discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 25.
    Mr. Roberts: The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the provisions of the Bill do not conflict with the rights that might currently be enjoyed by some agricultural workers occupying tied accommodation. It is possible that some protected occupancies or statutory tenancies covered by the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 are PRC dwellings that fall within the categories that the Bill designates for assistance. For example, it is possible that a farmer could have acquired a surplus Ministry of Defence house to provide accommodation for an employee. If such dwellings fall to be repurchased by the housing authority under the terms of the Bill as unamended, the protection offered to those agricultural workers by the 1976 Act would be lost. The authority would, of course, be obliged to offer the tenants secure tenancies, but on terms that are likely to be less advantageous than those which they enjoy at present. That is especially true of the increased rent that they might have
    1318
    to pay, which might not be matched by an increase in wages, and there could be further complications in the terms of employment.
    It is also necessary to consider who is to benefit from the assistance offered by the Bill. Hon. Members will know that the Bill is aimed essentially at the owner-occupier, yet a farmer who has used a PRC dwelling to provide tied accommodation has done so for the purposes of his business. The amendments provide that owners of dwellings which are subject to the provisions of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 should not be eligible for assistance under the Bill. It would be possible for farmers, acting as individuals, to obtain assistance under the Bill in respect of such dwellings by first obtaining vacant possession of the dwellings, for example, by coming to an arrangement with the agricultural worker or by providing alternative accommodation. We believe that that is a sensible arrangement in complicated circumstances.
    Mr. John Fraser: As there are time limits on when notices are served, can the Minister confirm that the effect of the amendments — which I understand are for the benefit of agricultural workers who may pay no rent or low rents—is to suspend the right to resell the house or to have a reinstatement grant while there is an agricultural tenancy, and that the right will not be lost because of the time limit?
    Mr. Roberts: I think that the hon. Gentleman's understanding is correct. If he studies my remarks he will find that I have set out the circumstances in which an owner can gain assistance under the Bill. That implies that the right to obtain such assistance persists, but is simply in abeyance while the tenant occupies the dwelling.
    Mr. Speaker: In answer to what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said earlier — I may have misunderstood him—all the Lords amendments stand on their own, but some of them are grouped. Of course, they may all be divided upon when we reach them. Does that clarify the point?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you clarify the position? I am trying to discover whether we have the right to deal with the amendments individually in terms of the vote.
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, but not in terms of debate. With Lords amendment No. 2 we are taking Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 25.
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 7.

    Division No.438]

    [9.22 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Amess, David

    Bottomley, Peter

    Ancram, Michael

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Arnold, Tom

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Ashby, David

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bright, Graham

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Brinton, Tim

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Browne, John

    Baldry, Tony

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Batiste, Spencer

    Burt, Alistair

    Berry, Sir Anthony

    Butterfill, John

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Carlisle, John (N Luton)

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Cash, William

    Body, Richard

    Chapman, Sydney

    1319

    Chope, Christopher

    Needham, Richard

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

    Neubert, Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Newton, Tony

    Colvin, Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Conway, Derek

    Norris, Steven

    Coombs, Simon

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Cope, John

    Osborn, Sir John

    Crouch, David

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Powley, John

    Dover, Den

    Price, Sir David

    Durant, Tony

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Raffan, Keith

    Evennett, David

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Eyre, Sir Reginald

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Fallon, Michael

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Fox, Marcus

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Gale, Roger

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Rowe, Andrew

    Gorst, John

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Gow, Ian

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Greenway, Harry

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Hancock, Mr. Michael

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Harvey, Robert

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Hayes, J.

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Heddle, John

    Spencer, Derek

    Henderson, Barry

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Howard, Michael

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Stern, Michael

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Jessel, Toby

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

    Lester, Jim

    Thorne, Neil (IIford S)

    Lilley, Peter

    Thurnham, Peter

    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

    Tracey, Richard

    Lord, Michael

    Trippier, David

    Luce, Richard

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Lyell, Nicholas

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Waddington, David

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Walden, George

    Maclean, David John

    Waller, Gary

    Marland, Paul

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Mather, Carol

    Watson, John

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Watts, John

    Merchant, Piers

    Whitfield, John

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Wolfson, Mark

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Wood, Timothy

    Moate, Roger

    Yeo, Tim

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Mr. John Major and Mr. Ian Lang.

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Murphy, Christopher

    NOES

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Wareing, Robert

    Dixon, Donald

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Madden, Max

    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and Dr. John Marek.

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  Clause 3

    ENTITLEMENT TO REINSTATEMENT GRANT OR REPURCHASE
    Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 4, line 42, after "below" insert
    "and section [modification of Act in relation to shared ownership leases](3) of this Act".
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 46.
    9.30 pm
    Mr. Roberts: The main provision in this group is the new clause to be inserted after clause 16. It gives the Secretary of State the power to modify the provisions of the Bill to fit the complicated case of a defective dwelling that is held on a shared ownership lease by the owner, or where the freehold of the dwelling has been acquired by means of such a lease.
    The typical shared ownership scheme allows the purchase of an initial share followed by the purchase of additional shares at any time in the future if the owner so wishes. Prices for both initial and subsequent shares are usually fixed in relation to the market value of the dwelling at the time of the acquisition of the share.
    We do not know whether any precast reinforced concrete dwellings are subject to shared ownership leases. We think that the number of such cases, if any, is very small. But it is possible in such cases either that the owner holds only part of the equity or that, even if he has already acquired the whole of it, the acquisition of shares will straddle the cut-off date—that is the date by which the existence of the defects became generally known. and the value of the dwelling fell considerably. Some shares may have been bought at a defect-free value before the defects became known, while others may have been bought at a defective value after the cut-off date.
    It is not difficult to imagine the complications that would arise in administering the scheme if reinstatement grant were to be the appropriate form of assistance. The new clause provides that the regulations may confine the assistance to repurchase, as in the case of a flat.
    The Bill's provisions will need to be adapted—for example, for the case where some shares might have been purchased at defective value. Rather than add considerably to the length of the Bill to cater for those few, if any, cases, we propose that the Secretary of State should be given the power, subject to negative resolution, to make the modifications as and when it is clear that they are needed.
    The new clause does not apply to Scotland as the concept of shared ownership leases as found in England and Wales has no equivalent in Scottish law. I hope that the House will agree that it is a practical solution to the problem of shared ownership leases.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Under clause 3, a person seeking help from the local authority for a substandard dwelling—which is defined in the Bill as "defective"—must make written application to the local housing authority. If the applicant is eligible—the Bill also deals with eligibility and the criteria governing it — the housing authority then determines, in accordance with conditions laid down in the clause, whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement grant or repurchase.
    The work required to be done to reinstate a defective dwelling is defined, and the clause makes provision for

    1321
    cases where an eligible person dies or disposes of the property for other than the value of that person's interest in the dwelling.
    The Lords amendments would extend the right to assistance to shared ownership leases or freeholds acquired under the terms of a shared ownership lease. Amendment No. 46 sets out the modifications that may be specified in regulations under the Bill.
    May we be given examples of such shared ownership leases? The Minister was not specific on that and, when we debated an earlier amendment, he did not identify shared ownership lease schemes. Such schemes exist and the House is entitled to know where they exist, the number of dwellings involved, the cost to the Exchequer of extending the arrangements to those leases and the extent to which the beneficiary may not be the lessee.
    The freeholder may have embodied in the lease granted to the lessee a restriction which may turn in the freeholder's favour in the event of further legislation or perhaps as the result of default by the tenant. In other words, the beneficiary in such a case might not be the lessee, although it is intended that the lessee should be the beneficiary under the Bill.
    We need to be assured that abuses cannot take place and that freeholders will not be advantaged. I recall cases in Manchester over improvement grants. I appreciate that this provision is not concerned with those grants, but we must draw parallel examples in considering what might happen under the Bill.
    A television programme was made about the position in Manchester. The district council allocated improvement grants on the basis of a five-year condition. In the cases I have in mind, landlords who obtained improvement grants and who would have lost them had they sold the property within five years insisted on people who bought their property not receiving the title to that property until the expiry of the five-year period. By that means, landlords did not have to repay to Manchester corporation the improvement grants that they had been given. That is an example of how an agreement can militate against the interests of the person who is intended to be the beneficiary.
    I hope that the Government will assure us that there is no possibility of abuse in the extension of the right to shared ownership leases. I hope that no financial benefit will be provided for those for whom the legislation is not intended. If the Government cannot give us an absolute assurance, I shall divide the House on the amendment.
    We are always told that it is in our interests to protect the public purse. The Government tell us repeatedly that it is their objective to secure the interests of the taxpayer. They tell us on Finance Bill Committees, "We need the money." All grants cost local authorities or the Government money. I am representing the interests of the taxpayer in seeking an assurance from the Government.
    Dr. Marek: There are many good parts of the Bill, but it does not go far enough and there may be some inconsistencies. Amendment No. 2 sought to ensure that benefits that could otherwise accrue to, say, farmers who bought a house for their business would not accrue to them. However, it seems that we are now doing the opposite. Amendment No. 46 says:
    1322
    "The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for this Act to have effect, in its application to any case in which a person is eligible for assistance in respect of a defective dwelling and his interest in the dwelling is either—

    (a) a shared ownership lease, or

    (b) the freehold acquired under the terms of a shared ownership lease"

    If there is a shared ownership lease, one person may be an absentee dweller, perhaps living in the south of France. It is possible that both owners will be absentee dwellers, seeking only to make a quick killing. They could use the Bill for their own advantage and subsequently sell the property.
    Some properties would be difficult to sell, but some may be in the middle of Wales or the Lake District. In those areas, it is essential that owners live in their houses and contribute to the well-being of the community. The house may be in a time-sharing scheme. There are such schemes in Scotland and I should like the Minister to tell us what is the difference between shared ownership and time-sharing. The thrust of these amendments seems to be in be opposite direction from that of amendment No. 2 and the associated amendments.
    There is another reason why I am unhappy about the amendments. Amendment No. 46 states that:
    "the Secretary of State may by regulations provide for this Act to have effect."
    He may, or he may not. As a matter of principle, I do not like legislation of that type. I would far rather—
    9.45 pm
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am having trouble in hearing my hon. Friend because of the noise from the Government Benches. If hon. Gentlemen wish to discuss matters during the debate, should they not leave the Chamber so that we can discuss the Bill quietly?
    Mr. Speaker: I am having no difficulty in hearing what the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) is saying, and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is much closer to him than I am.
    Dr. Marek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    The new clause is permissive. It states that the Secretary of State may make regulations. It would be far better that regulations or orders should be made by the House, so that we would know what they provided and what their effects would be. We do not even know what would be done by means of the regulations. I would not be inclined to support an amendment such as amendment No. 46 unless there were strong arguments in its favour. In this case there are not, and I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
    Mr. Don Dixon: If the shared ownership is shared with the local authority, does my hon. Friend know whether the local authority will receive any assistance in connection with its share in the defective dwelling?
    Dr. Marek: That is an important point. The local authorities could be placed in an invidious position.
    It is not good enough for us to be told that regulations may be made. I hope that the Minister will withdraw the clause—or perhaps the whole Bill—for reconsideration. Parts of the Bill are valuable, but a Bill should be exactly right before it becomes law, and we should ensure that every dot and comma is in the right place.

    1323
    Amendment No. 46 leaves a very wide field open to ministerial diktat. During my first year in the House, I have been struck by the fact that in more and more legislation matters are left for the Minister to decide. That is fundamentally wrong. The House should keep control over legislation, and we are not doing so in this case.
    My third point is about shared ownership and the problems that could be involved in certain areas. I do not envisage that there would be any great problems in the centre of Birmingham, Sheffield or Rotherham, but there could be problems in the Lake District, or north or central Wales.
    Mr. Tom Pendry: Or Stalybridge.
    Dr. Marek: Stalybridge would certainly come into the category. There would be a danger that houses might become owned on a time-share basis, or that people would be able to take advantage of the legislation by having houses done up and then letting them. That would be against the spirit of the Bill. The Bill is not designed to enable people to carry on a business, or to set up in business. It is important that, in rural areas, every house should be occupied all the year round and as the only residence of a family. I am not convinced that the Bill will ensure that. Far too many houses in desirable areas have fallen victim to becoming holiday homes. Lords amendment No. 46—by the suggested subsection (5)—provides:
    "Regulations under this section may make different provision for England and Wales and for different descriptions of shared ownership lease."
    I hope that it stops the activity that I have described but I do not believe that it will. Moreover, I fail to see why provision for England and Wales should be different from that in Scotland. The basic problem of home ownership is the same in England, Wales and Scotland. Lords amendment No. 46—by the suggested subsection (6)—provides:
    "This section does not apply to Scotland."
    The Minister said that the reason for that is that shared ownership is not known in Scotland—but it might be in future, in spite of the fact that the legal niceties of tied ownership are different from shared ownership. The Act would have to be revised to take account of such a change but I do not envisage a Government in, say, 1992 presenting a one-clause Bill to amend the Act because of a mistake in 1984 and because Scotland must now be included because things have changed. The mark of a good legislator must be anticipation of what is likely to happen and providing for it.
    I hope that the Government will think again. Perhaps the Government will think again. Perhaps the Minister will be able to assure me that there will be no increase in the number of holiday homes in desirable rural areas. What regulations does he have it in mind to make? Presumably the Government are not merely providing that they can make regulations without having thought the matter through. They must have an eye to what the regulations will be. That being so, who will the regulations include? It must be right for the House to know that, even if we cannot see the Government's intentions in print. If I do not receive assurances, it will be my duty to vote against Lords amendment No. 3. However, I am anxious to discover whether the Minister can give those assurances.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: As I said in moving the amendment, we do not know whether any PRC dwellings are subject to shared ownership leases, so I cannot give the details of location requested by the Opposition, but we have covered the eventuality. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) confessed that he did not like the regulations. As I have said, the aim is simply to cover a most unlikely eventuality. Moreover, the regulations can be prayed against in either House.
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 8.

    Division No. 439]

    [9.55 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Amess, David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Ancram, Michael

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Ashby, David

    Jessel, Toby

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Baldry, Tony

    Lester, Jim

    Batiste, Spencer

    Lilley, Peter

    Berry, Sir Anthony

    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Lord, Michael

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Luce, Richard

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Bottomley, Peter

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Maclean, David John

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Major, John

    Bright, Graham

    Maples, John

    Brinton, Tim

    Marland, Paul

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Mather, Carol

    Browne, John

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Merchant, Piers

    Burt, Alistair

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Butterfill, John

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Carlisle, John (N Luton)

    Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

    Cash, William

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Chope, Christopher

    Murphy, Christopher

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

    Neubert, Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Colvin, Michael

    Norris, Steven

    Conway, Derek

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Coombs, Simon

    Osborn, Sir John

    Cope, John

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Crouch, David

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Powley, John

    Dover, Den

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Durant, Tony

    Raffan, Keith

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Evennett, David

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Eyre, Sir Reginald

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Fallon, Michael

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Fox, Marcus

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Gale, Roger

    Rowe, Andrew

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Gorst, John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Gow, Ian

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Greenway, Harry

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Hancock, Mr. Michael

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Hargreaves, Kenneth

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Harvey, Robert

    Spencer, Derek

    Hayes, J.

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Heddle, John

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Henderson, Barry

    Stern, Michael

    Howard, Michael

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

    1325

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Waller, Gary

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Watson, John

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Watts, John

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Thorne, Neil (IIford S)

    Whitfield, John

    Thurnham, Peter

    Wolfson, Mark

    Tracey, Richard

    Wood, Timothy

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Yeo, Tim

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Waddington, David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Mr. Douglas Hogg and Mr. Ian Lang.

    Walden, George

    NOES

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Skinner, Dennis

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Wareing, Robert

    Cohen, Harry

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Dixon, Donald

    Dr. John Marek and Mr. Dave Nellist.

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords amendments stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Housing Defects Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Housing Defects Bill
Lords amendments again considered.
Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (6).
Mr. Ancram: 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. 7, 9, 10, 52, 53 and 56 to 62.
Mr. Ancram: I hope that the House will welcome the amendments, which relate to the mortgage ability of defective dwellings after reinstatement work has been carried out and to the issue of warranties to guarantee repairs. The issues are being discussed by officials with the National House Building Council and the Building Societies Association.
The purpose of the amendments is to allow reinstatement grants under the Bill to be paid in respect of payments of insurance premiums for warranties on reinstatement works. Such warranties may often make it easier for building societies to lend with confidence on repaired PRC dwellings. It would be unfortunate if grants could not be paid in respect of premiums because of the wording of the Bill.
Mr. John Fraser: I welcome the amendments. If my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) presses them to a Division, I shall vote for them because I have urged that they be made. My colleagues in the House of Lords tabled the amendments which proved acceptable to the Government.
I am keen that there should be a guarantee for reinstated premises because houses will be made more mortgageable. If houses which have been defective are more mortgageable owners will be able to dispose of them on the private market and not have to exercise their right to sell them back to the local authority. That means that more
1326
money will be left for housing investment programmes to provide houses to let, improvement grants and other housing assistance. That is better than local authorities having to buy houses back simply because there is no guarantee and they are not mortgageable to lending institutions such as building societies.
I have a question about housing investment programmes. The Government have said that the cost of reinstatement grants and repurchase will be taken into account when allocating housing investment programmes in the current year and the next year.
I shall deal just with next year. The Government say that the cost of reinstatement grants and repurchase will be taken into account. We do not know exactly how heavy will be the demand for reinstatement grants and repurchase next year. The estimate of total capital expenditure under the Bill is £250 million, and it would not be out of the way to guess that the figure will be £50 million next year.
We want to know the answer to this question. When the Government say that the cost of reinstatement and repurchase will be taken into account, does that mean that housing investment programme allocations for next year will be augmented by the cost of the Bill? If the £250 estimate were not added to housing investment programme for the following year, it would mean a deduction from other forms of housing investment.
I ask the Minister, therefore, to take this last opportunity to clarify what he means, and to undertake and assure the House that there will be additional allocations to meet the cost of the legislation. Can he say that the cost of the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will not be deducted from other forms of public expenditure on housing?
Mr. Durant: I speak on this amendment because, like the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), I have been pressing for this change throughout the Bill's passage. I raised the matter on Second Reading, and on Report, and I raise it now. I am delighted that the Government have acceded to our request. The Lords amendment goes a long way in the direction that I wanted on the question of warranties.
I shall be interested to know how the discussions with the building societies are progressing. When will the outcome become apparent and will the discussions reach a conclusion before the Bill starts to take effect in, say, two months? It would be unfortunate if the Act were introduced, but the question of warranties was not settled with the building societies.
Many of my constituents will have their houses repaired. They will wish to move not immediately, but in a few years. Life will have moved on and there will be little evidence in the town hall that their properties have been repaired. A warranty will be the only document that my constituents will have with which to convince a would-be purchaser that their property had been put in good order. The warranty is very important,
The hon. Member for Norwood has dealt with the problem of HIP allocations and the money to be spent under the Bill. I should like to know the financial position for local authorities which have brought back houses from my constituents on compassionate grounds such as the need to move after obtaining a job elsewhere with approval from the Department. The decisions were taken before the Bill became an Act. My local authority is concerned

1327
because it has given approval for about eight houses to be bought back before the Bill becomes an Act, and it is worried about its financial position.
To recap, will the warranties be effective and the discussions completed before the Act comes into force? I welcome the trend towards warranties. Secondly what is the financial position of local authorities which have bought back houses on compassionate grounds through the Department and with its approval?
Mr. Madden: I do not wish to detain the House, but I must agree with the closing remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) about assistance to local authorities for implementing the main provisions of the Bill.
We know that the Bill's main objectives are to provide those who have bought defective council houses with a 90 per cent. grant to repair them or to entitle them to sell them back to the local authority without loss. We also know that local authorities own 90 per cent. of the properties that are deemed to be defective. At present, they will get no extra help with their obligations under the Bill. That is a considerable problem which faces several local authorities throughout the country. During the debate we have heard about the extent of that problem.
10.15 pm
Before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we were treated to a most unusual sequence of events. I think that it is true to say that the Minister for Housing and Construction, after intense pressure, was persuaded to explain reluctantly that he intends to make an announcement on Tuesday, in reply to a written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), about the Government's views on the designation of Smith houses. We welcome that, but we do not welcome the time that it took to wring that assurance from the Minister. I hope that he will be more forthcoming now about what help local authorities will be given to meet the obligations under the Bill.
I have been contacted by my local authority in Bradford, which is extremely concerned about the considerable financial consequences facing the council under the provisions of the Bill because of the extent of designated defective housing in the city of Bradford. Therefore, I am responding to the request made by the council. I remind the Minister, in case he has forgotten, that Bradford city council has a Conservative group, which is in power with the assistance of Liberals and Social Democrats. Those people have expressed their considerable concern about the financial consequences of the legislation, and have asked me to seek a reply from the Government to this question. What assistance will they be given towards meeting the costs which will flow from the Bill of remedying defective houses and buying houses back from tenants who wish to sell them?
Earlier in the debate I asked the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for local government in Scotland what powers local authorities have to make ex gratia payments to those who are either tenants or owners of defective buildings. If they receive ex gratia grants, that will enable them to remedy the defects in the houses that they occupy either as tenants or owners. The Minister said that he would make inquiries for me and write to me. Subsequent events have persuaded me to say that that assurance is not good enough. I would appreciate information tonight about what powers local authorities
1328
have to make ex gratia payments in line with the designated powers that will be given to them when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
There are several officials in the Box. A galaxy of talent and advice is readily available to Ministers. We heard from the Minister for Housing and Construction that he intends to meet his Ministers on Monday to discuss whether Smith houses will be designated. I shoud have thought that during the many Divisions that we have had this evening it would have been possible for the Minister to consult his officials in the Box, and we could have had a decision—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not in order to keep referring to people outside the Chamber.
Mr. Madden: I am guided by your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but all of us who have been in the Chamber throughout the evening have been dazzled by the traffic between the Front Bench and the Box, to which I am not supposed to refer. Clearly advice has been streaming to Ministers on the many points made tonight.
I emphasise that I should like tonight to have information from the Minister as to whether it is possible for local authorities to make ex gratia payments to those who are either tenants or owners of defective buildings, designated under the provisions of the Bill, before the Bill is given Royal Assent and implemented.
I was told several weeks ago by officials of the Department of the Environment—who at that time were in Marsham street rather than in the Box to which I am not supposed to refer — that it was possible for local authorities to make ex gratia grants. I should like to have either confirmation or a denial by the Minister in replying to the debate.
Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) asked what help local authorities, such as mine in Bradford, are to be given to meet the considerable bill that they will have to meet if the Bill is given Royal Assent. Like many other inner city areas, Bradford is facing acute housing deprivation. We had a debate last evening about public expenditure on housing, and the Minister for Housing and Construction is well aware of the considerable anxiety about the housing crisis. We know that 1¼ million houses in England and Wales are unfit for habitation, and that there are 2½ million houses in the United Kingdom which are seriously affected by dampness.
Mr. Durant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you will guide me. I am trying to follow the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). Is what he is saying relevant to the amendment?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening very carefully. The Chair will rule if it thinks that any hon. Member is out of order.
Mr. Madden: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you are clearly aware, I was seeking to highlight the exceptionally heavy financial burden facing local authorities in seeking to remedy the problems arising in the large number of properties throughout England and Wales which are unfit, and the large number of properties throughout the United Kingdom which are suffering from dampness. It has been estimated that at least 10,000 million is needed to remedy the construction and design

1329
defects of existing council houses, quite apart from the considerable bill facing local authorities as a result of the legislation.
I am asking tonight for answers to two simple questions. First, what help will be given to local authorities such as my own in Bradford in meeting the considerable financial consequences of remedying the defects to properties?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have been listening closely to my hon. Friend's points about Bradford's problems. He says that Bradford is run by the Tories, with assistance from the Liberals or Dr. Death's party. I cannot understand why Liberal and SDP Members—there is only one of them present in the Chamber—are not making those representations. I should have thought that those live wires, as they call themselves, would be here. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that he is doing a proper job in bailing them out? It is a difficulty.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was a rather long intervention. If the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) follows that line, he will be getting very wide of the amendment.
Mr. Madden: I greatly appreciate your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) reminds me that last night, when we were discussing public expenditure in housing, the Minister for Housing and Construction was moved, in his closing remarks, to remind all of us that there was not one Liberal or Social Democrat Member in the Chamber throughout the duration of the debate. That debate related solely to the housing crisis, the wholly inadequate investment programme of the Government and the wholly inadequate priority which they give to housing and to improving the disastrous record that I have tried to highlight.
As I said, I want the answers to two simple questions. First, how much additional help will be given to local authorities such as Bradford council to deal with the significant financial consequencies of this legislation? Secondly—I am glad that the Minister responsible for local government in Scotland has returned to the Front Bench, and I hope that he can now answer my intervention of about three hours ago—what powers are there for local authorities such as Bradford council to make ex gratia grants to tenants and owner-occupiers who live in defective properties as designated in the legislation? I would appreciate replies tonight.
Mr. Christopher Chope: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) in seeking further clarification of the discussions with the National House Building Council and the Building Societies Association. The amendment is welcome because it goes to the root of the problem which the Bill seeks to address—the mortgageability of such houses. If the discussions with the NHBC and the Building Societies Association are unsuccessful, councils will be lumbered with substantal expenditure in repurchasing houses that might otherwise be subject to reinstatement grants. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will also comment on the attitude of Southampton city council, which so far has made no application in its housing investment programme bid for 1985–86 in respect of
1330
possible liability under the Bill, and say whether it is the right attitude to adopt at this stage. Councils will have different views depending upon whether it is possible to make arrangements with the Building Societies Association.
In another place on 24 July my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale could say only that he hoped that the amendments would be helpful,
"if it proves possible to make such arrangements"— [Official Report, House of Lords; 24 July 1984; Vol. 455, c. 247.]
with the Building Societies Association. I understand that the discussions have continued for some time, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can go a little further tonight and tell the House what stage the discussions have reached, their exact nature, whether it is likely that a standard scheme of reinstatement for Reema houses will be agreed with the building societies, or what other possibilities are emerging from the discussions.
It is crucial that, as soon as the Bill becomes law, those who occupy houses that are to be designated should know whether they are likely to receive reinstatement grants and whether their properties will become mortgageable, or whether they must think seriously about selling their properties back to the council.
Mr. Ray Powell: I welcome the amendments and especially amendment No. 4. I could talk about another clause 4, but in all probability my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would raise a point of order and say that clause 4 of the Labour party's constitution talks about the means of production, distribution and exchange. However, I will not go down that road—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: If my hon. Friend extended his remarks on amendment No. 4 to financial institutions, I am sure that he would be in order and that the Chair would wish to uphold his right to speak about that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am always grateful for assistance, but the Chair will decide whether an hon. Member is in order.
10.30 pm
Mr. Powell: I am particularly concerned about amendment No. 9, which says:
"In this Act, 'associated arrangement' means any arrangement which—

(a) is to be entered into in connection with the execution of the work required to reinstate a defective dwelling".

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), I press the Minister to give a clear undertaking as to whether local authorities will be reimbursed, particularly in connection with this provision.
I have a sheaf of correspondence from the borough council of Taff-Ely. Perhaps the Minister from the Welsh Office will take note of this, because it deals particularly with the Welsh Office, which will determine what this clause will mean as it affects people, especially in part of my constituency at Hendreforgan crescent, Gilfach Goch. It reviews some of the council tenants at numbers 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 49 and 50 Francis street, and 5 and 10 at Hendreforgan crescent.
The tenants are particularly concerned about the reply that the Taff-Ely borough council has sent to them. The letter is dated 5 July 1984, and concerns some building repairs and renovations to houses in phase 1, and the extent to which the Welsh Office has been involved. The Welsh

1331
Office is prepared to accept the tenders, but it has yet to give confirmation that the work can proceed. The tenants are hoping to get this work started by 8 August. The duration of the contracts, according to the letter, will be about one month, but the work to the dwellings will take about eight to nine weeks.
What does this mean? These amendments are important to my constituents in Hendreforgan crescent, and Francis street, because they want to know whether these "associated arrangements" will allow them to cover some of the costs that they will incur. I expect that the Minister is wondering what costs will be incurred. I shall read him the letter that shows what the Taff-Ely borough council suggests will be the cost of the refurbishment and renewal of some of the properties.
Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that these are pre-fabricated, reinforced concrete houses?
Mr. Powell: Yes, they are.
I shall give a list of the refurbishment that these houses will need, according to Mr. Prentice, who is the engineering and planning officer of the Taff-Ely borough council. This is a new part of my constituency, which has been added to the Ogmore area. It was not a part of my constituency in June last year, but was part of the constituency of Pontypridd, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). Therefore, it is only since June that I have been involved with the constituents of Hendreforgan crescent, Gilfach Goch and I have taken up all the issues about which they have told me that they are worried. They say that if this work takes eight months, they will have to move out of their homes for eight months. Where will they stay? Who will ensure that they are compensated? They are asking numerous questions which anyone compelled to move out of his home would be asking.
The refurbishment will involve the internal wall linings. External walls will be provided with thermally insulative material. There will be renewal of certain ceilings, kitchen and bathroom fitments and electrical wiring. There will be internal decoration throughout, a new plumbing system, installation of partial solid fuel central heating, upgrading of outbuildings, renewal of gutters and fascias where necessary, repair generally to roof and chimneys and repairs to porches and external door surrounds.
Mr. Durant: I am following closely the list of repairs which the hon. Gentleman has outlined. I am, however, slightly confused, because I do not know whether these properties are council owned or privately owned. The Bill deals with those who own their properties, but not with council properties.
Mr. Powell: Some are owned by the council in Hendreforgan crescent and some have been purchased.
I was about to explain why I have mentioned the different categories of these properties. It will be necessary for all dwellings to be vacated for at least substantial elements of the work, and arrangements will be made by the housing manager in respect of those properties owned and allocated by the Taff-Ely borough council.
However, a number of anomalies affect those properties which have been purchased or those subject to prospective purchase by local authority tenants. That may answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Reading,
1332
West (Mr. Durant) about whether these are council properties. Some have been sold and some are in the process of being sold, and the owners would like to know of the compensation, if any, to which they are entitled.
In addition, they want to know where they will be rehoused. It is no good saying to people in Gilfach Goch at the top of the valley that they will be rehoused at Tonyrefail or Pontypridd. They want to be rehoused somewhere near their families and friends, but there is no guarantee that that will happen.
Such people also want to know whether they will have a choice of accommodation. The local authority has said that that cannot be done, and that these people must accept whatever accommodation is available. That brings us back to Lords amendment No. 4. Will the statement that we shall receive from the Minister include any associated arrangement for compensation if these people are accommodated elsewhere?
Mr. Dixon: Is my hon. Friend aware that in South Tyneside district council about 350 Orlit houses came under the categories which have been outlined, some of which have been purchased. Those purchasers are concerned because defects have been discovered in the council-owned properties. If the private owners wish to have a private survey carried out, it will cost them many hundreds of pounds. If it is found that the houses are defective, they will qualify for a grant towards the investigation and survey. But if the survey finds that the houses are not defective, the owner-occupiers will receive no compensation whatever. That is another fault with the amendment and the Bill.
Mr. Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. The Bill and the amendments should ensure that wherever money is spent on investigation of properties, it should be reimbursed to the owners or purchasers.
Dr. Marek: The real solution is for the Government to provide funds to ensure that every council house, whether being purchased privately or still in the public sector, is investigated to ensure that it is not defective. If that is knot done, sooner or later there might be a terrible tragedy, and it is the Government's responsibility to take all possible steps to avoid that.
Mr. Powell: I agree with my hon. Friend that more funding should be made available. We want to ensure that whatever money is made available by the Government is not added to local authorities' expenditure.
I am concerned about the attitude of the Welsh Office to a number of issues of local government finance. A number of Bills have been introduced in this Session that curb local government expenditure.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing not the whole Bill but amendments to it. He must relate his remarks to the amendment.
Mr. Powell: The associated arrangements in clause 4 will affect the expenditure of local authorities because they must find the money to compensate those who have to move home so that they can be renovated or redecorated.
The questionnaire illustrated the problem with moving furniture. It clearly states that the local authority will not be responsible for the handling of furniture. It would be

1333
prepared to pay for the storage of furniture if people have to live elsewhere but would not pay the total cost of handling the furniture.
If someone's home is to be altered or decorated, that person would have to move out. He would, for example, have to disconnect the telephone. The Taff-Ely borough council says that it will not pay for that—yet it costs money. What about cooker disconnection and reconnection? How much will that cost and who will pay for it? The council says that its electricians will do the work at no cost to the tenant or owners, but it then says that any appliance found to be defective or in a dangerous condition will not be reconnected and that tenants or owners will have to make alternative arrangements. If the tenant or owner has a cooker with a defective plug, it would not be reconnected when he moves back into his property — not in one month or two months, but in eight months.
Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes an important point which is central to the discussion. We need a guarantee from the Government that the extra costs will not be passed on to the tenants or owners or be borne by the local authorities. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, the charge for disconnecting a cooker is £50. That is an an astronomical amount for people on low or moderate incomes—and that is only for the cooker. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be impossible, unless the Minister gives a guarantee, for those concerned to meet such costs?
10.45 pm
Mr. Powell: I agree, and let us remember that some of these costs will have to be borne by striking miners who have been out of work for 20 weeks and who have no money for expenses of this magnitude. That is why we must have a declaration from the Minister about reimbursement.
Question 9 of the questionnaire asks:
"I have an external television aerial at my existing home. Will this be removed to my temporary accommodation?
The answer is:
"There are no provisions for this, and tenants must make their own arrangements."
To have an external aerial removed and reconnected elsewhere can cost anything from £50 to £70. Again, striking miners who have been out of work for 20 weeks could be asked to meet that cost.
Mr. Dixon: The majority of these houses, certainly in my constituency, have flat roofs. Indeed, most faults in the concrete beams occur in the roof area. When those houses were constructed, a saving of £143 per house was made by having flat, rather than pitched, roofs. Now, when improvements are being made, money must be spent on those roofs because they are troublesome. Will the Minister include in the resettlement arrangements provision for those houses to have pitched roofs, rather than the hideous fiat ones that were put on when they were built?
Mr. Powell: I agree with my hon. Friend that one always has trouble with flat roofs, of which there are many in Ogmore. That is especially so when it rains hard, as it does often in Wales. Earlier today we were discussing the water shortage. We in Wales have the highest rainfall in Britain. It is a pity that the water has not been running into
1334
the reservoirs instead of into the sea and being wasted. That might have avoided the order that will be introduced next week banning us from using water in Wales.
The questionnaire asks in question 10:
"Who will take up and relay my fitted carpets?"
The answer is:
"It is the tenant's responsibility to arrange this at no cost to the Council. Because of this work being undertaken, the dimensions of rooms will be marginally smaller. Grate and hearth alterations will also affect this fitting of your carpet."
That is a tremendously expensive operation.
Mr. Skinner: £24 a square yard in the House.
Mr. Powell: I doubt whether the tenants and owners of the properties that I am referring to have such expensive carpets, especially when they have been on strike for 20 weeks. However, that is the sort of money that we are talking about. My constituents want to know who will reimburse them. If it is to be the local authority, who will reimburse it? Local authorities in Wales do not trust Welsh Office Ministers to keep promises made about reimbursement.
Mr. Skinner: Another problem arises out of a question answered by the Secretary of State for Energy today. Subsidence in mining areas is a matter for the coal board and not for the Government or the housing department of the local authority. However, the Secretary of State's written answer today says that the coal board is insolvent.
I was in my hon. Friend's constituency the other week for a marvellous rally for the miners at Maesteg. If the houses there were affected by subsidence at a colliery, the tenants could not claim money from the NCB, because the Secretary of State says that the board is insolvent. It will be the responsibility of the local authority to foot the bill temporarily. Has my hon. Friend thought about that?
Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In my constituency, there are houses at Gilfach Goch only 200 yards from the colliery.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment has nothing to do with subsidence.
Mr. Powell: The NCB paid out £130 million last year because of subsidence. Not much came to my area, but the houses that I am talking about are near a colliery and could be affected by subsidence.
The Welsh Office might say that it would accept responsibility. Perhaps the owners would have to accept responsibility.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Which amendment is the hon. Gentleman referring to? None of the amendments relates to subsidence.
Mr. Powell: I am referring to Lords amendment No. 9:
"In this Act, 'associated arrangement' means any arrangement which—

(a) is to be entered into in connection with the execution of the work required to reinstate a defective dwelling."

Paragraph (a) covers what I am referring to. The local authority must be reimbursed if it is to pay the owners of the property the compensation that they should be entitled to receive.
Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend refers to the question of the finances available to local authorities. I do not believe that the Government would recompense the local authorities. In the past five years, the Government have

1335
spent as little as possible on housing in Wales, and less in each succeeding year. The result is that we now have the worst housing programme since the 1920s. If my hon. Friend thinks that the Government will provide any money, I think that he is wrong.
Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend has formed the wrong impression. I agree that the Government are unlikely to provide much money for the local authorities. Since 1979, they have not given much to Ogmore, Mid-Glamorgan, or a number of local authorities in the Principality. I do not expect that they will readily pay out or compensate the tenants.
If the amendments are to be made, we want to know whether or not the associated arrangements are to cover people living in Hendreforgan crescent, Gilfoch Goch.
Mr. Dixon: Has my hon. Friend visited one of the houses where there has been an inspection and a survey? I visited some recently in my constituency. There were about 60 holes drilled in the concrete in the roof and other parts of the house, to see whether it was defective. When the holes are drilled, the concrete is trodden into those £24 per square yard carpets. Are the tenants to be compensated for that damage? They are entitled to a grant only if the survey proves that the houses are defective. Would the cost of the damage to the carpets be added to the grant?
Mr. Powell: That is the crux of the question. Are people to be compensated for an inspection? I have visited houses where surveys have been carried out. The walls and ceilings are left in a terrible state, but the owners still have to occupy the premises. I am not sure whether or not they are to be compensated, but I know that the question of the associated arrangements should be considered. I hope that the Minister wil give us a reply. I want to be able to tell my constituents that they will be compensated and covered.
Mr. Skinner: Let us suppose that one of the tenants is not able to live in the property because he has been given a job in Oman and has to stay there for some time. He may be away for 12 months and come back to find the property in a terrible state because of the lack of care and supervision. What arrangements would be made to put that right? Where would the money come from? Would Cementation be brought in to put the matter right?
Mr. Powell: I shall not tempt your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by even attempting to reply to my hon. Friend's intervention.
It is important for me to ensure that the complaints from my constituents are listed and are on the record. The eleventh question and answer proposed by the Taff-Ely council runs:
"I have installed central heating at my own expense. Will the system be ripped out or altered by the Contractors?
The system will be inspected by the Architect and the Heating Contractor to determine whether it has been installed correctly, and in some cases whether it is suitable for modification. Generally the system will not be ripped out, but certain alterations may be necessary to accommodate the improvement repair works."
The council is not prepared to accept the expense of a central heating system being ripped out and reconnected. We should also consider rent rebates for the inconvenience of works being carried out. The council says that no rebate or compensation will be given. The letter continues:
"Will my rent be affected by the works to my home?
Yes, a new rent will be calculated and implemented by the Council, and you will be advised of this in due course.
1336
Question 15:
Will my home be redecorated?
Yes, all rooms will be redecorated to a level stipulated by the Council. If you require a different standard of decorative finish, private arrangements can be made directly with the Sub-Contractors."
I have received a host of letters from people in other areas of my constituency in which owners have been affected. I shall not go into detail as I am sure that I have put sufficient on the record to enable the Minister to give me an assurance about whether compensation will be paid to owners, tenants or local authorities. I hope that proper arrangements will be made with the Welsh Office, which should make a categorical statement now to the effect that associated arrangements will be made and that reinstatement of defective dwellings will be compensated by the Government through local authorities.
Mr. Ancram: I think that I should reply to the debate on these amendments. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) for his welcome for these amendments. These issues were mentioned in our previous deliberations on the Bill. I am sure that all hon. Members welcome the way in which the matter has been dealt with in another place.
My hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) asked about timing in regard to the warranty. We have had discussions with the Building Societies Association and with the National House Building Council about a proposal that the council should operate a scheme to improve requirements for or methods of repair of PRC houses and to provide a warranty similar to that which the council offers in respect to new houses that are built by the private sector.
Discussions are continuing. I am sure that the National House Building Council is aware of the urgency that has been expressed again today. It also realises that this is a complex matter. Even when the outlines of the scheme have been devised, it will have to be developed in discussion with all of the parties concerned. I hope that there will be patience so that the scheme is ultimately on the right lines. I remind the House that the amendment will allow the cost of such warranties to count towards expenditure eligible for reinstatement grant, so it sets the ground in the hope of a successful outcome to the discussions that are taking place.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) went into his constituency problems in some detail. I think that he appreciates that the legislation deals with owners rather than tenants, but if the owners are eligible under clause 2 the work will be eligible for grant if they fall within clause 2(7), especially paragraph (b)(ii) which refers to
"any other work reasonably required in connection with work falling within paragraph (a) above or this paragraph."
If the hon. Gentleman applies that definition to the repairs that he has described he should be able to decide whether grant will be payable, although it must also depend on whether the owners are eligible in the first place.
Mr. Dixon: If the owners of the Orlit houses in my constituency wish to replace the original flat roofs with pitched roofs, will that be eligible?
Mr. Ancram: The Bill makes it clear that reinstatement means bringing the value of the property up to that which it would have had if the defect had not been

1337
present. The extent of work required to do that clearly depends on the type of house, but I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman applies the criteria in the Bill to the circumstances in his constituency he will be able to make a judgment.
The 90 per cent. Exchequer contibution to the grant paid will include a contribution to that part which is paid in respect of associated arrangements. That is what the amendment is about. I remind the hon. Member for Ogmore, too, that Lords amendment No. 9 provides that
"'associated arrangement' means any arrangement which—

(a) is to be entered into in connection with the execution of the work required to reinstate a defective dwelling".

Again, of course, that will have to be applied to the circumstances of each case to see whether grant is payable.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) asked again about ex gratia payments. I apologise if I seemed to dodge the issue earlier but I had understood that he was asking about two particular individuals when I undertook to write to him. It seems that I may have misunderstood. In general, in advance of implementation of this legislation local authorities may, if they wish, acquire houses—the question of ex gratia payments and hardship applies only if the person wishes to move—but the approval of the Department will be needed both for access to the block borrowing approval and for sanction of any payment in excess of the defective value, which is the market value, if the authority does not think that it has power to make such payment itself. The Department will consider applications urgently and will give its approval where there is need on grounds of safety or serious hardship. I hope that I have now covered the hon. Gentleman's point. If I have not, my undertaking to write to him still stands.
Mr. Madden: I was using constituency cases to illustrate a principle with the hope of securing information from the Minister. He has provided that information. I press him further. Will ex gratia payments be available from local authorities to enable owners to carry out survey works to assess the extent of property defects in advance of the Bill receiving Royal Assent?
Mr. Ancram: The problem arises in areas of hardship where people want to move from their premises. The councils have the power to acquire such houses, subject to the criteria which I have set out. The hon. Gentleman must test particular cases against the criteria.
Hon. Members have asked about the financing of the scheme. I am sure that the hon. Member for Norwood is aware that the machinery and percentages are set out in clause 15. The hon. Member for Bradford, West will find the answer which he seeks in that clause.
I was asked about the implications for HIP and, in Scotland, for the housing allocations. The Minister for Housing and Construction has made it clear that he will take into account such costs, if they are made in bids to him, when he makes the allocations. I make the same prediction for Scotland. Overall allocations have not been formed yet for this year and in Scotland the bids have not been made, so I cannot be expected to give assurances about figures.
Mr. John Fraser: Does the Minister mean that such costs will be added to HIP?
Mr. Ancram: I can speak only from experience in Scotland, but allocations are made in the light of bids, all of which are taken into account. I cannot give assurances about figures. The same undertakings can be given for Scotland as have been given for England.
The amendment is useful and has been welcomed. I hope that the House will support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 5, line 45, at end insert—
"(6A) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (4) above (whether as originally enacted or as previously amended under this subsection) so as to modify or omit any of the conditions there mentioned or to add or substitute for any of those conditions other conditions; and an order under this subsection—

(a) may make different provisions for different classes of case,

(b) shall not affect the operation of this section in relation to applications made under this section before the order comes into force.")

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 50.
Mr. Ancram: In another place, Lord Skelmersdale described these amendments as a safety net against unforeseen circumstances. Their purpose is to ensure that the scheme of assistance operates effectively. The conditions in clause 3(4) of the Bill govern whether assistance is to be by way of reinstatement grant. In some cases the conditions might lead to a sensible result so that repurchase rather than reinstatement should be the form of assistance. The amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the conditions.
I recognise that the conditions in clause 3(4) go to the heart of the scheme. That is one reason why we must ensure that they are absolutely right.
11.15 pm
We have proposed in the amendment that any order by the Secretary of State to amend the conditions shall be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament. Hon. Members would be able to examine in detail, and to debate if necessary, any proposed changes. It is important that there should be that type of scrutiny over changes to this area. I hope that the amendment will find favour with the House.
Mr. Chope: Is my hon. Friend able to give a guarantee at this stage that the provisions of subsection (4)(b) will not be amended drastically so as to reduce, for example, the period of at least 30 years? Clearly, if that time were reduced by amendment, it would be a matter of great concern. Similarly, is my hon. Friend prepared to give an undertaking that the subsection would not be amended in relation to the provision for satisfactory terms with a lending institution?
Mr. Ancram: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction will give my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) the assurance that the subsection will not be used to reduce the period of 30 years.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords Amendments 6 to 10 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.
Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 9, line 11, leave out subsection (6).
Mr. Gow: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It may be for the convenience of the House if we consider, with Lords amendments No. 11, Nos. 30, 37 and 45. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has agreed that that would be acceptable.
The purpose of the first two amendments is simply to put beyond doubt whether it is open to a local authority to do work to defective dwellings that do not form part of its own stock. It is the Government's view that the powers contained in the Local Authorities (land) Act 1963 give local authorities that power. Some Opposition Members have expressed doubt. The purpose of the first two amendments is to remove whatever doubt there might be.
With regards to Lords Amendments Nos. 37 and 45, the hon. Member for Norwood will remember that we debated the matter in Standing Committee B on 15 May. I do not like much to quote a passage against myself, but the hon. Member for Norwood said at the conclusion of our debate that, in reality I was agreeing with him, although I was pretending to agree with the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman quoted those words against me in Committee.
We have reconsidered the arguments that the hon. Gentleman advanced in Committee and those advanced in another place by his noble Friend Lord Graham. I hope that the House will think that the Government's response to the hon. Gentleman's appeals and those of his noble Friend have fallen on fertile ground.
Mr. John Fraser: I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Graham.
There is a special problem in mining constituencies where houses have been sold by the National Coal Board and are found to be defective. Many of them are due to be resold to the local authority by the former Coal Board tenants. The houses are very unevenly distributed throughout the country, and could impose very heavy burdens on local authorities.
My noble Friend was right to press these matters in the other place, and the Government were right to accept that the cost of buying back those houses should attract a 100 per cent. instead of a 75 per cent. subsidy. I very much welcome that concession. If the amendment is pressed to a Division, I undertake to vote for, not against it.
Mr. Dixon: The Minister mentioned that local authorities will be allowed to pay a certain amount of expenditure on defective houses — incurred by owner occupiers. In south Tyneside, we have approximately 390 Orlit houses, of which 16 have been sold to tenants, so there are now 16 private owners. The council decided that a survey and investigation running to many thousands of pounds should be carried out. However, the private owners have not yet carried out that survey. Can the local authority carry out a survey for those private owners and not charge them for it, bearing it in mind that, under the Bill, if a private owner carries out a survey and inspection and finds out that the house is defective, he can get a grant towards it? If the house is not defective, the many hundreds of pounds that the private owner has spent are not returnable, and there is no grant towards that expenditure. Is the Minister saying that the local authority can reimburse those tenants for their expenditure on survey and inspection?
Mr. Gow: No, that is not the purpose of the amendment.
Mr. Dixon: Earlier the Minister said that local authorities would be allowed to give money to private tenants for those inspections. Is he now saying that that is not covered by the amendment? If that is so, he did not introduce the amendment properly.
Mr. Gow: I have nothing to add to what I said earlier. The purpose of these amendments is not the purpose to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Question put and agreed to.

Housing Defects Bill
  Clause 6

    REPURCHASE
    Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 10, line 20, after "Act" insert "(except paragraph 3B)"
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 13, 55 and 64.
    Mr. Roberts: The purpose of the amendments is to deal with cases where a dwelling being repurchased under the Bill has benefited from previous repair, improvement or intermediate grant under the Housing Act 1974 or the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974. An authority making such a grant under part VII of the English Act or part I of the Scottish Act may impose conditions relating to the use of the dwelling, for example on availability for the letting. Breach of the conditions could result in the owner being required to repay grant. As that liability runs with the land, it is possible that, if the repurchased house were sold by the authority, after repair, the new owner could find himself being asked to repay a grant received by the original owner as a result of a breach of the conditions by the original owner. The amendments provide that upon repurchase of the dwelling under the Bill, any such condition shall cease to have effect. There will be no liability to repayment arising from a breach of those conditions before acquisition.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 13 agreed to.

  New Clause

    PURCHASE OF CERTAIN LAND BY AUTHORITY POSSESSING COMPULSORY PURCHASE POWERS
    Lords amendment: No. 14, after clause 7 insert the following new clause—
    " .—(1) In any case where—

    (a) there was a disposal of an interest in a defect '.Eve dwelling, being an interest held by a person (in this section referred to as the "owner") w ho immediately before the time of disposal was eligible for assistance in respect of the dwelling,

    (b) the disposal was made to an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers otherwise than in pursuance of section 6 or 7 of this Act,

    (c) on the disposal, the authority acquired an interest in any affected land, that is to say, the defective dwelling and any garage, outhouse, garden, yard and appurtenances occupied with and used for the purposes of the dwelling or any part of it, and

    (d) the amount paid as consideration for the disposal did not include any amount attributable to the owner's right to apply for assistance in respect of the dwelling,

    1341
    the owner is entitled, subject to the following provisions of this section, to be paid by the housing authority the amount (if any) by which ninety-five per cent. of the defect-free value exceeds the amount of compensation for the disposal.
    (2) For the purposes of this section, the amount of compensation for the disposal is—

    (a) the amount that would have been the proper amount of compensation for the disposal (having regard, where any relevant determination has been made by the lands Tribunal or the lands Tribunal for Scotland, to that determination), or

    (b) if greater, the amount paid as the consideration for the disposal,

    but excluding any amount payable for disturbance or for any other matter not directly based on the value of land; and in this section the "defect-free value" means the amount that would have been the proper amount of compensation for the disposal (excluding any amount so payable) if none of the defective dwellings to which the designation in question related had been affected by the qualifying defect.
    (3) For the purposes of this section—

    (a) it is to be assumed that the disposal occurred on a compulsory acquisition (in cases where it did not in fact do so),

    (b) where the compensation for the disposal fell to be assessed by reference to the value of the land as a site cleared of buildings and available for development then, for the purpose of determining the defect-free value, it is to be assumed that the compensation did not fall to be so assessed, and

    (c) any amount which, apart from this paragraph, would be payable by a housing authority under subsection (1) above, shall be reduced by the amount of any payment made in respect of the defective dwelling under section 30 or 60 of the Housing Act 1957 or section 30 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974.

    (4) A housing authority are not required to make a payment to any person under this section unless he makes a written application to them for the payment before the end of the period of two years beginning with the time of disposal.
    (5) Where a housing authority refuse an application for a payment under this section on the grounds that the owner was not eligible for assistance in respect of the defective dwelling at the time of the disposal, they shall give to the applicant a notice in writing stating the reasons for their view.
    (6) Any question arising under this section as to the amount of compensation for a dipsosal or defect-free value shall be determined by the district valuer if the owner or the housing authority so require by notice in writing served on the district valuer.
    (7) Before making a determination in pursuance of subsection (6) above, the district valuer shall consider any representation by the owner or the authority made to him within four weeks from the service of the notice under that subsection.
    (8) A person serving a notice on the district valuer under subsection (6) above shall serve notice in writing of that fact on the authority or, as the case may be, the owner.
    (9) In this section—

    "authority possessing compulsory purchase powers" has the same meaning as in the land Compensation Act 1961 or the land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963;

    "district valuer" has the same meaning as in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to this Act; and

    "housing authority", in relation to a defective dwelling, means the housing authority in whose area the dwelling is situated.

    (10) In this section—

    (a) references to the owner include a reference to his personal representatives; and

    (b) the reference to appurtenances occupied with and used for the purposes of a dwelling or any part of it is, in Scotland, a reference to pertinents belonging to or usually enjoyed with the dwelling or any part of it."

    Mr. Gow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that owners of defective dwellings are not deprived of the benefits of
    1342
    the scheme of assistance as a result of the acquisition of their property by compulsory purchase or by agreement where a compulsory purchase order would otherwise have been made.
    Under the terms of the compensation code, compensation in compulsory purchases cases is based on market value. The owner of a defective dwelling acquired in that way will be compensated by reference to the defective value of the property—perhaps before he had been able to receive assistance under the Bill. He could lose a considerable amount because of the chance intervention of the compulsory purchase order. The amendment is designed to remedy that injustice and I hope that the House will agree to it.
    Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]

  New Clause

    RIGHTS OF PRE-EMPTION ETC.
    Lords amendment: No. 15, after clause 7 insert the following new clause—
    " .—(1) This section applies in any case where apart from this section)—

    (a) a person (in this section referred to as "the owner") is entitled to assistance by way of repurchase in respect of a defective dwelling, and

    (b) there is a covenant relating to his interest in the defective dwelling whereby—

    (i) before disposing of the interest he must offer to dispose of it to a public sector authority, or

    (ii) where, in the case of a leasehold interest, he may require a public sector authority being his landlord to accept a surrender of the lease, he is otherwise prohibited from disposing of it.

    (2) If the public sector authority concerned are the appropriate authority, the covenant shall be disregarded for all purposes in relation to anything done by the owner in pursuance of the rights conferred on him by section 6 of and Schedule 2 to this Act.
    (3) If the public sector authority concerned are not the appropriate authority, then—

    (a) so long as the condition mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above applies, the owner is not to be treated for the purposes of section 6 of this Act as entitled to assistance by way of repurchase, and

    (b) if the owner disposes of his interest to the public sector authority in pursuance of the covenant or lease, as the case may be, and the interest acquired by that authority on the disposal subsists only in the defective dwelling and any garage, outhouse, garden, yard and appurtenances occupied with an used for the purposes of the dwelling or any part of it, the owner is entitled, subject to subsection (6) below, to be paid by the housing authority the amount (if any) by which 95 per cent. of the defect-free value exceeds the consideration for the disposal.

    (4) For the purposes of this section, the defect-free value is the amount that would have been the consideration for the disposal if none of the defective dwellings to which the designation in question related had been affected by the qualifying defect; and in subsection (3)(b) above and this subsection, "the consideration for the disposal" means, where the consideration for the disposal is required to be reduced by any amount under section 19(7) of the 1980 Act or any provision to the like effect, the aggregate of the consideration for the disposal (after that reduction) and that amount.
    (5) If the public sector authority concerned are not the appropriate authority and the condition in subsection (3)(b) above is satisfied, section 8 of this Act shall apply in the case of the owner—

    (a) as if the public sector authority were the appropriate authority and the interest acquired had been acquired by the authority in pursuance of section 6 of this Act,

    (b) as if the reference in subsection (7) to the service of a copy agreement with a reference to the time of disposal, and

    1343

    (c) where the public sector authority are not one of the bodies mentioned in section 19(7) of this Act, with the modifications set out in section 19(8) of this Act.

    (6) A housing authority are not required to make a payment to any person under this section unless he makes a written application to them for the payment before the end of the period of two years beginning with the time of disposal.
    (7) Where a housing authority refuse an application for a payment under this section they shall give to the owner a notice in writing stating their reasons for doing so.
    (8) Any question arising under this section as to defect-free value shall be determined by the district valuer if the owner or the housing authority so require by notice in writing served on the district valuer.
    (9) Before making a determination in pursuance of subsection (8) above, the district valuer shall consider any representation by the owner or the authority made to him within four weeks from the service of the notice under that subsection.
    (10) A person serving a notice on the district valuer under subsection (8) above shall serve notice in writing of that fact on the authority or, as the case may be, the owner.
    (11) In this section—

    "district valuer" has the same meaning as in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to this Act;

    "housing authority", in relation to a defective dwelling, means the housing authority in whose area the dwelling is situated;

    and references to the owner include a reference to his personal representatives.
    (12) This section applies to Scotland as if—

    (a) the references to a covenant were references to a condition in the title to the defective dwelling;

    (b) in subsections (2), (3)(a) and (5)(a), for "section 6" there were substituted "section 7";

    (c) in subsection (3)(b), for "appurtenances occupied with and used for the purposes of the dwelling or any part of it" there were substituted "pertinents belonging to or usually enjoyed with the dwelling or any part of it"; and

    (d) in subsection (5)(b), for "a copy agreement" there were substituted "an offer to purchase"."

    Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The new clause is necessary to ensure that pre-emption covenants imposed by public sector authorities—and in Scotland in conditions in the title to a defective dwelling — do not cut across the rights that the owner of a defective dwelling has to assistance under the Bill. The provisions, and the reasons why they are necessary, are similar to those relating to compulsory purchase, which we have just discussed.
    Question put and agreed to.—[Special entry.]

  Clause 8

    SECURE TENANCIES
    Lords amendment No. 16 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 13, line 8, after "shall" insert
    "except where the circumstances fall within paragraph 2 of Schedule (Alternative accommodation) to this Act,"
    Mr. Gow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 20 and 65.
    Mr. Gow: The purpose of the amendments is to clarify the circumstances in which a person being granted a secure tenancy under clause 8 is to be given a dwelling other than that being repurchased by the authority. It was a point about which the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) expressed concern in Committee. I hope that he will feel that the amendment goes a long way to meet his point.
    Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
    Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 31 agreed to.—[Some with Special Entry.]

  Clause 14

    JURISDICTION OF SHERIFF IN SCOTLAND
    Lords amendment proposed: No. 32, in page 18, line 32, after "1(6)" insert
    "(Purchase of certain land by authority possessing compulsory purchase powers) (6) (Rights of pre-emption etc.) (8)"—[Mr. Lang.]
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 5.

    Division No. 440]

    [11.28 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Howells, Geraint

    Alton, David

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Amess, David

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Ancram, Michael

    Johnston, Russell

    Ashby, David

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Ashdown, Paddy

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Lang, Lan

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Lester, Jim

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Lilley, Peter

    Baldry, Tony

    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

    Beith, A. J.

    Lord, Michael

    Berry, Sir Anthony

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Maclean, David John

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Maples, John

    Bottomley, Peter

    Marland, Paul

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Mather, Carol

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Bright, Graham

    Merchant, Piers

    Brinton, Tim

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Browne, John

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Burt, Alistair

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Butcher, John

    Murphy, Christopher

    Butterfill, John

    Neubert, Michael

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Carlisle, John (N Luton)

    Norris, Steven

    Cash, William

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Chapman, Sydney

    Osborn, Sir John

    Chope, Christopher

    Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

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

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Conway, Derek

    Penhaligon, David

    Coombs, Simon

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Lan

    Cope, John

    Powley, John

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Raffan, Keith

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Dover, Den

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Durant, Tony

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Evennett, David

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Fallon, Michael

    Rowe, Andrew

    Fox, Marcus

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Gale, Roger

    Shgw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Gorst, John

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Gow, Lan

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Hancock, Mr. Michael

    Spencer, Derek

    Harvey, Robert

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Hayes, J.

    Stern, Michael

    Heddle, John

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Henderson, Barry

    Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Stewart, ALLan (Eastwood)

    Howard, Michael

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    1345

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Waller, Gary

    Thorne, Neil (IIford S)

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Watts, John

    Tracey, Richard

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Twinn, Dr Lan

    Whitfield, John

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Wolfson, Mark

    Waddington, David

    Wood, Timothy

    Wainwright, R.

    Yeo, Tim

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Walden, George

    Mr. David Hunt and Mr. John Major.

    Wallace, James

    NOES

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Dixon, Donald

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Nellist, David

    Dr. John Marek and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

    Parry, Robert

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  Clause 15

    SECRETARY OF STATE'S CONTRIBUTION TO EXPENDITURE
    Lords amendment: No 33, in page 19, line 6, after "authority" insert "(a)".
    Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 34 to 36.
    Mr. Ancram: These amendments are consequential the new clauses dealing with compulsory purchase and the rights of pre-emption, and provide that the contribution to be made by the Secretary of State under clause 15 shall also be made in respect of the top-up payments made by the housing authority under these two clauses. I hope that this will find favour.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have separate votes on each of the three amendments?
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 7.

    Division No. 441]

    [11.39 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Burt, Alistair

    Amess, David

    Butcher, John

    Ancram, Michael

    Butterfill, John

    Arnold, Tom

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Ashby, David

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Carlisle, John (N Luton)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Cash, William

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Chapman, Sydney

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Chope, Christopher

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

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

    Baldry, Tony

    Conway, Derek

    Beith, A. J.

    Coombs, Simon

    Berry, Sir Anthony

    Cope, John

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Craigen, J. M.

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Bottomley, Peter

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Dover, Den

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Durant, Tony

    Bright, Graham

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Brinton, Tim

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Evennett, David

    Browne, John

    Fallon, Michael

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Fox, Marcus

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Fraser, J. (Norwood)

    1346

    Gale, Roger

    Penhaligon, David

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Gorst, John

    Powley, John

    Gow, Lan

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Raffan, Keith

    Hancock, Mr. Michael

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Harvey, Robert

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Hayes, J.

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Heddle, John

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Henderson, Barry

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Howard, Michael

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Howells, Geraint

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Johnston, Russell

    Spencer, Derek

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Lester, Jim

    Stern, Michael

    Lilley, Peter

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

    Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

    Lord, Michael

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Maclean, David John

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Major, John

    Thorne, Neil (IIford S)

    Maples, John

    Thurnham, Peter

    Marek, Dr John

    Tracey, Richard

    Marland, Paul

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Mather, Carol

    Waddington, David

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Merchant, Piers

    Walden, George

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Wallace, James

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Waller, Gary

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

    Watts, John

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Whitfield, John

    Murphy, Christopher

    Wolfson, Mark

    Neubert, Michael

    Wood, Timothy

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Yeo, Tim

    Norris, Steven

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Osborn, Sir John

    Mr. John Hunt and Mr. Ian Lang.

    Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    NOES

    Dixon, Donald

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Nellist, David

    Parry, Robert

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. David Alton.

    Skinner, Dennis

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Lords amendment proposed: No. 34, in page 19, line 9, at end insert—
    "or

    (b) in making any payment under section (Purchase of certain land by authority possessing compulsory purchase powers) or (Rights of pre-emption etc.) of this Act."—[Mr. Ancram.]

    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 4.

    Division No.442]

    [11.51 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Amess, David

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Ancram, Michael

    Baldry, Tony

    Arnold, Tom

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Ashby, David

    Berry, Sir Anthony

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    1347

    Bottomley, Peter

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Merchant, Piers

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Bright, Graham

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Brinton, Tim

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

    Browne, John

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Murphy, Christopher

    Burt, Alistair

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Butcher, John

    Norris, Steven

    Butterfill, John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Osborn, Sir John

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

    Carlisle, John (N Luton)

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Cash, William

    Penhaligon, David

    Chope, Christopher

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

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

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Conway, Derek

    Powley, John

    Coombs, Simon

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Cope, John

    Raffan, Keith

    Craigen, J. M.

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Dixon, Donald

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Dover, Den

    Rowe, Andrew

    Durant, Tony

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Evennett, David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Fallon, Michael

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Fox, Marcus

    Spencer, Derek

    Gale, Roger

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Stern, Michael

    Gorst, John

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Gow, Ian

    Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

    Hancock, Mr. Michael

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Harvey, Robert

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Hayes, J.

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Henderson, Barry

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Thorne, Neil (IIford S)

    Howard, Michael

    Thurnham, Peter

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Tracey, Richard

    Howells, Geraint

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Waddington, David

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Walden, George

    Johnston, Russell

    Wallace, James

    Lang, Ian

    Waller, Gary

    Lilley, Peter

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

    Watts, John

    Lord, Michael

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Whitfield, John

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Wolfson, Mark

    Maclean, David John

    Wood, Timothy

    Major, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Maples, John

    Marek, Dr John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Marland, Paul

    Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Michael Neubert

    Mather, Carol

    NOES

    Nellist, David

    Parry, Robert

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. David Alton.

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Question accordingly agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
    12 midnight
    Lords amendment proposed, No. 35 in page 19, line 13, leave out
    "as the case may be"—[Mr. Ancram]
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 5.

    Division No. 443]

    [12.01 am

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Amess, David

    Maclean, David John

    Ancram, Michael

    Maples, John

    Arnold, Tom

    Marek, Dr John

    Ashby, David

    Marland, Paul

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Mather, Carol

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Merchant, Piers

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Baldry, Tony

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Berry, Sir Anthony

    Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Murphy, Christopher

    Bottomley, Peter

    Neubert, Michael

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Norris, Steven

    Bright, Graham

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Brinton, Tim

    Osborn, Sir John

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

    Browne, John

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Penhaligon, David

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Burt, Alistair

    Powley, John

    Butcher, John

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Butterfill, John

    Raffan, Keith

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Carlisle, John (N Luton)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Cash, William

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Chope, Christopher

    Roe, Mrs Marion

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

    Rowe, Andrew

    Conway, Derek

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Coombs, Simon

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Cope, John

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Craigen, J. M.

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Spencer, Derek

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Stern, Michael

    Dover, Den

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Durant, Tony

    Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Evennett, David

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Fallon, Michael

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Fox, Marcus

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Gale, Roger

    Thorne, Neil (IIford S)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Thurnham, Peter

    Gorst, John

    Tracey, Richard

    Gow, Ian

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Waddington, David

    Hancock, Mr. Michael

    Walden, George

    Harvey, Robert

    Wallace, James

    Hayes, J.

    Waller, Gary

    Henderson, Barry

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Watts, John

    Howard, Michael

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Howells, Geraint

    Whitfield, John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Wood, Timothy

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Yeo, Tim

    Johnston, Russell

    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Lord, Michael

    Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. John Major.

    Lyell, Nicholas

    NOES

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Nellist, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Parry, Robert

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. David Alton.

    Skinner, Dennis

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Lords amendment proposed: No. 36, in page 19, line 14, after "completed" insert:

    1349
    "or in which the payment under section (Purchase of certain and by authority possessing compulsory purchase powers) or (Rights of pre-emption etc.) of this Act was made, as the case may be" —[Mr. Lang.]
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places; and he declared the "Ayes" had it; twelve Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
    Question agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In so far as I raised my point of order during a Division—I gather that within our procedures a Division in fact took place — surely the result of the Division should not have been announced until my point of order had been heard. Is that not so?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member also had to have a hat on, which I did not notice.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the precedent has been set for heads to be covered rather than for hats to be worn. That being so, the Division that has just taken place was surely not a valid Division of the House.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: So far as I am concerned, it was certainly valid. It was a recommendation of the Procedure Committee approved by the House. I did not see any hat.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sat in my place following the procedures laid down by precedent in "Erskine May" and I called "point of order" three times before the announcement was made.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I said that I would take the point of order after the Division. That is quite within the accepted procedures.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect, I was a member of the Procedure Committee which discussed the question of wearing a hat to raise a point of order during a Division. The Committee specifically said that if the head was covered rather than a hat actually being worn the point of order was valid. The hon. Gentleman's head was covered and he was entitled to have his point of order heard during the Division.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that this is an occasion —[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order and he should listen to the reply. I think that this is an occasion on which we need a bit of good temper and common sense. I will certainly have another look at this, but I understand that there was a recommendation. I told the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that I would take his point of order after the Division and I have done so.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Taking the point of order after the Division affects the reason why I wished to raise it in the first place. The precedent for the action that you took occurred on 1 July 1975 in relation to the Industry Bill
    1350
    when the then Government decided to use what was then Standing Order No. 36, now Standing Order No. 38. Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, then Member for Devon, North, made the following point, which I believe is relevant today. He said:
    "Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you assist the House by giving a little further elucidation of your most recent ruling? I understand that you are relying upon Standing Order No. 36, which provides that if in your opinion a Division is unnecessarily claimed, you may disallow it. Are we to take it, Sir, that that is a qualitative or a quantitative criterion? While accepting the ruling which you have just given, may I ask you whether it is not a fact that if your discretion in the future is merely to be determined by numbers, it would be a criterion which would spell the doom of every minority in the House, including the official Opposition."— [Official Report, 1 July 1975; Vol. 894, c. 1368.]
    I do not raise this specifically to defend the interests of the British Liberal party. Whoever minorities are and whatever form they take, I believe that it is very wrong indeed that a procedure should be used which prevents them or any other minority group from expressing an opinion. I find it very hard—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have refreshed my memory of those proceedings. Indeed, I have studied them very carefully. In giving my judgment, I said nothing about its being qualitative or quantitative and I have wide discretion.
    On the other point, I must say that a point of order cannot be allowed to interfere with the procedure of a Division. I am anxious to help the House and to be fair. I have given my judgment and used my discretion. I studied the proceedings carefully before I came to any decision.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Part of the job of the Chair is to protect the rights of Back Benchers and minorities. The only way in which minorities can make a protest in the House is by using the procedures of the House, but they tend to mess up the cosy arrangements between the two major parties. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the implementation of Standing Order No. 38 denies a minority party in the House the only method available to register protest.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). He believes that the implementation of Standing Order No. 38 is unfair to some hon. Members, but my job is to implement the Standing Orders, to use my discretion, and at the same time to protect the House. That is what I want to do. After the three votes it seemed to me that I should use my discretion. I did that, and I feel that in so doing I was helping the House.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to the point of order. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, accept that your decision tonight is based upon a quantitative criterion? Can you explain—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Standing Order he will find that I have discretion, and that I have to protect the whole House and its orders and procedures. If hon. Members feel that they have been prejudiced, I am sorry, but I try to be fair.
    Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the 1974 Government we were engaged in a similar incident when the Speaker decided to count the heads in the Chamber. The reason that he gave was clear.

    1351
    A group of us — all Labour—decided to take on the Government. It became apparent to Mr. Speaker, after several proper divisions, that the hon. Members who were voting were the same. He decided that because they were the same in all the votes he could invoke the then Standing Order No. 36.
    Tonight has been different. Several Divisions have taken place and in the latter stages Divisions have been called by the Liberals. It is ironic that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can ascertain who is voting by counting heads when the Liberals have not followed their voice with their vote on several previous Divisions. The Liberals have appointed Tellers and we have voted. You have a problem, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Liberals are appointing Tellers and not voting, but you are unsure what will happen on this occasion.
    The irony is that on the last occasion the Liberals, who had no intention of voting on previous occasions, suddenly decided to stand up.
    I should like to know, in view of the fact that you are unsure of the hon. Members who will vote, whether you can call Standing Order No. 38 into play on this occasion, because hon. Members who voted were not the same as those who voted on previous occasions.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Standing Order No. 38 gives the occupant of the Chair discretion if he feels that a Division is being unnecessarily claimed. That was my judgment. I ask the House to accept it. Let us get on with the debate.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Standing Order No. 38 allows hon. Members to challenge your discretion, to decide that a Division is unnecessary by rising in their places. The previous two Divisions have involved considerably fewer hon. Members than those who were standing in their places when you sought to assess the mood of the House. But you allowed a Division, in the full sense of that word, to take place on those occasions.
    It seems inconsistent to allow the House to be divided when, as I recollect, the hon. Members voting "No" in the Division were variously five, four and six, and then not to allow a Division when the number of hon. Members standing in their places was more than that. The best assessment that you would be able to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that a larger number of hon. Members wished to record their vote.
    I ask for a ruling about the procedure that allows Divisions to take place when the results show that only a handful of hon. Members have voted, yet disallowed Divisions when a greater number of hon. Members, from whatever party, show that they wish to proceed to a Division.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I am anxious to protect minorities in the House. If my discretion were based quantitatively on the number of hon. Members who had previously voted, I would be in danger of prejudicing minorities. I used my discretion and found that the proceedings had reached a stage where a Division was being claimed unnecessarily. I assure the House that I gave my ruling in good faith. I hope that the House will accept that. Wo ought to proceed with the debate.
    Dr. Marek: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can help me by saying whether it is in order
    1352
    to listen to a point of order raised by Liberal Members, all of whom have been absent until 45 minutes ago, who have come into the debate just recently and seem to be voting—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for me to make judgments like that.
    Lords amendment proposed: No. 37, in page 19, line 19, leave out "and"—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared the "Ayes" had it; twelve Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
    Question agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a simple point of order. Is it not proper, and therefore necessary, for how Members who feel that they wish to delay the amendments to be able to force a Division? Is not any Division called for that purpose necessary to protect the interests of the House?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I am the servant of the House, and my task is to interpret the Standing Orders to the best of my ability. That Standing Order in fact gives me the right to do what I have just done. I hope that we shall be able to proceed.
    Lords amendment proposed: No. 38, in page 19, line 20, after "repurchase" insert
    "or of any payment under section (purchase of certain land by authority possessing compulsory purchase powers) or (Rights of pre-emption etc.) of this Act, being a case in which there has at any time been a disposal of a relevant interest in the defective dwelling concerned by the housing authority or any authority being their predecessor"—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared the "Ayes" had it; thirteen Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
    Question agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Lords amendment proposed: No. 39, in page 19, line 20 at end insert—
    "and

    (c) in any other case of repurchase or payment under that section, 100 per cent."—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared the "Ayes" had it; fourteen Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
    Question agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since these proceedings may seem a little arcane to those outside, perhaps it could be recorded that the Liberal party has just voted against a 100 per cent. housing subsidy to local authorities.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was hardly a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the last matter was a point of order—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said that it was not a matter for the Chair; therefore, it was not a point of order. I have already ruled on that.
    Lords amendment proposed: No. 40, in page 19, line 21, leave out "either case" and insert "any of those cases" —[Mr. David Hunt.]
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House proceeded to a Division—
    Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order when he has received the hat and makes it in the proper way.
    Mr. Beith (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that your task —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has every right to raise a point of order, and the House and the Chair are entitled to hear him.
    Mr. Beith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not only that I might have difficulty in making myself heard but that you were having difficulty in making yourself heard when giving the number of the amendment to which you referred when you began this Division. It was inaudible from where I was sitting.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry about that; I believed that I had made it clear. It is Lords amendment No. 40.
    Mr. Beith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places; and he declared the "Ayes" had it; twelve Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
    Question agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Lords amendments No. 41 to 46 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

  New Clause

    APPLICATION OF Am' IN RELATION TO MORTGAGEES
    12.45 am
    Lords amendment No. 47: Insert the following new clause:
    " .—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purpose of conferring rights and obligations on any mortgagee of a defective dwelling where—

    (a) a power of sale (whether conferred by section 101 of the Law of Property Act 1925 or otherwise) is exercisable by the mortgagee, and

    1354

    (b) the mortgagor is eligible for assistance in respect of the defective dwelling.

    (2) The rights that may be conferred on a mortgagee by regulations under this section are—

    (a) rights corresponding to those conferred by this Act on a person holding a relevant interest in the defective dwelling,

    (b) the right to require the appropriate authority to acquire in accordance with the regulations any interest in the defective dwelling to be disposed of in exercise of the power of sale, and

    (c) where the mortgagee is the appropriate authority the right by deed to vest the dwelling in themselves,

    and the rights that may be so conferred may be conferred in place of any rights conferred on any other person by this Act.
    (3) Regulations under this section may provide that, where the conditions in subsection (1)(a) and (b) above are or have been satisfied, this Act, the power of sale in question and any enactment relating to the power of sale shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.
    (4) Where a defective dwelling is vested in a mortgagee in pursuance of regulations under this section or in pursuance of sections 112 and 113 of the 1980 Act or section 19 of and Schedule 5 to the Housing and Building Control Act 1984 (vesting of mortgaged dwelling-house in local authority etc.), the regulations may provide for the payment in respect of the vesting of an amount calculated on the assumption that none of the defective dwellings to which the designation in question relates are affected by the qualifying defect, and those enactments shall have effect subject to any such provisions.
    (5) Regulations under this section—

    (a) may make different provision for different cases, and

    (b) may make incidental and consequential provision.

    (6) In this section "mortgagee" and "mortgagor" have the same meaning as in the Law of Proper Act 1925.
    (7) This section does not apply to Scotland."—[Mr. David Hunt.]
    Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 48.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: In relation to amendment No. 47, some serious and substantive points require the consideration of the House. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends, who are here in far greater proportion than any other party in the House—[Interruption.] The official Opposition have been noticeable for the presence of their rebels but not for anything else.
    I ask the Minister to explain certain matters which arise from Lords amendments Nos. 47 and 48. Lords amendment No. 47 involves the insertion of a new clause which provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations to confer
    "rights and obligations on any mortgagee of a defective dwelling".
    It is important to understand what a mortgage is or may be. The mortgagee may be a private individual, or a bank, insurance company or building society. I am sure that the House will agree that the banks, the insurance companies and the building societies do not need a great deal of help from this House to survive the arrival in their hands by foreclosure, or similar procedure, of a defective dwellinghouse.
    The first subsection of the new clause provides that the Secretary of State can make regulations conferring on a mortgagee what appear to be the same rights as are conferred upon the private purchaser of a dwellinghouse which is affected by the Bill. That is plain from subsection 1(b), which requires as a qualifying criterion that the mortgagor should be eligible
    "for assistance in respect of the defective dwelling."

    1355
    It is important to examine the rights that are conferred by the new clause. The rights which are conferred on the mortgagee, as we can see from subsection 2(a), correspond to the rights which are conferred by the Bill to a person holding a relevant interest in the defective dwelling. It seems that the effect of the new clause will be to give the rights to a building society or insurance company, or any other mortgagee which forecloses, to obtain compensation because the dwelling-house is defective.
    A serious issue is raised by that provision. Is it right that mortgagees — financial institutions well able to look after themselves and which are in the business of risk—should be able to take advantage, at the public's expense, of a provision which is designed to protect someone quite different? The Bill, which we commend in almost all respects, is designed to protect the person who is buying in at the cheaper end of the housing market, who is buying an Airey home or other type of building which has proved to be defective, and who finds himself unfairly faced with repairs which he cannot afford to effect. We know that the pressure for the introduction of the Bill has come for just that reason. That pressure arose because many individuals found that their homes were falling down about them and they did not have a hope of financing the repairs out of their own capital or of raising any further capital, beyond the mortgage which they raised on purchase, by going to one of the established financial institutions.
    That is one thing: but why should the financial institutions be able to trot along to the Government for support? The compensatory money is not all subsidised. Some of it will have to come from rate-capped authorities, from local authorities which are hard pressed by the Government. We know that our local authorities are sorely pushed. In my constituency, for example no money is being made available for most of the grants which in theory can be taken out. That has happened because the money allocated for the grants has run out. That is a disgrace and the Government have failed to provide an adequate explanation for it. Yet by this new clause the Government propose to line the pockets of the financial institutions, and I wonder why.
    Could it be connected with the fact that some of these mortgagees happen to throw the odd few tens of thousands of pounds into the coffers of the Tory party when an election comes along? We should like an answer to that. Who will benefit from this new clause? I look forward to the explanation that I hope that we shall receive from the Minister.
    Mr. James Wallace: I understand that with amendment No 47 we are discussing amendment No 48, which is similar to amendment No 47, but applies to Scotland. I understand that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, has been in the House for part of the evening, but it is regrettable that there is now no Scottish Minister on the Front Bench, when this amendment is being discussed. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, we are wary that this Act should not become a pretext for handing out large sums of public money to such institutions as banks and building societies.
    Amendment 48 (4) says:
    (4) Regulations under this section—

    (a) may make different provision for different cases, and

    (b) may make incidental and consequential provision.

    1356
    The Government must explain what different provision was envisaged when this amendment was drafted, and what different cases they had in mind. Building societies and banks have great expertise at their disposal and will not be buying the properties from the local authorities on simple trust, as many who this Bill is designed to protect will have done. Therefore, they represent a different kind of case from those at which the Bill is directed. These matters are important, and the Government must provide an answer.
    Mr. Gow: I hope that I shall be able to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), one of whom comes from Scotland and the other of whom comes from Wales.
    The purpose of the amendment is to enable my right hon. Friend to make suitable provision to enable all mortgagees entitled to exercise the right of sale to apply for assistance in place of the owner or to step into the shoes of the owner who has made an application but does not press it to a conclusion. Neither the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland nor the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was a member of the Committee—I do not make a complaint about that but merely comment on it — and therefore neither of them was present for our debates on this subject. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) was a member of the Committee and he took a particular interest in the subject, and will be able to testify to our long debates on it.
    The purpose of the amendment is to put into the same position as private mortgages those who are also building societies. I commend it to the House as a fair measure.
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 16.

    Division No. 444]

    [12.53 am

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Amess, David

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Ancram, Michael

    Durant, Tony

    Amold, Tom

    Evennett, David

    Ashby, David

    Fallon, Michael

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fox, Marcus

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Gale, Roger

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Gorst, John

    Baldry, Tony

    Gow, Ian

    Berry, Sir Anthony

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Harvey, Robert

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Hayes, J.

    Bottomley, Peter

    Heddle, John

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Henderson, Barry

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Howard, Michael

    Bright, Graham

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Brinton, Tim

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Lilley, Peter

    Browne, John

    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Lord, Michael

    Burt, Alistair

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Butterfill, John

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Maclean, David John

    Carlisle, John (N Luton)

    Major, John

    Cash, William

    Maples, John

    Chope, Christopher

    Marland, Paul

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

    Mather, Carol

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Conway, Derek

    Merchant, Piers

    Coombs, Simon

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Cope, John

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Montgomery, Fergus

    1357

    Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Neubert, Michael

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Norris, Steven

    Thorne, Neil (IIford S)

    Osborn, Sir John

    Thurnham, Peter

    Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

    Tracey, Richard

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Waddington, David

    Powley, John

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Raffan, Keith

    Walden, George

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Waller, Gary

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Wardle,-C. (Bexhill)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Watts, John

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Whitfield, John

    Rowe, Andrew

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Wood, Timothy

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Yeo, Tim

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Spencer, Derek

    Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Douglas Hogg.

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Stern, Michael

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Hancock, Mr. Michael

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Howells, Geraint

    Beith, A. J.

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Johnston, Russell

    Marek, Dr John

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Wallace, James

    Parry, Robert

    Penhaligon, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Alex Carlile.

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Question accordingly agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

  New Clause

    APPLICATION OF ACT IN RELATION TO LENDERS ON SECURITY OF DEFECTIVE DWELLING IN SCOTLAND
    Lords amendment proposed: No. 48, insert the following new clause—
    " .—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purpose of conferring rights and obligations on any person who has granted a loan on the security of a defective dwelling where—

    (a) a power of sale is exercisable by the lender, and

    (b) the borrower is eligible for assistance in respect of the defective dwelling.

    (2) The rights that may be conferred on a lender by regulations under this section are—

    (a) rights corresponding to those conferred by this Act on a person holding a relevant interest in the defective dwelling, and

    (b) the right to require the appropriate authority to acquire in accordance with the regulations any interest in the defective dwelling to be disposed of in exercise of the power of sale,

    and the rights that may be so conferred may be conferred in place of any rights conferred on any other person by this Act.
    (3) Regulations under this section may provide that, where the conditions in subsection (1)(a) and (b) above are or have been satisfied, this Act, the power of sale and any enactment relating to the power of sale in question shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.
    (4) Regulations under this section—

    (a) may make different provision for different cases, and

    (b) may make incidental and consequential provision.

    (5) This section applies to Scotland only."—[Mr. Gow.]
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 15.

    Division 445]

    [1.03 am

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Major, John

    Amess, David

    Maples, John

    Ancram, Michael

    Marland, Paul

    Arnold, Tom

    Mather, Carol

    Ashby, David

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Merchant, Piers

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Baldry, Tony

    Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Berry, Sir Anthony

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Neubert, Michael

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Bottomley, Peter

    Norris, Steven

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Bright, Graham

    Powley, John

    Brinton, Tim

    Raffan, Keith

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Browne, John

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Burt, Alistair

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Butterfill, John

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Rowe, Andrew

    Carlisle, John (N Luton)

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Cash, William

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Chope, Christopher

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

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

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

    Spencer, Derek

    Conway, Derek

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Coombs, Simon

    Stern, Michael

    Cope, John

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Durant, Tony

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Evennett, David

    Thorne, Neil (IIford S)

    Fallon, Michael

    Thurnham, Peter

    Fox, Marcus

    Tracey, Richard

    Gale, Roger

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Gorst, John

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Gow, Ian

    Waddington, David

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Harvey, Robert

    Walden, George

    Hayes, J.

    Waller, Gary

    Henderson, Barry

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Howard, Michael

    Watts, John

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Whitfield, John

    Lang, Ian

    Wolfson, Mark

    Lilley, Peter

    Wood, Timothy

    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

    Yeo, Tim

    Lord, Michael

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Douglas Hogg.

    Maclean, David John

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Penhaligon, David

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Skinner, Dennis

    Beith, A. J.

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Howells, Geraint

    Wallace, James

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Johnston, Russell

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Marek, Dr John

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Alex Carlile.

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Parry, Robert

    Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

  Clause 17

    RULES AND ORDERS
    Lords amendment proposed: No. 49, 1, after "order" insert "or regulations' —[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we amendment No. 51.
    Mr. Beith: The amendments touch on procedures of the House which are rightly of concern to hon. Members, not least my right hon. and hon. Friends, who, when unable to express their protests in any other way, are forced to press some amendments to a Division.
    The amendments relate to statutory instruments dealt with by the negative resolution procedure. Regulations shall be
    "subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
    That would sound a grand and impressive phrase to a layman. It would give him the feeling that the House has at its disposal procedures to ensure that any regulations made under the Bill will be subject to the most careful safeguards—that they cannot proceed without the House reaching a decision. That could not be further from the truth.
    The negative procedure is one of the ways in which the House has allowed power to pass into the hands of the Executive. We deeply resent it.
    1.15 am
    The negative procedure operates as follows. The Government lay the order. Hon. Members can then, within 40 days, table a prayer against the order. When the procedure was first introduced, such prayers were automatically debated. Provision was always made for them to be debated on the Floor of the House, and there was no time limit on the debate. We could discuss the statutory instruments in detail, far into the night. However, as always, when Governments found that hon. members were making their protests too strongly, they curtailed the procedures and made it impossible for hon. Members to raise their grievances. They ensured that debates on such instruments as those made under this clause can last for only one and a half hours. They did more. They ruled that the debates must end at 11·30 pm.
    If the debate nominally starts at 10 pm and there are two Divisions at 10 pm, the debate will only last for an hour. If a debate is to last for an hour, there will be a 20-minute speech from the Opposition Front Bench, a 20-minute speech from the Government Front Bench, and speeches from a couple of Labour Back Benchers and a couple of Conservative Back Benchers. At about 11·25 pm, we may be told that if the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is very helpful, he may speak for two minutes.
    From time to time, to the annoyance of the Labour party, it happens to be my hon. Friends who table the prayer first. That is more satisfactory for us, but it is still not fair. On a number of occasions—in the case of the student grants, for example—the Labour Opposition has had to sit back while my hon. Friends have prayed against the statutory instrument. That is not fair to the Labour Opposition or perhaps to other Back Benchers. The procedure does not allow a fair chance to minority groups in the House.
    1360
    There is no guarantee that there will be a debate on the Floor of the House. Most debates on statutory instruments take place in Committee. That was not always the case. I am sure that the Leader of the House will recall vividly how his predecessor, Captain Crookshank, guaranteed at the Dispatch Box that all such prayers would be debated on the Floor of the House if hon. Members wished to debate them. But that did not happen.
    If an hon. Member were to pray against an order under this section, there is no guarantee that he even get a debate in a Standing Committee. He might — like my hon. Friends—support the principles of the Bill and wish it to come into effect so that householders could benefit from its provisions. But he might, for example, have reservations about the position of local authorities, whose housing investment programmes and housing repair funds will be drawn upon in order to meet costs incurred because the Government had persuaded local authorities to build houses which turned out to be defective. An hon. Member who wants to make a limited point off such a kind on one of the orders—instead of opposing the main legislation, as my hon. Friends have had to do on certain Lords amendments tonight—will find that he has no guarantee of a debate in Committee.
    Let us suppose that the Government Whips are in an exceptionally favourable mood and allow an hon. Gentleman to debate a statutory instrument in Committee under the negative procedure. Let us say that some anxiety is expressed on the Government side as well as among my hon. Friends, and there is a vote. The Committee vote s, and the decision is taken that the Committee has not considered the instrument. However, there is no procedure for the Committee's rejection of the instrument ever to be reported to the House. The Clerk has to report to the House that the Committee has considered the instrument, because, manifestly, it has. He therefore reports to the House in defiance of the Committee's decision. That is a glaring example of procedures that prevent hon. Members from expressing their grievances in what might be the mast natural and appropriate way—voting against a proposal in Committee. The result of procedures such as this being applied yet again is that hon. Members in the circumstances that I have described will be obliged to vote against things that they might agree with, simply to register their protest, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have had to do tonight.
    Some Conservative Members are new to the House and have not yet grasped some of the intricacies of its procedures. One day they will find themselves on a Statutory Instruments Committee and with a genuine grievance. There will be a Division and they will realise the enormous stupidity of this procedure as they cast a vote and think, "Good heavens". They think that they will rock the Government back on their heels and be forced to vote against them, only to discover that the procedures have no effect. When that day conies they might realise the frustration and indignation of my right hon. and hon. Friends on issues such as this, on the selection of Members for Select Committees and the dominance of the Labour party over Opposition time. Under the present procedures, hon. Members have no legitimate means by which to make a point, so we have to resort to others. I counsel Conservative Members that among them are at least two senior and experienced hon. Members who have sat on a Statutory Instruments Standing Committee and have had to record no substantive vote.

    1361
    When a Statutory Instruments Standing Committee records a vote againt something, the matter should come to the Floor of the House so that the House can record its decision. I understand why Government Whips would not want to regard as final a Division in a Committee on an off day because some hon. Members have been up late the night before, as is the case today, and have not turned up to the Committee in the morning. We all want to raise our legitimate grievances on the Floor of the House but, time and again, we are denied the opportunity to do so.
    The tabling of prayers against Statutory Instruments is one way in which groups, which are not provided with the acres of time that are available to the Government and the 19 Opposition days that are available to the Labour party, can engage some of the House's time on issues such as those which arise from this Bill and that cause them concern.
    If successive Governments continue to narrow the procedures of the House and to close their minds to improvements of our procedures and any accommodation of the views of groups which might have the support of 25 per cent. of the voters, they will find that hon. Members have to resort to late Divisions and speeches on a wide variety of matters to get over the point that the Government do not own the House of Commons. The House of Commons is the chamber of the Parliament of the people of the United Kingdom who sent us here, and we shall exert and assert our right to speak here.
    Mr. Gow: It is characteristic of the self-styled Chief Whip of the Liberal party to address the House on a consequential amendment to an amendment—No. 46— which the House debated long ago. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales gave a full explanation of the procedures proposed, but the Benches now occupied by the Liberals and the Social Democrats were totally empty at that time.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister suggested that these Benches were empty on the occasion to which he referred. May I ask you to invite him to withdraw that remark. I was certainly here, and so was my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me. [Interruption.] Order. If the hon. Gentleman raises a point of order he should wait for the answer. Who was present is not a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Gow: Secondly — [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have nothing to withdraw. [Interruption.] The former Chief Whip of the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), is in no position to challenge my assertion that the alliance Benches were deserted when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State spoke because the hon. Gentleman emphatically was not here and he certainly could not be missed.
    Secondly, it was extremely patronising for the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to rebuke my hon. Friends who arrived here as a result of the historic Tory victory of 9 June last year. Unlike the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, one thing that my hon. Friends have not done is to vote against something in which they believe. The hon. Gentleman's rebuke was an utter disgrace.
    1362
    In view of the characteristic disarray of the alliance Benches I think that I should be a bully if I proceeded any further
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 16.

    Division No. 446]

    [1.27 am

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Marland, Paul

    Amess, David

    Mather, Carol

    Ancram, Michael

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Arnold, Tom

    Merchant, Piers

    Ashby, David

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Baldry, Tony

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Berry, Sir Anthony

    Neubert, Michael

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Norris, Steven

    Bottomley, Peter

    Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Powley, John

    Bright, Graham

    Raffan, Keith

    Brinton, Tim

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Browne, John

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Burt, Alistair

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Butterfill, John

    Rowe, Andrew

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Carlisle, John (N Luton)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Cash, William

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Chope, Christopher

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

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

    Spencer, Derek

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Conway, Derek

    Stem, Michael

    Coombs, Simon

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Cope, John

    Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Durant, Tony

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Fallon, Michael

    Thorne, Neil (IIford S)

    Fox, Marcus

    Thurnham, Peter

    Gale, Roger

    Tracey, Richard

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Gorst, John

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Gow, Ian

    Waddington, David

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Harvey, Robert

    Walden, George

    Hayes, J.

    Waller, Gary

    Henderson, Barry

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Watts, John

    Howard, Michael

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Whitfield, John

    Lilley, Peter

    Wolfson, Mark

    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

    Wood, Timothy

    Lord, Michael

    Yeo, Tim

    Lyell, Nicholas

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Maclean, David John

    Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. John Major.

    Maples, John

    NOES

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Parry, Robert

    Beith, A. J.

    Penhaligon, David

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Skinner, Dennis

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Howells, Geraint

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Wallace, James

    Johnston, Russell

    Marek, Dr John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Nellist, David

    Mr. David Alton and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 50 to 65 agreed to.
    [Some with Special Entry.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
BANKRUPTCY
That the draft Insolvency Proceedings (Increase of Monetary Limits) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.

CONSUMER PROTECTION
That the draft Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 10th July, be approved. —[Mr. Sainsbury.]
Question agreed to.

Countryside Conservation
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
1.39 am
Sir Humphrey Atkins: I had hoped that this debate would come on earlier, not just because it is now late, but because the conservation of the countryside, of which all of us who live in these islands are so proud and which all of us love so much, deserves a much longer time for discussion than art Adjournment debate at this hour.
Nevertheless, I intend in the time available to outline a few areas of particular concern. I hope to hear the Government's thinking and plans from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I thank him for being here to reply to the debate. It is most appropriate that he should be here because, although several Government Departments have responsibility in this area — I can think of at least six, including the Treasury, which one must always include—his Department, the Department of the Environment, is in the lead. I shall return to that matter of co-ordination of Government activity.
The main area of concern is simply stated. Year after year more of our countryside disappears or is changed out of all recognition. It disappears because of the ever-increasing size of our towns and villages—new towns are created where none existed and housing developments creep relentlessly outwards from existing towns. It also disappears because of the pressure of industry —factories, warehouses, power stations, reservoirs and so on — and communications, most notably motorways and the developments associated with the increasing size of airports. The countryside is changed by new and improved methods of agriculture, spurred on by that most basic of human requirements—the need to have enough to eat.
It is small wonder that a multiplicity of voluntary societies and associations have sprung up and are still springing up, all dedicated to the same objective—the conservation or preservation of what countryside we have left. I shall not mention them by name because if I mention one I should mention them all, and there are so many that time does not permit me to do so. I shall refer to only two bodies, for both of which my hon. Friend's Department has responsibility because their members are appointed and funds provided by his Secretary of State. Before I do so, I should like to pay a compliment to the Secretary of State. He gets few enough compliments these days, but this one is certainly due to him.
Last summer my right hon. Friend issued a draft circular giving the Government's view of the future of the green belts surrounding London and our great conurbations. It caused much alarm because it appeared that the Government's resolve to maintain the integrity of those green belts was weakening. A considerable public outcry ensued and representations poured in to my right hon. Friend from many people outside and, of course, from the Select Committee on the Environment. He not only listened but acted by revising his thinking and issuing, only three weeks ago, a new circular that is much firmer and has, I believe, allayed many of the fears that were previously expressed. I hope that my hon. Friend will pass on my compliments to the Secretary of State.
The Nature Conservancy Council is one of the two bodies that I have in mind. It has many responsibilities,

1365
but the ones mostly in the news at the moment are its responsibilities in connection with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I know very well that it would be out of order for me to make any reference in an Adjournment debate to an amendment of that Act—even though we know that it has been spoken about—so I do not propose to do so, but there are two questions that I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.
The management agreements for the protection of the sites of special scientific interest, with which the Nature Conservancy Council is charged to deal, are expensive. I believe that my hon. Friend answered a question quite recently giving a figure. But how expensive it will be in the future is a matter of considerable concern. Recently, Dr. Bill Adams of the World Wildlife Fund published a pamphlet in which he said that the management agreements could cost as much as £42 million a year. The figure given by my hon. Friend recently in the House was about £320,000. There is a great divergence here, and it is a matter of concern and worry to many of us, because £42 million a year is a sum that nobody in this House believes that the Government will give. I should like to hear my hon. Friend's thinking about the cost of administering that part of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
I should like to know whether my hon. Friend believes that it will be possible to fund extra staff for the Nature Conservancy Council, because another of the complaints is that it is taking a long time to do its work and, understandably, it is believed that it is a matter of staff time.
I have another question concerning the Nature Conservancy Council. I wonder whether the concentration of sites of special scientific interest will allow for the protection of the wider countryside. It has been suggested that there is a danger that the SSSIs may become isolated islands in a sea of laissez-faire where nothing else matters. Obviously, I hope that it will not happen, but there is one danger which has been mentioned recently in a report of the only voluntary body that I shall mention—the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. In a recent report the society said that most of the United Kingdom's upland birds depend on land which is not safeguarded by designation as sites of special scientific interest. That is a worry, and I should like to hear what my hon. Friend thinks about this anxiety which has been expressed by a number of people.
The other body to which I want to refer is the Countryside Commission. In particular, I refer to its excellent report, issued in March of this year, entitled, "A Better Future for the Uplands". I know that my hon. Friend will agree that it was a thoroughly thoughtful, detailed and constructive document, and that its recommendations are worth the most careful consideration. It has been very well received over a wide area, and the Government's response is awaited with keen interest. I do not suppose for one moment that my hon. Friend is in a position to give the Government's response here tonight, but I very much hope that he will give an indication of the Government's thinking.
One of the points made very strongly by the report is that all the interests in the countryside — landscape, recreation, agriculture, prosperous rural communities,
1366
forestry, roads, buildings and all the rest—are in the end indivisible. That, of course, applies not just to the uplands but to the whole country. There is an urgent need for the Departments concerned—the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices and, of course, the Treasury — to establish a system under which they can examine the problems of the conservation of our countryside as one problem, not as separate problems. For a long time there has been a need for concerted action to preserve the countryside of which we are all so proud, and I hope that this evening my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me that that is in his mind, and the mind of his Department and the Government, and that they are taking steps to bring it about.
1.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) for giving me the opportunity, after such a thoughtful speech, to give some of the Government's thinking on these important issues before the House rises for the summer recess. I am also grateful for the way in which my right hon. Friend described some of the principal problems and issues, and some of the problems of the institutions that are sponsored by my and other Departments.
My right hon. Friend will agree that the Conservative party has a long and honourable record in this area. The word "Conservative" in the name of our party is rightly applicable to the affection with which many Conservative Members regard the countryside, in which so many of our members have their roots. I was most grateful for my right hon. Friend's kind words about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in relation to green belts, and I shall pass on his remarks. My right hon. Friend is right to say that the Government have re-emphasised with the new circulars the continuity that we intend to exist in the preservation of green belts. The draft circulars that were issued last summer were replaced by further drafts issued for comment in February 1984, and were—as my right hon. Friend said—favourably received. Since then the subjects have been considered by the Select Committee on the Environment, and the Department's response to the Select Committee's report included a revision of those drafts; the circulars were issued on 4 July.
The new green belt circular reaffirms the Government's commitment to green belt policy as originally set out in the 1950s, and reproduces Ministry of Housing and Local Government circulars 42/55 and 50/57, which were the classic guide. It recognises the main functions of green belts as, first, checking the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas; secondly, as safeguarding the surrounding countryside from further encroachment; and, thirdly, as recognising the role of green belt policy in relation to urban renewal.
The intention is to achieve a long-term continuity of approach. Accordingly, the new circular stresses that once the general extent of a green belt has been approved as part of the structure plan for an area, it should be altered only in exceptional circumstances, and it emphasises the need to look as far ahead as can be seen when proposing boundaries.
The Select Committee made several valuable recommendations on the treatment of derelict land,

1367
especially on the urban fringe. The circular now includes advice to ensure that the mere fact that land has become derelict should not be accepted as a reason for amending approved or adopted green belt boundaries or for allowing development in the green belt, although dereliction may be a relevant factor when considering what land should be included in a green belt when boundaries are first defined. As the circular states, the overall aim should be to develop and maintain a positive approach to land-use management, which makes adequate provision for necessary development and ensures that the green belt serves its proper purpose.
In the more general issues of conservation, the centre piece of our policy is the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to which my right hon. Friend referred, which represented a major initiative. It was the first substantial piece of countryside legislation to be introduced in more than a decade, and it represents an honest attempt to address a wide range of difficult, and undoubtedly contentious, issues. It is worth pointing out the fact that our predecessors did not contemplate such a broad legislative package. The previous Conservative Administration, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), deserve great credit for carrying through that Act.
Obviously, we are aware of the pressure on the Act. We are continuing to monitor its workings closely. We recognise, for example, that problems have arisen from the notification of sites of special scientific interest, and are currently considering ways in which the procedures in this part of the Act might be strengthened. We have also made it clear that we shall review the compensation arrangements under the Act when there has been an adequate opportunity to assess how they are working in practice. I am aware that the terms of those arrangements, and the principle behind them, are a source of criticism in some quarters.
As to the terms of payment, we recognise that there is a considerable number of agreements building up which have been negotiated in accordance with the guidance which we issued at the end of February last year. Undoubtedly some of these will, if concluded, prove expensive, though it is worth emphasising that the majority involve only relatively small sums. For example in the financial year just ended the Countryside Commission paid grant of less than £60,000 towards the first-year costs of six management agreements concluded by national park authorities from the special fund which we made available for that purpose.
We have provided similar funding arrangements for the current year, and although it is too early to offer any reasonable estimate of the likely demand, the latest information is that the parks are currently negotiating some 40 further agreements at an approximate annual cost of about £85,000.
It is in the lowland areas where the bills are liable to be greater, for obvious reasons. Many sites of special scientific interest exist in lowland areas where the land is intrinsically more fertile and so capable of sustaining a higher level of farm profitability. Since the Act was passed over a 100 sites, covering about 9,155 hectares, have been safeguarded by management agreements concluded by the Nature Conservancy Council. More than 500 agreements, covering about 55,000 hectares, are currently being negotiated at an estimated cost of about £1·4 million in annual payments and an additional £1·4 million in capital
1368
sums and arrears. I think the point which emerges is that while no one would deny that the making of management agreements does cost money, it is not accurate to claim, as some of our more vigorous critics have done, that the costs of implementing the Act are either out of control, or that they are not commensurate with our policy objective of monitoring the most important habitats and the most valuable landscape.
In that respect my right hon. Friend raised the question of NCC funding. The council's grant-in-aid for 1984–85 has been fixed at £15·6 million, which includes £1·25 million for the consolidation of the NCC's new headquarters in Peterborough. That represents a significant increase in real terms in the resources made available to the NCC since implementation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I am pleased to announce tonight the addition of an extra £2·55 million for this year for the NCC's work in safeguarding sites.
We are now considering very carefully the NCC's new strategy document "Nature Conservation in Great Britain". This paints a vivid picture of what has been happening to our wildlife heritage and spells out what we need to do to conserve and rebuild that heritage. It is an important contribution to the general public debate and we are looking at the long-term resource requirements it poses in the context of the council's corporate plan. That will include the question of staffing which my right hon. Friend mentioned, though I cannot give any further commitments tonight.
Not all attention in the lowlands is focused on SSSIs. The House will be well aware of problems in the Norfolk broads, where the issues are those of landscape rather than habitat conservation. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will forgive me for letting the House know the latest position, and our proposals for helping the Broads authority. First, the authority has reached holding agreements with four of those concerned in the Halvergate area for a period of a year with the aid of 75 per cent. grant from the Countryside Commission. The authority decided not to offer an agreement with full compensation to a fifth farmer in respect of about 90 acres of land near Halvergate which is bordered by a railway line and other ploughed land. That was its decision, as the local planning authority.
In a further case the authority was faced with the unfortunate situation where it seemed that a proposal to drain and plough might proceed before any agreement could be reached. The authority submitted for confirmation by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, a direction under article 4 of the Town and Country General Development Order revoking the planning permission conferrd by class VI of the order for engineering operations. My right hon. Friend responded quickly. He recognised that time was needed for consideration of the issues involved, and to allow the possibility of agreement being reached, made his own article 4 direction but limited its duration to one year. The Broads authority is now negotiating with the farmer concerned, and I believe that there is some hope of a satisfactory outcome.
That is something of the background to the current position. But the Government have acted on a wider front and tonight I can announce some further measures aimed at helping the conservation of the broads. First, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have decided to apply section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to the executive areas of the Broads authority, subject to the

1369
satisfactory outcome of public consultation. If section 41 is applied it would be accompanied by a requirement for farmers to consult the Broads authority about farm developments for which they wish to claim capital grant. If grant were to be refused in individual cases because of the authority's objections, the farmers concerned would be entitled to the offer of a management agreement.
Secondly, we have also warmly welcomed the Countryside Commission's report on its review of the Broads authority and have endorsed, in principle, its finding that it would be desirable to establish a special statutory authority by means of private legislation. To that end, we have authorised the Countryside Commission to pay grant to Norfolk county council towards the costs of preparation of a Bill, which I understand that the council proposes to deposit in the 1985–86 Session. We have reserved judgment, however, on the proposal to provide in the Bill for the new authority to have certain powers to control navigation.
As it is clear that it will be some years before the new authority can be appointed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has authorised the Countryside Commission to continue to grant-aid the adminitrative expenditure of the present Boards Authority in the interim. Grant will remain at the rate of 50 per cent. However, and this is the third part of the Norfolk Broads package that I am announcing tonight, we have agreed that the Commission may pay 75 per cent. grants to the authority in respect of the cost of any management agreements that it may enter into, so extending the present authorisation at this rate that, to date has applied only in the Halvergate area. This brings the support for management agreements in the Broads into line with that provided in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
We have also been studying the report of the working group that we established earlier this year to consider alternative means of conserving the landscape of the broads. One possibility that has been canvassed is an experimental scheme to be administered by the Countryside Commission and designed to support grazing in the marshes. Among other things, it would involve the making of livestock headage payments to farmers who participated. This is an interesting proposal and one to which we have given careful thought. For the present, however, we have decided to defer further consideration while we await the outcome of a new initiative that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture proposes to take in Brussels in the context of the negotiations on the draft EC regulation on agricultural structures which consolidates and revises previous directives relating to the modernisation of farming and aid for the less favoured areas.
This initiative is perhaps in the longer-term the most important of all the new items on my list of positive new steps that the Government are taking. Perhaps I may describe it a little more fully. My right hon. Friend may be aware of the recent House of Lords Select Committee report on Agriculture and the Environment which was debated in the other place earlier this week. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, outlined the Government's position during the debate. He pointed out that we have already put
1370
forward some amendments to the draft regulation designed to make it more responsive to environmental concerns, but he was also able to announce a major new initiative.
The Government recognised, said my noble Friend, as did the Select Committee, that some of the conservation-ally sensitive areas of our countryside did not fall within the ambit of the less favoured areas directive. In consequence, as foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture at the last meeting of the Agriculture Council, the noble Lord announced that the Government had decided to seek a more general provision in the draft regulations. This is a major step. It represents the Government's belief 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. The Government will straight away discuss with the. Commission how best to give effect to this idea which would herald a new policy for balancing agriculture and conservation objectives, in the way to which my right hon. Friend was referring. We need to have greater coordination between the different parts of policy. If achieved, it would not, of course, be a solution to all the problems, but it would be a most valuable step forward, and one for which many of the voluntary bodies, such as the CPRE and other makes of Wildlife Link, have long been passing.
Of course, as my noble Friend pointed out, amendments of this nature may not be initially acceptable to all other member states. We certainly believe we need to be able to designate areas outside the less favoured areas 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. That is our intention and that is what we shall try to negotiate.
There are other areas of activity as well. My right hon. Friend has made the point that we need to think about the countryside as a whole, not just SSSIs and designated areas. That is true, although clearly the safeguarding of the more important and vulnerable areas must be high on our list of priorities. In the Wildlife and Countryside Act, we have provided a power for all local planning authorities to make management agreements for conservation. Such expenditure would be eligible for support from the Countryside Commission, whose importance we have recognised by giving it independent status. A good deal of work generally is undertaken in the countryside with the aid of grant from the Commission. During 1983–84 for example, it paid grant of over £1.4 million towards amenity tree planting and woodland management. That was out of a total of £8 million that the Commission paid in grants to the private sector and public bodies throughout England and Wales in that year.
The Commission also spent a further £1·25 million on Groundwork Northwest during 1983–84. That is a major intitiative in restoring the countryside on the fringe of large towns. Charitable trusts have been established with the support of the Countryside Commission in a number of areas. The trusts are stimulating and co-ordinating the work of local authorities, private and voluntary bodies and individuals. They have proved so successful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 13 July his support for the formation of a Groundwork Foundation to take on the task of establishing independent trusts throughout the country.

1371
The Countryside Commission was also responsible for the useful report "A Better Future for the Uplands", to which my right hon. Friend referred, published earlier this year. We welcomed this report at the time as an important step in trying to find consistent interlocking remedies to the problems of one important part of the rural scene. We intend to respond in due course to the Commission's initiative — I hope in the autumn. There are a considerable number of recommendations which we must consider carefully.
The NCC is at present intensively active, which is why we have made available the additional funds that I have been able to announce tonight. There are now more than 190 national nature reserves. The designation of these areas has made important contributions to the creation of conditions in which ospreys, white tailed eagles, avocets and ruffs have returned to the United Kingdom. Eagles are again breeding in the north-west of England and sea eagles have been re-established in Scotland.
The latest nature reserve to be established by the NCC is, indeed, in the Broads area. It has recently acquired some 177 acres at Ludham Marshes in the Broads for the purpose of establishing a national nature reserve. It is only in this area that the rare and important Norfolk Aeshna dragonfly occurs.
The NCC helped by the RSPB has also done invaluable work in highlighting the damaging effects of pesticides, and action stemming from that has been crucial in the recovery of many of our finest birds of prey.
The NCC is also increasingly monitoring loss and damage to SSSIs, and that is important. The results will provide a reliable base on which to plan the future and to see what improvements may be needed.
The voluntary bodies do tremendous work in this area. We have an army of volunteers amounting to about 3 million people, and we assist and encourage this valuable contribution through grants made by the NCC, which in 1982–83 amounted to about £360,000. In other words, they are supported directly by my Department.
These NCC grants supported the purchase of the about 900 hectares of land for nature reserves, and represented a continuing expansion in the grant aid available to voluntary bodies.
1372
I must also pay tribute to the growing role played by the industrial and commercial world in sponsoring conservation. The partnership between the NCC, the World Wildlife Fund and the Government has already led to an encouraging number of successful schemes illustrated in the Government's booklet on conservation and business sponsorship, which we published last year.
From what I have said I hope that it is clear that the Government are fully alert to the pressures which face our countryside today. But we do not share the pessimistic view of some critics that the only way forward is by detailed regulation and control. As a Government we firmly believe that control of all kinds, together with the bureaucracy on which they must depend, should be kept to an essential minimum.
However, that is not our only reason for being sceptical of those who think that compulsion represents the only satisfactory kind of Government action. The fact is that we cannot make progress unless we maintain the confidence and good will of those farmers and land owners who take the lead in conservation. Many now do so, for example, through involvement in fanning and wildlife advisory groups.
This movement represents a splendid effort, starting from modest beginnings but increasingly spreading throughout the country. It shows how the needs of agriculture and conservation can be reconciled at the grass roots level, just as my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and Secretary of State seek to reconcile and integrate those interests at the highest level of policy.
Our policies are designed to carry that integration forward. and I believe that the broad approach which we have adopted offers the best way to make progress in this complicated area.
I hope that I have been able to show my right hon. Friend that he has been timely in raising this subject, in that we have a number of new initiatives to announce and I am grateful to him for introducing this short debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Two o' clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Trade Union Legislation
  Trade Union Legislation
DEFENCE
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  United States Strategic Bombers (Equipment)
  United States Strategic Bombers (Equipment)
  United States Missiles (Storage and Maintenance)
  United States Missiles (Storage and Maintenance)
  Nuclear-powered Submarines
  Nuclear-powered Submarines
  RAF Officers (Car Allowance)
  RAF Officers (Car Allowance)
  HMS Vulcan
  HMS Vulcan
  Mr. Robin Walsh
  Mr. Robin Walsh
  Nuclear Attack Submarines (Hull Life)
  Nuclear Attack Submarines (Hull Life)
  Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield
  Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Computer Board
  Computer Board
  Computing Facilities
  Computing Facilities
  Student Housing
  Student Housing
  Milk (Fluoride)
  Milk (Fluoride)
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
ENERGY
  Gas Prices
  Gas Prices
  Mr. Ian MacGregor (Payments)
  Mr. Ian MacGregor (Payments)
  Isles of Scilly (Electricity Supply)
  Isles of Scilly (Electricity Supply)
  Electricity Supply (Privatisation)
  Electricity Supply (Privatisation)
  Coal Exports
  Coal Exports
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Area Electricity Boards
  Area Electricity Boards
  NCB (Report and Accounts)
  NCB (Report and Accounts)
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Development Land Tax
  Development Land Tax
  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
TRANSPORT
  Nuclear Waste (Transportation)
  Nuclear Waste (Transportation)
  Railway (Track and Route Miles)
  Railway (Track and Route Miles)
  British Rail
  British Rail
  Ports
  Ports
  ILO Joint Maritime Commission
  ILO Joint Maritime Commission
  Defective Ships
  Defective Ships
  Aire Valley Trunk Road
  Aire Valley Trunk Road
  DVLC, Swansea
  DVLC, Swansea
  M69 (Junctions)
  M69 (Junctions)
  British Airways
  British Airways
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Roads (De-icing)
  Roads (De-icing)
  M6 (Headlight Dazzle Barrier)
  M6 (Headlight Dazzle Barrier)
  Infrastructure Schemes
  Infrastructure Schemes
  M65–M6 (Road Programme)
  M65–M6 (Road Programme)
PRIME MINISTER
  Local Authorities (Capital Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Capital Expenditure)
  Lincolnshire
  Lincolnshire
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Coal and Dock Strikes
  Coal and Dock Strikes
  Policy Unit
  Policy Unit
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Home Visits (Kirkby)
  Home Visits (Kirkby)
  Surrogate Motherhood
  Surrogate Motherhood
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Drug Prescriptions (Staffordshire Moorlands)
  Drug Prescriptions (Staffordshire Moorlands)
  Hospital Admissions (Staffordshire)
  Hospital Admissions (Staffordshire)
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Hospital Equipment (Safety Code)
  Hospital Equipment (Safety Code)
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Solvent Misuse
  Solvent Misuse
  Benefits
  Benefits
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Concessionary Television Licence Scheme
  Concessionary Television Licence Scheme
  Parking
  Parking
  Parole
  Parole
  Manchester Prison
  Manchester Prison
  Liverpool Prison
  Liverpool Prison
  Picket Lines (Speeding Vehicles)
  Picket Lines (Speeding Vehicles)
  Winson Green Prison
  Winson Green Prison
  Television Broadcasting in Wales (Exhibition)
  Television Broadcasting in Wales (Exhibition)
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  Electronic Devices (Road Traffic Offences)
  Electronic Devices (Road Traffic Offences)
  Prisoners (Family Visits)
  Prisoners (Family Visits)
  Immigration Cases
  Immigration Cases
  Vienna Convention (Metropolitan Police)
  Vienna Convention (Metropolitan Police)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Prison Design Standards
  Prison Design Standards
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
SCOTLAND
  Solicitors (Conveyancing)
  Solicitors (Conveyancing)
  Tertiary Education Councils
  Tertiary Education Councils
  Heritage (Dispositions)
  Heritage (Dispositions)
  Home Insulation Schemes
  Home Insulation Schemes
  Roads
  Roads
  Personal Injuries (Damages)
  Personal Injuries (Damages)
  Construction Industry (Safety)
  Construction Industry (Safety)
WALES
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Beef Cattle (Hormones)
  Beef Cattle (Hormones)
  Schools (Inspectors)
  Schools (Inspectors)
  School Books (Expenditure)
  School Books (Expenditure)
  Health Education
  Health Education
  Water (Emergency Measures)
  Water (Emergency Measures)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Falkland Islands (Brewster Housing Project)
  Falkland Islands (Brewster Housing Project)
  Bolivia
  Bolivia
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Straw Burning
  Straw Burning
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Private Hospitals
  Private Hospitals
  Tourism and Leisure (Grants)
  Tourism and Leisure (Grants)
  Manufacturing Industry (Capital Investment)
  Manufacturing Industry (Capital Investment)
  Bosch SA
  Bosch SA
  Company Documents (Inspections)
  Company Documents (Inspections)
  Yugoslavia
  Yugoslavia
  Spain
  Spain
  Data Bases (Development)
  Data Bases (Development)
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  Suzuki Cars (Import Quota)
  Suzuki Cars (Import Quota)
  Ireland (Steel Quota)
  Ireland (Steel Quota)
  Mail (Delivery Statistics)
  Mail (Delivery Statistics)
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. Laliph
  Mr. Laliph
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Kowloon City (Disturbance)
  Kowloon City (Disturbance)
  Diplomatic Service (Equal Opportunities)
  Diplomatic Service (Equal Opportunities)
  Euro-Central American Summit
  Euro-Central American Summit
  Belize-Guatemala (Talks)
  Belize-Guatemala (Talks)
  North Atlantic Assembly (Parliamentary Delegation)
  North Atlantic Assembly (Parliamentary Delegation)
  Cayman Islands
  Cayman Islands
  Foreign Affairs Council
  Foreign Affairs Council
EMPLOYMENT
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Salaried Employees and Professional Workers
  Salaried Employees and Professional Workers
  Ethnic Minorities
  Ethnic Minorities
  Liverpool and Merseyside
  Liverpool and Merseyside
  Special Employment and Training
  Special Employment and Training
  Vredeling Directive
  Vredeling Directive
  Long-term Unemployed
  Long-term Unemployed
  Youth Training (Bradford)
  Youth Training (Bradford)
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Industrial Plants (Employment)
  Industrial Plants (Employment)
  Crumlin Lignite
  Crumlin Lignite
  Gas Supply (Kinsale)
  Gas Supply (Kinsale)
  Gas Industry
  Gas Industry
  Regent House School (Newtownards)
  Regent House School (Newtownards)
ENVIRONMENT
  Bison Wall Frame Buildings
  Bison Wall Frame Buildings
  Westminster International Conference Centre
  Westminster International Conference Centre
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Local Authority Housing (Finance)
  Local Authority Housing (Finance)
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Local Authority Housing (Loan Charges)
  Local Authority Housing (Loan Charges)
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Rents
  Local Authority Rents
  Surplus Land (East London)
  Surplus Land (East London)
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  National Parks Conference
  National Parks Conference
  Barn Owls
  Barn Owls
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Black Country Limestone Advisory Panel
  Black Country Limestone Advisory Panel
  House Building
  House Building
  Nether Lodge, Quernmore
  Nether Lodge, Quernmore
  Black Country (Land Reclamation)
  Black Country (Land Reclamation)
  1982 Minerals Survey
  1982 Minerals Survey
  Nature Conservancy Council
  Nature Conservancy Council
  Management Information System
  Management Information System
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Milverton): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

NCB Enterprises Ltd.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Chelwood, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will summarise the recommendations of the task force set up by the NCB to examine ways of bringing new business and new employment to the coalfields; approximately how many miners over what period of time should benefit from the efforts of NCB Enterprises Ltd.; and how and on what scale it will be funded over the next five years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, the task force set up by the National Coal Board, to which my noble friend refers, is expected to make its report to the board in early August. I shall ensure that my noble friend is informed of developments.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he inform your Lordships whether there has been any new development since 25th June last, when my noble friend last inquired into this subject?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, in the nine-point programme put forward by the National Coal Board, the board stated that it would bring into full operation its new enterprise company which will provide mining communities with advisory services, accommodation facilities, managerial advice and, if necessary, launch aid to assist new small businesses and enterprises in those mining communities where a new diversity of jobs is required.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this would appear to many people to be one of the most important developments which have taken place? Can he say on behalf of the Government what help they are giving? Is the finance to come exclusively out of sums already voted to the National Coal Board, or are they giving special aid to this very important project?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's support for this scheme. As yet the Government have not been approached on the matter of financial aid, and I shall let the noble Lord know.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether it is not the case that in many mining villages where redundancies have been
394
accepted voluntarily there should be considerable capital sums available from the redundancy benefits to enable new businesses to be started up?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, indeed that could be the case, and the Government also have training opportunities schemes, but this will be in addition to those.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can we be assured that the National Coal Board itself will keep this scheme very much under its own control? May I also ask the noble Earl whether the National Coal Board will encourage enterprises which will make many of the goods which the National Coal Board itself uses? Would that not be a good use of ex-miners' expertise?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord says, and I will encourage the National Coal Board to keep this well under its own umbrella.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is a real need for this kind of scheme in respect of other closures as well as coal mines? Is he aware, for example, that in the small town of Shildon in County Durham there is now nearly 50 per cent. male unemployment? Is there not a need for some kind of a scheme of this sort to deal with that kind of redundancy?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, there are other schemes. As I mentioned earlier, there is the Government's training opportunities scheme run by the Manpower Services Commission. I cannot give him a specific answer to his question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the Government would be prepared to consider that even stronger links should be forged between NCB Enterprises Ltd. and the National Coal Board staff college?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I will indeed bring that suggestion to the attention of the coal board.

Spain: Extradition
3.4 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they expect to conclude an extradition treaty with Spain before their entry into the European Economic Community.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we recognise that there is a compelling need to re-establish extradition arrangements with Spain. To this end we are actively pursuing our discussions with the Spanish Government to find an acceptable basis for a new

395
extradition treaty. I am unable to say at the present time whether it is likely that a treaty will be concluded before Spain's accession to the European Economic Community.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. May I ask her whether she is aware of the serious anxiety there is on this matter, in that people who are wanted by the police are apparently able to sun themselves in Spain with impunity? That being so, is she also aware that many of us who look forward to full Spanish membership of the European Community hope that this urgent matter will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord said in the first part of his supplementary. It is true that because there is no extradition treaty in force with Spain it is not possible for any fugitive criminal to be extradited from Spain to the United Kingdom at the present time. But we accept that this is an urgent matter, and as my original Answer made clear we are addressing ourselves to it.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness the Minister can say whether or not there is any comprehensive review of the rights and obligations of the United Kingdom under the Extradition Act 1870 and our rights and obligations in respect of Commonwealth countries under the Fugitive Offenders Acts. I am sure that many Members of this House will feel that the arrangements, looked at globally, are incomplete and form an inconsistent picture.
Baroness Young: My Lords, our own Extradition Act is over a century old, as the noble Lord made clear, and in need of revision. The extent to which it should be revised is likely to prove controversial. However, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has stated his intention to issue a consultative Green Paper later this year to see whether some consensus can be achieved. We shall then consider what changes in the law should be made.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, in a world in which we hope that passports will become less and less necessary, and in a particular area where we hope that some day it is conceivable that passports will be totally abolished, is it not necessary that we should take even more active steps to find some method by which, if the law requires it, we should be able to get these people back?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I hope I indicated in my original Answer, we are addressing ourselves to this problem.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a Council of Europe convention on extradition, and that when the Assembly of the Council of Europe was addressed last year by the Spanish Prime Minister he had a question from a British delegate who asked about the treaty with Spain? He replied that Spain had ratified the convention but that Britain had not ratified it. Would
396
Britain's adherence to this convention be of any help in the matter?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right: the United Kingdom is not a party to this convention. We do, however, have bilateral arrangements with all states which are parties to the convention except Lichtenstein, Turkey and Spain. Adherence to the convention would override those other arrangements. Were we to ratify on the basis of the Extradition Act 1870, the one currently in force, we would have to make a number of reservations, including one in respect of our prima facie requirement.

Wave Energy: Research
3.8 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to restart the programme of research and development in wave energy.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, following the Advisory Council on Research and Development's recommendation in 1982, the department's wave energy programme was reduced to its present level of about £300,000 a year. The programme is kept under review but there appears to be no justification at present for any increase.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for his reply, may I also express my disappointment? Can he confirm whether the world's first commercial wave power station is to be built in Norway using research and development work undertaken in this country at a cost of £10 million to the British taxpayer? If this is so would he also say whether this is not yet another case of British brains and expertise being beneficially exploited by a foreign country, and Britain—the pioneer—failing to profit from its own genius?
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords. I do not think that in this particular case that is so. The reason that we did not go forward with this technology is that at the moment we do not believe that it pays. In a country like Norway, it may do so because there is an indented coastline with a small tidal range which facilitates the installation of small-scale demonstration schemes. That would not apply to this country.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether any sites have been identified on the British coastline which are in any way comparable with the Norwegian coastline as possibly suitable for this kind of power generation?
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords, not at the moment, but the laboratory work is still being carried out particularly at Coventry Polytechnic, Queen's University, Belfast, as well as at Edinburgh University.
Lord Rea: My Lords, should not Her Majesty's Government be looking forward to the possible day when fossil fuels become scarce or uneconomic and possibly envisage the day when nuclear power is not regarded as a suitable means of obtaining energy? Is there not a case for having a working, full-scale model in this country such as the one in Norway? I feel that the answers that have been given so far do not fully clear the points which have been made by my noble friends.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we are continuing research to see whether there is any justification in a large-scale project for wave energy. In the meantime, we are concentrating for renewables on geothermal, both tidal and hot dry rock as well as wind, biofuels and passive solar.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, may I urge the noble Earl, in the light of the Norwegian experience and whether it expects to produce wave energy at less than 5p a unit, not to write off wave energy, as appears to be done, but to keep in very close touch with developments, and if applicable in this country to make sure that resources are available to develop?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the gist of my answers was that we have not written it off but are still keeping an eye on it. In fact, the energy technology support unit at Harwell is preparing a report on the programme which will he published later in the year.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether any money has been spent on the real essence of this problem? How do you maintain wave-power generators in the open sea against incrustation by marine growth and the general corrosion of sea water?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I will bring the noble Earl's question to the attention of the laboratory where the work is being carried out.

Civil Service: Staff Numbers
3.14 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the present total membership of the Civil Service and how this compares with the figure for 1979.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced in another place on 8th May, there were 623,972 staff in post in central Government departments on 1st April 1984– the latest date for which figures are available—compared with 732,275 on 1st April 1979. This reflects a reduction in the size of the Civil Service of more than 108,000 or 14.8 per cent. since the beginning of the last Parliament. This is a considerable achievement. A key pledge has been fulfilled.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that most welcome Answer and recognise the achievement that it represents, may I at the same time thank my noble friend for the article in today's issue of The Times on this subject and ask him one further question? Will he consider the possibility, as he specifically mentioned the name in his article, that a return to the principles of Sir Ernest Gowers is indicated in this general achievement?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, in a number of fields we are trying to build on the work initiated by my noble friend Lady Young, not least on the question of forms and making them easier for all of us to understand.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he has seen another article in The Times which claims that there are now 40,000 heroin addicts in this country? In view of this, will the Government do something to reconsider their policy about cutting down the numbers of Customs officers so that the controls of imports of this drug will be more strictly regulated?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord and the House that Customs and Excise have been carefully ordering their priorities so as to maximise the deployment of resources on the investigation and prevention of drug traffic. This year, a further 60 staff are to he deployed at ports and airports to enhance preventive control.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, two years ago the noble Earl acknowledged that there was a shortfall in the recruitment of administrative trainees and this was underlined, I think, by the Civil Service Commissioners at the time. Is he satisfied that there will be adequate recruitment this year?
The Earl of Gowrie: Yes, my Lords, I see no sign of recruitment not being satisfactory in view of the lower manpower targets that we have now achieved and the manpower targets that we are still aiming to achieve.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, is it not true that when the Minister says that 60 more Customs officials have been employed elsewhere, they have, in fact, been drawn from other ports and therefore they are understaffed?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the Customs and Excise are very seized of the urgency of the investigation and prevention of drug smuggling. There is no question of resources being denied to them for this end.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minster say how many of the staff that he mentioned who have been dismissed or got rid of relate to the Inland Revenue and what is the reduction there in the number of civil servants who are combating the evil of the black economy in this country?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, there have been some increases of staff in a number of fields—not least in the Customs and Excise, as I said to the noble Lord,

399
Lord Strabolgi, and in the Inland Revenue in respect of investigation of the kind in which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is interested. The figures that I was using are net reductions. They include substantial increases of personnel in key areas.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will convey to the Civil Service our very high regard for the work that they do and can he inform me whether he thinks there is any loss of morale because quite often they seem to be under public attack?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend has said and I am glad to use the opportunity of her supplementary question to remind the House that these very substantial savings have been achieved by civil servants themselves. In my experience after a year as Civil Service Minister, morale is high and the programme is being carried forward with a will.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that applicants for naturalisation as British citizens are being kept waiting more or less indefinitely even for an interview and that the section of the Home Office which is responsible for this made a profit of £6 million out of the applicants last year because they have to pay in advance for a service they may wait months to receive? Does he think that this is a satisfactory position or that the persons concerned with this work ought to be increased in number?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I will draw the points that the noble Lord has made to the attention of the Home department.
Lord Walston: My Lords, will the noble Earl inform us of whether any of the work formerly done by the civil servants who are now no longer employed is being done by private firms; and, if so, how many people are employed in that work?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord numbers once people have left the Civil Service or are engaged in the private sector; but it is certainly the case that the net savings of some £600 million in a full year as a result of the manpower exercise is a net figure and takes into account the costs that have been transferred to the private sector.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, as the noble Earl is responsible for the welfare, recruitment and numbers of the Civil Service, can he tell the House what has happened to these over 100,000 civil servants? Have they just been added to the dole queues? Has he any information as to what will be their future prospects and what are the prospects of young recruits into the service?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, these staff savings have been achieved in the usual way by voluntary retirement or natural wastage. As I said in answer to an earlier supplementary, the quality and calibre of young people coming forward as applicants to the civil service are very good and we shall of course take as many as we are able to afford.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to say how much direct Government action has added to the unemployed total by reducing the number of civil service jobs, by cuts in the education service, by cuts in the Health Service, by closing naval dockyards. by closing railway workshops to which I referred during an earlier Question, and so on?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is well aware that the problems of unemployment cannot be solved by swelling the public sector. In fact, the result would be the very opposite.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Long will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the water supply situation in Wales.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill will be adjourned for dinner at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period and that during this adjournment the Motor Vehicles Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1984 and the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1984 will be taken.

Overseas Trade
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

Aldington, L. (Chairman)

Beswick, L.

Boardman. L.

Ezra, L.

Falkland, V.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Kearton, L.

Polwarth, L.

Selsdon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out;
That the Committee do meet on Wednesday, 1st August at 3 p.m. in Committee Room 3.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 23rd July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Lords Expenses
3.24 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw) rose to move, That this House approves the following proposals with respect to expenses incurred by Lords after 31st July 1984–
(1) The limits on the expenses which Lords may recover under the Resolution of 22nd July 1980 shall be determined as follows—

(a) for paragraph (1)(a) of the Resolution (day subsistence and incidental travel) the limit for each day of attendance shall be—

(i) for days in the year beginning with 1st August 1984, the amount obtained by increasing £16·00 by the percentage by which the rate of day subsistence allowance payable for an absence of more than 10 hours in the case of a member of the Home Civil Service of the highest subsistence classification was increased as from that date,

(ii) for days in any subsequent year, the amount obtained by increasing what was the limit for a day's attendance in July of the immediately preceding year by the percentage by which the rate of day subsistence allowance so payable was increased as from the end of that July (so that, if that percentage is nil, the limit remains the same for days in the year following that July);

(b) for paragraph (1)(c) of the Resolution (overnight subsistence) the limit for each day of attendance shall be—

(i) for days in the year beginning with 1st August 1984, the amount obtained by increasing £40·00 by the percentage by which the highest Inner London rate of night subsistence allowance payable to members of the Home Civil Service was increased as from that date,

(ii) for days in any subsequent year, the amount obtained by increasing what was the limit for a day's attendance in July of the immediately preceding year by the percentage by which the highest Inner London rate of night subsistence allowance so payable was increased as from the end of that July (so that, if that percentage is nil, the limit remains the same for days in the year following that July);

402

(c) for paragraph (1)(d) of the Resolution (office, secretarial and research allowance) the limit for any year shall be the appropriate amount multiplied by the number of days of attendance in that year falling within paragraph (1)(a) of the Resolution, the appropriate amount for this purpose being determined as follows—

(i) for expenses incurred in the year beginning with 1st August 1984, the appropriate amount shall be the amount obtained by increasing £17·00 by the relevant percentage,

(ii) for expenses incurred in any subsequent year, the appropriate amount shall be the amount obtained by increasing what was the appropriate amount for expenses incurred in the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage (so that, if the relevant percentage for any year is nil, the appropriate amount remains the same for expenses incurred in that year);

(d) for paragraph (3) of the Resolution (office holders' secretarial allowance) the limit shall be—

(i) for the year beginning with 1st August 1984, the amount obtained by increasing £2,000·00 by the relevant percentage,

(ii) for any subsequent year, the amount obtained by increasing the limit applicable to the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage (so that, if the relevant percentage for any year is nil, the limit remains the same for that year).

(2) In this Resolution "year" means a year beginning with 1st August, and for the purposes of this Resolution—

(a) the relevant percentage for any year is the percentage by which the amount of salary (exclusive of allowances and overtime) payable for the period of twelve months ending with 31st March in that year to a person in the Home Civil Service at the maximum point on the scale for Senior Personal Secretaries and in receipt of Inner London weighting exceeds the corresponding amount for the period of twelve months ending with 31st March in the immediately preceding year;

(b) any fraction of a pound in an amount obtained under paragraph (i) or (ii) of sub-paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of paragraph (1) above shall be treated as a whole pound if it is not less than 50 pence, but shall otherwise be disregarded.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the first of the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this Motion is to provide for the updating each year of the various elements of the Peers' expenses allowance.
At present a fresh resolution of this House is required each time the allowance is reviewed. Earlier this year my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal asked the Top Salaries Review Body to advise on arrangements for keeping the allowance up to date in a way which would eliminate the need for annual resolutions.
The Review Body's recommendations are to link

403
the subsistence elements of the expenses allowance to changes in corresponding Civil Service subsistence rates and to link the secretarial allowance and office holders secretarial allowance to changes in Civil Service secretarial pay. The Government have accepted these recommendations, and they are given effect by the Motion before the House.
Perhaps it would be appropriate if I sought—I hope successfully—to explain the terms of the Motion to your Lordships. The new rates of allowance will be based on the current rates, which your Lordships agreed to in July last year, namely, a maximum of £16 per day for day subsistence and incidental travel, £40 per day for overnight subsistence, £17 per day of attendance for secretarial and office expenses and research assistance and £2,000 per year for the office-holders' secretarial allowance. The Motion before the House defines the formulae for increasing each of these limits. I should emphasise that they are to be linked to changes in Civil Service pay and allowances. Thus the subsistence allowances will not necessarily be the same as the equivalent Civil Service allowances, but they will be increased each year by the same percentage as those allowances are increased. And in the same way the secretarial allowances will be increased each year by the same percentage as the pay of the appropriate Civil Service secretarial grade is increased.
The Motion provides for the new rates to come into effect on 1st August, and for further increases to take effect on 1st August in subsequent years. I regret that I am not able to say at this stage exactly what the new rates will be, as the changes in the Civil Service rates to which they are to be linked are still under negotiation. But I understand that negotiations on Civil Service subsistence rates are at an advanced stage, and that the changes in those rates are likely to be fixed shortly. In the case of the secretarial allowances, which are linked to changes in Civil Service rates of pay, these cannot be fixed until the conclusion of the current Civil Service pay negotiations.
If your Lordships agree to this Motion, it will avoid the need for further motions to deal with routine up-rating. Of course, my Lords, there may still be a need from time to time to review the adequacy of the allowance in the light of changing circumstances. That is something which can be dealt with as the need arises. My Lords. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves the above proposals with respect to expenses incurred by Lords after 31st July 1984.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I should like to express my support for the Motion which has just been moved by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. It is still not widely known just how hard your Lordships work in discharging your functions as Members of this House. Not only in this Chamber but in many committees and sub-committees upstairs, many of your Lordships put in long hours and a great deal of effort. The work and the hours have increased substantially in recent years, as all of us know. It is only right that in a House in which the great majority are entirely unpaid there should be adequate provision for the reimbursement of expenses so that noble Lords need not be out of pocket.
404
It was a year ago yesterday that your Lordships agreed to new rates of expenses in accordance with the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body. I understand that the effect of the Motion which has just been moved by the noble Viscount will be that the rates agreed to on that occasion will now be automatically up-rated in step with appropriate rates of pay and allowances in the Civil Service. This is a sensible measure which I believe all of us will be glad to support.
I appreciate that the noble Viscount is unable to tell us at present just what the new rates will be, but I do hope he will be able to assure the House that no time will be lost in bringing the new arrangements into operation as soon as the Civil Service rates have been agreed. The increases will certainly be well-deserved.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I very much appreciate the way in which the noble Viscount has moved the Motion and explained it and made it very simple to understand. However, that perhaps leaves two questions which I could address to him. In the first place, in the event of the exact indexation figure not being available at the time that some of your Lordships may find it convenient to submit expense claims, would the noble Viscount indicate the exact way in which noble Lords should fill in their claims? It so happens that the House will be sitting on 1st August.
The second question I want to address to the noble Viscount relates to the important statement he made that, although this is a very good way of avoiding reconsidering the detail of increases, it nevertheless leaves open the question of dealing with variations, one might say. in principle. And, of course, there are allowances which your Lordships are denied but which are paid in another place. That is a matter which your Lordships may feel ought to be discussed from time to time. You may feel that the matter ought to be aired and that there ought to be some opportunity of doing that here. There are a variety of matters but I will not list them at the moment. So I ask the noble Viscount what method he envisages whereby we might conveniently bring these matters on to the Floor of the Chamber for discussion now that they will not automatically come before us in an annual resolution?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their response to this Motion. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, of course as soon as the new rates are available they will be immediately brought into operation.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that I understand that if, when noble Lords are filling in forms, they have incurred more than the old maximum, they would then inform the Accountant accordingly and he, when the rates were put up after that, as they would be, would be ready to increase the maximum amount to what they had claimed.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, as chairman of the All-Party Scottish Peers' Committee, I have been asked on behalf of Scottish Peers who are married (as most of them are) whether it would be possible for an allowance to be made for the wives of Scottish Peers who come to London, as they often do. In the House of Commons I understand that that is

405
almost automatic: 16 passes are issued, or something like that. My Committee did not suggest that, but thought that perhaps we might get six passes for the wives of Scottish Peers who attend this House regularly. That would be a great help to them and it would also mean that the wives would be as interested in what happens in the House of Lords as their husbands are. I have spoken to the noble Viscount about this allowance and I wonder whether this point could be discussed at some time, for I think the granting of an allowance would make it only fair in comparison with the wives of MPs who represent Scottish consitituencies.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, particularly since it enables me to put right a failure in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on what would happen if there were to be variations from the present expenses levels. That of course could always be debated at any time your Lordships wished and we could come forward with it. Some proposals of course such as the one mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, would have to be referred to the Top Salaries Review Body at their next review, and we could see how we got on at that stage. I am bound to say to the noble Baroness and to the House that when I first became a Member of Parliament in another place in 1955 there were many years during which my wife had no means of coming to London from Cumbria—which being just over the Border is, after all, very nearly as far as the noble Baroness has to travel. So I am basically very sympathetic to that particular point of view.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one question about secretarial allowances? I am sorry that I have not given him notice, but some of my noble friends have told me that they have some parliamentary business which has to be carried out when this House is not sitting. Could my noble friend look at the possibility of secretarial allowances being paid when a noble Lord is not actually attending a Session of Parliament?
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for jumping up too quickly earlier? May I ask the noble Viscount whether these expenses or allowances are going to be tied to a Civil Service grade? May I also ask the noble Viscount which trade union or organisation he would advise noble Lords to join to try to help with negotiations? Perhaps if he does not care to advise them he would say whether the Government would be prepared to pay noble Lords £1,000 not to join?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I see the noble Lord is seeking to get me into paths of argument which I do not wish to come into on this particular occasion. I think I would have to say to him that it would be up to noble Lords themselves to decide how they would wish to proceed.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, further to what my noble friend Lady Elliot has said, I am not directly interested myself, but I should like to draw attention to a point in connection with Peeresses coming to London,
406
because if they draw a ticket for a seat for the opening of Parliament, then their attendance is really part of the proceedings of the House.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, in answer, first, to my noble friend Lord Bessborough, I understand that it is possible to "spread the days over", if he understands my meaning. I have had some consultations with the Chief Whip. If I have not made it clear, perhaps my noble friend had better approach the Chief Whip and I together and I will try to make it clearer thereafter.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, may I trouble the noble Viscount once more for further clarification as to what he meant when he said he was listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, with sympathy? He referred to the fact that when he was a Member for many years his wife was not able to accompany him; and, as we all know, this can cause domestic problems. I take the view that your Lordships are more, not less, entitled than Members of another place to be rid of any impediment or inhibition which prevents unpaid, honorary Members of your Lordships' House coming to attend to their national duties out of a sense of conscience, which is what happens at the moment. Therefore, I am very sympathetically inclined indeed to what the noble Baroness suggested, especially if it were a matter not limited to Members of your Lordships' House who happen to sit across the Border but were extended to Members in any place in any part of the country.
May I therefore ask the noble Viscount, who has made it clear that it took time in another place for this allowance to become available and that it may take time in this place— indeed it may take even longer in this place—whether he could make it clear that he had in mind that this matter ought to be put before the relevant body at their next meeting so that they can start considering it?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, I was of course expressing a personal view and I should be very glad to discuss that particular personal view with my colleagues, although of course I could not commit the Government in any way. Perhaps I might make one point clear which would emphasise the difficulties attaching to this. Office-holders and Ministers of this House have been given a number of passes for their wives but, unlike Members of another place, we have had to pay full rates of tax on these passes for our wives. Your Lordships will realise that does diminish the value of the passes fairly considerably.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Car Mileage Allowance
3.39 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw Viscount Whitelaw rose to move, That this House approves the following proposals with respect to the rates of the car mileage allowance available to Members of this House—
(1) The allowance payable in respect of a journey commenced in the period beginning with 1st

407
October 1984 and ending with 31st March 1985 shall be payable—

(a) subject to the limit specified in paragraph (3) below, at the rate per mile shown in column 2 of the following Table in relation to the engine capacity of the vehicle used for the journey; and

(b) in respect of miles in excess of that limit, at the rate per mile shown in column 3 of that Table in relation to that engine capacity.

TABLE

Engine capacity

Mileage up to limit

Further mileage

1300 cc or less .. ..

18p

11·3p

More than 1300 cc and not more than 2300 cc

25·9p

14·7p

More than 2300 cc ..

39p

19·5p

(2) Paragraph (1) above shall have effect in relation to journeys commenced in the year beginning with 1st April 1985 and each subsequent year with the substitution, for the rates shown in the Table, of rates calculated, on the principles exemplified in Appendix I to the Report of the Independent Inquiry, from the figures in the edition of the Royal Automobile Club's Schedule of Estimated Vehicle Running Costs published in or about the April of the year in question.
(3) For the purposes of this Resolution the limit on the number of miles in respect of which car mileage allowance may be paid at the rate specified in column 2 of the Table shall be 10,000 miles for the period beginning With 1st October 1984 and ending with 31st March 1985 and 20,000 miles for the year beginning with 1st April 1985 and for each subsequent year.
(4) In this Resolution—
"the Report of the Independent Inquiry" means the Report of the Independent Inquiry into Motor Mileage Allowance for Members of Parliament to the Leader of the House of Commons (H.C. 469 of Session 1983–84);

"year" means a year beginning wih 1st April.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the order paper. The purpose of this Motion is simply to bring the motor mileage allowance in your Lordships' House into line with new arrangements which have recently been agreed to in another place. It may be helpful if I explain a little of the background to the changes made in another place.
Last year the Civil Service moved to a two-tier system of motor mileage rates. Mileage over and above an annual limit of 9,000 miles was made subject to a lower rate. The reason for this was that the normal rate includes a contribution towards the annual standing charges incurred in running a car. If this rate were paid in full to those travelling very long distances, they could make a profit which would be liable to tax. The two-tier system prevents such profits from being made, and thus ensures that no tax liability arises. In July last year, the Government proposed in another place that a similar arrangement should be introduced for the mileage allowance payable to Members of Parliament. But the Government's proposals were not
408
acceptable to Members in another place, and my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal undertook to set up an independent inquiry into the most appropriate means of reimbursing members the cost of their motor mileage.
The inquiry was undertaken by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and Mr. Richard Wilkes, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. Their report was published last month. It recommended the introduction of a two-tier system of mileage allowance, with a reduced rate for travel over 20,000 miles in any year. The report proposed that the allowance should be calculated by reference to the table of vehicle running costs issued by the RAC in April each year. It proposed that the basis of calculation should be one vehicle of 2600 cc, replaced every three years. On that basis, the report proposed a rate of 39p per mile for the first 20,000 miles, and thereafter 19.5p per mile.
The report indicated that these figures were intended to be an upper limit, and that Members with smaller cars would be expected to limit their claims to the amount of their costs. The Government felt, however, that in the interests of public accountability, and of the proprieties being not only observed but seen to be observed, it would be appropriate to formalise such an arrangement and to lay down lower limits for smaller cars. Accordingly, the resolution which was approved in another place last Friday laid down different rates for three ranges of engine size. The rates are set out in the table which appears in the Motion before your Lordships.
If your Lordships agree to this Motion, it will—like the Motion on Lords' expenses to which your Lordships have just agreed—provide for automatic annual up-rating. The rates which appear in the table will apply from 1st October this year until 31st March next year. Thereafter, with effect from 1st April each year, the rate will be recalculated in accordance with the RAC's annual table of vehicle running costs, to which I have already referred.
I realise that one effect of the proposed new arrangements will be that noble Lords whose cars have an engine capacity of 1300 cc or less will, at any rate initially, be able to claim less than the current flat-rate allowance. But I hope your Lordships will agree that it is only right that the allowance which is payable should reflect, as accurately as possible, the expenses actually incurred. Furthermore, a uniform scale for reimbursement of motoring expenses should surely be applicable to Members of both Houses. I therefore hope that your Lordships will endorse the arrangements which have been adopted in another place and which reflect the findings of an independent inquiry.
I have noted with interest the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, which would have the effect of retaining a uniform rate for all cars, of whatever size. It is perhaps only fair to the noble Lord that I should wait to hear what he has to say before responding to those amendments.
I have been reprimanded, if that is the right word, for straying out of order during the previous Statement and your Lordships all know who reprimanded me. Having been so reprimanded, I will not do it again. I

409
will not reply to each noble Lord in turn. I will, of course, reply at the end and indeed also after the amendments have been moved. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves the above proposals with respect to the rates of the car mileage allowance available to Members of this House—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 1 to the above Motion:
In paragraph (1)(a), line 2, leave out "2" and inset "1".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Viscount, who, in his usual humorous and relaxed way, has introduced what appears to be an extremely complicated piece of paper in a way which we can all understand. Although I may not succeed to the same extent, I will try to do the same with my amendments, which appear to be equally complicated. I rise to move Amendment No. 1 but, by leave of the House and, I hope, for its convenience, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 1 to 6.
Amendment No. 2: In paragraph (1)(a), line 2, leave out "in relation to the engine capacity of the vehicle used for the journey".
Amendment No. 3: In paragraph (1)(b), line 1, leave out "3" and insert "2".
Amendment No. 4: In paragraph (1)(b), line 2, leave out "in relation to that engine capacity".
Amendment No. 5: Leave out the Table and insert:

"TABLE

Mileage up to limit

Further mileage

25·9p

14·7p"

Amendment No. 6: In paragraph (3), line 2, leave out "2" and insert "1".
Noble Lords will see that Amendment No. 5 is the major amendment in this group and that the others are consequential upon it.
Before I go any further, I ought to make it plain, standing here as I do at the Liberal Front Bench, that this is not a party matter. It is a matter on which I have the support of a number of my colleagues individually, but it is not being advanced to your Lordships as a party matter and I hope other noble Lords will recognise that it ought to be a matter for freedom of voting as this House understands it.
First, may I clear away one or two misunderstandings by saying that this recommendation which is before your Lordships was not the original recommendation from the Top Salaries Review Body, which wished to have a single maximum figure within which noble Lords could claim up to the limit of their actual costs at a level of 39p per mile. The Government have not taken that on board and I am not complaining about that. There is no earthly reason why the Government should on every occasion accept the recommendations of individual review bodies.
Nor is it based on Civil Service rates either now or in the future. Indeed, it has been put to me that, if my amendment were to be carried, the rates would be lower than the appropriate Civil Service rates. I find no difficulty with that, because the need for car usage by civil servants is quite different from that of your Lordships' House. We have one purpose for using motor cars and that is to come to this House and to get home. Civil servants have to use them for business in
410
other parts of the country at different times of the day and night, and I believe that what is appropriate to them is not necessarily appropriate to us.
Nor do I accept the suggestion by the noble Viscount that, because these rates have been laid down for another place, they are necessarily applicable to us. The payment of car allowances to honourable and right honourable Members in another place is to enable them not only to get here and to get home, but also to move about their constituencies on political business. We do not have constituencies and therefore I suggest that the questions are again different. These are based very properly on figures produced by the RAC. They are not directly attributable to those figures, because the middle bracket is an average across the range for 1,300cc to 2,300cc, but they are broadly based on figures that have been put up by the RAC and therefore, in that sense, I have no quarrel with the figures which are included.
What I am questioning is the introduction of the higher band at 39p. As I said, although that is the same figure as the Top Salaries Review Body suggested, they suggested that as a maximum and not as a norm; that is, up to the level of 20,000 miles a year. I believe that in these days it behoves Members of your Lordships' House to set an example in the country. We should be seen to be economical with taxpayers' money. We should be seen to encourage the use of public transport. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the expenses form that most of us fill up, which states on the back in the notes:
"Lords are reminded that travel by road is considerably more expensive than that by public transport and are therefore urged to use public transport wherever practicable."
That is something to which we should all subscribe. Cars are a necessity for some of your Lordships, because of where you live and for other reasons, and it is proper that such noble Lords should he properly recompensed for the costs that are incurred. But the other objection that I have to raising this top band is the fact that we should also be economical in the use of scarce energy resources.
We have had some questions today on wave power. Whatever happens to that, there will be a need for many years to come for the use of hydrocarbon fuels for transport, but these, as we know, are not replaceable. Again I believe that we should be setting an example to the country in the economic use of hydrocarbon fuels. It seems to me that the Motion relating to our expenses does not make us appear to do so. Indeed, the introduction of the top band will be seen by the world outside as being the very opposite. It will be seen as encouraging noble Lords to use their cars rather than to use public transport and, moreover, to use big cars. If one were to be cynical about it, it might be suggested that the best thing that one could do in terms of getting value for money from expenses—which I am sure noble Lords are not out to do, but it may be seen like that by the outside world—would be to buy a second-hand 2,500 Rover which is about 10 years old on which the depreciation is down to virtually nothing.
It may be that people need cars for purposes other than merely to come to this House and go home again. If that is so, it is the choice of noble Lords. It seems to me that the variable cost they then pay should be

411
attributable to them. We should expect noble Lords to be able to come to this House in reasonable comfort at a reasonable speed so that they can properly carry out their duties, but I do not believe that we should be seen to be encouraging more than that.
The right honourable Leader in another place indicated the other day in a debate on the same subject that we were to be seen as in a goldfish bowl and that the world outside would monitor what we do. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a letter which appears in today's copy of The Times, which says:
"I am dismayed by the new scale of mileage allowances, detailed on page 2 of last Saturday's Times, which MPs have voted themselves. This system encourages rather than penalises the use of large capacity cars and I would suggest that this is a bad example and a retrograde step at a time when fuel conservation is supposed to be practised by the rest of the population".
The world outside is watching us, and I believe that we must be seen to be acting responsibly. No doubt we do act responsibly and no doubt we shall act responsibly, but we have to be seen to act responsibly. I believe that the Government's proposals will be seen as the opposite. It is on that simple proposition that I beg to move Amendment No. 1, having spoken to the other amendments, of which Amendment No. 5 is the kernel.
Lord Morris: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, speaks, as I do, with the comfort of comparative youth. He has not considered the vitally important point that there are many Members of your Lordships' House who are considerably older than are we who need the safety and comfort of larger capacity cars. I totally reject the case which he has just put forward.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, not only for the reasons he has so cogently put forward but also because on one occasion when a noble Baroness ran into my Ford Escort the cost was comparatively small, whereas on another occasion when I ran into a noble Lord's Rolls Bentley the cost was very large. Therefore I suggest that noble Lords should be discouraged from using Rolls Bentleys and encouraged to use Ford Escorts. For this reason, I find myself in full support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I join with him in thanking the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for putting his case so clearly but I reject his initial thesis that we have got to follow what has happened in another place. The noble Viscount and I were in the other place together for many years. I believe he will agree that the need for a car is greater in the rural rather than the urban constituency. Members of Parliament cover large distances in their cars. They have to go round their constituencies, carry people to the polls, and so on. Their need for cars is probably greater than that of Members of this House.
I am not particularly attached to a particular sum of money, but I believe that it would be better to stick to a uniform sum. We should not have a mileage allowance of up to 20,000 miles at 39p for anybody's car, because that amounts to £7,800 a year. That is a
412
great deal of money to convey any noble Lord from wherever he lives to this place during the limited period of time that the House sits. I believe, therefore, that the second as well as the first part of the noble Lord's amendment is important and that if the amendment were carried as a whole there would inevitably be a reduction in the total cost, without any undue hardship. I have heard no complaints about the existing arrangements. For many years the other place has had a uniform arrangement and for many years before that there was no car allowance at all, but that is an entirely different matter.
Secondly, it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is no such thing as a British 1300cc car. The whole of the British Leyland range is 1275cc, the Ford range is 1296cc and the Vauxhall range 1297cc.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, if I may correct the noble Lord, I have a British Leyland Maestro which is 1300cc.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, the noble Lord will find that that is just printed on the car. If he looks at the official registration and the official statistics published by the motoring organisations, the noble Lord will find that his actual engine capacity is 1275cc. The Vauxhall range is 1297cc. If one wishes to buy a certain foreign car—I shall not mention its name, in case the noble Lord might be tempted to buy it—one can buy it with an engine capacity of 1301cc. Therefore, with an increase in capacity of one-third of 1 per cent—0.03—you can get almost a 50 per cent. increase in your allowance, which does not seem to me to make very much sense.
Furthermore, in assessing the cost of motoring one has to bear in mind not merely the cost of fuel, which is what we have been talking about, since that is related to engine capacity, but the cost of other motoring expenses. Tax and parking costs are uniform, whatever the make of car. The biggest cost of motoring—insurance and depreciation—is not necessarily related to engine capacity but to a whole range of other matters. Very expensive cars can have a relatively low engine capacity.
I strongly urge noble Lords to take into account the point made so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in moving his amendment: that we should not be seen to be encouraging the use of large cars, thus attracting a greater mileage allowance. I am sure that the noble Viscount will also endorse the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that as this is a House of Lords matter we should have a free vote.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, there are three points which I should very much like to make as the member who had the rather difficult job of presiding over this small committee. First, I should like to make it clear that the committee were not invited to consider, nor did they apply themselves to, the question of what allowances should be paid to Members of your Lordships' House. They were appointed to consider the allowances which should properly be paid to Members of Parliament. They found the task exceedingly difficult and complicated to fit every kind of constituency, every kind of Member, old and young, regardless of their physical strength and

413
whether or not they have young families. It was not at all easy. They did their best and attempted to produce something which was simple and convenient and did not involve a huge amount of administrative work. They also attempted—and this is the last point I want to make—to keep their report reasonably short. I must say that we were all astonished when the Government, in publishing that report, followed that example.
I did comment to my right honourable friend the Leader of the House that it was strange to publish a report which began with the word "we" and then not to identify who "we" were. In his answer to me he pointed out that the names of the members of the committee had been omitted in the interests of brevity!
Lord Somers: My Lords, I do not want to oppose the amendment but I should like to make one point. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, quoted a passage from the instructions which said that noble Lords are urged to use public transport whenever possible. That would give rise to many difficulties. If one lives some way from a railway station, one has to make arrangements either to park or to garage one's car while one is in London, and that is not always easy. It is expensive, and it may be next door to impossible. When one gets here, of course, one has to get a taxi to the House, and taxis are getting more and more expensive every year. Therefore, I do not know that I would say that the difference in cost is all that great. However, I thought I would make that one point.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. Apart from the incidental and mildly selfish feelings which some of your Lordships may share, that there are already far too many large cars clogging up the forecourt so that those of us with cars of a more normal size often find it impossible to park, there is a far more important consideration—the British taxpayer.
The most expensive first-class return rail fare between London and Edinburgh is £104. At the mileage rate proposed for cars with engines in excess of 2.3 litres capacity, the corresponding car mileage expenses would be no less than £305.76—almost three times as much. The respective amounts for Liverpool are £60 and £150.93; for Lincoln, £41 and £105.69; for Norwich, £34.50 and £89.70; and for Cardiff, where for some reason the differential is at its narrowest, £47 and £ 113.10. This is taking the most expensive first-class rail fares as examples. When a first-class weekend return is bought—which is more often than not possible for your Lordships —the differential is even greater: over four times in all cases and over five times in the case of Edinburgh, where the weekend return rail fare is £61 in comparison with just under £306.
Lord Ross of MarnockMy Lords, would the noble Lord give way? As I look around this House I see that there are a few old-age pensioners. For them it is even cheaper by rail; it is half the price.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am very grateful for that extremely useful support. I support these amendments, but I do not think that they go far enough. The mileage figure for the first few thousand miles includes not only running costs (which is
414
reasonable enough) but standing costs: the cost of the road fund licence, the insurance, and that part of the depreciation attributable to the age of the car rather than to the mileage covered. It is quite possible that the majority of honourable Members in another place do have to buy a second car for their constituency work, especially if they represent geographically large constituencies in Scotland, the Borders, Wales, the West country, Northern Ireland and so on, where they need a car in order to keep in contact with their widely scattered constituents. But these considerations do not apply to noble Lords, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. There must be relatively few noble Lords who buy a car for the sole purpose of journeys to and from this House. That being so, is it really right that standing costs (as opposed to running costs) should be included in our mileage allowance at all?
Finally, may I point out that my brother happens to be a county councillor, and the mileage allowance to which he is entitled is 19.1p for a car of any size. This mileage allowance, I understand, applies to county councillors as well as to magistrates. Why should Members of this House be able to claim twice the mileage allowance of county councillors and magistrates? I look forward to hearing what the noble Viscount has to say on this matter.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while supporting the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, may I first make one reservation about the implications of his speech. I think it would be a pity if it were to go out from this House to the public that noble Lords simply use their cars to get from their homes to this Palace. Indeed, I am sure that many noble Lords would agree with me that their cars are frequently used to visit educational establishments and industrial establishments, to meet immigrants, and to meet various lobbies. One can also mention the number of metropolitan councils which, over the last few weeks, have asked us to go to meet them. Of course, our travel does not compare with that of a Member of Parliament in his constituency, but there is a substantial amount of travelling involved in the proper exercise of our duties in this House and the collection of material for the formation of views to be expressed here.
With that reservation I should also couple the fact that, although we are urged to use public transport rather than cars, a great deal of the public transport in this country has simply been removed. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would agree with me that in the area from which we come, not only are there no trains running in many districts but the train lines have been pulled up and the stations have been sold, so there is no chance of them being renewed. In many rural areas in this country today it is only with the use of a car that you can be mobile at all. However, I fully agree with the main points put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, particularly on the conservation issue and bearing in mind the latter years of this decade, when North Sea oil will be running out.
But there is one further issue. The noble Lord pointed out—and I agree with him completely—that this is not a party political matter; but it is a philosophical matter. Is it not obvious that the proposals which have been put forward by the Government are based

415
on the concept that those who have most capital shall be given the largest allowances and that those who have least capital shall have their allowances reduced? Is this not a philosophical issue, and is it one which this House wishes to support? I am sure that there are many noble Lords on all sides of the House who do not believe that this philosophy should go forward and have the assent of this House. I believe that this greatly strengthens the case of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, whose amendments I fully support.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I shall be brief because I know that your Lordships have much other business to transact today. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said in moving his amendment, this is not a party matter. With that we entirely agree, and I have no doubt that if the noble Lord presses his amendment to a Division noble Lords will vote as they see fit on a free vote without the imposition of any Whips.
Having said that, we have a good deal of sympathy with the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and with the particular reasons he put forward, which have been repeated by many noble Lords. There is the question of the conservation of energy and resources; the question of public expenditure; the question of how the introduction of the high mileage allowance for large cars will be seen by the public. These are questions which will all weigh with your Lordships in deciding whether or not to support the amendment.
As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the report was prepared for Members of the House of Commons who use their cars in a way that is rather different from that in which we use our cars, and there is no reason why we need necessarily follow the decisions taken in another place. We shall all be interested to hear the reply from the Leader of the House.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for all the points they have made. First, I believe it would be right to confirm that I have discussed our position on this side of the House with my noble friend the Chief Whip, and we will of course follow exactly the same procedure as the other parties and have a totally free vote. Therefore, anything that I say is not in any way meant to persuade my noble friends to support me if they feel otherwise. I should like to make that absolutely clear.
I will turn now to some of the points which have been made. My noble friend Lord Morris raised the point about the comfort of the elderly in a large car. Obviously that is a point which will weigh with your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, did not seem to give a particularly good reason against large cars. After all, he did have an option, which he did not appear to exercise: that is, not to run into any cars at all, large or small. But as he has been in the habit of doing so, perhaps it became a better reason.
The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, raised the point about a free vote and also commented that there was no particular reason why we should follow another place. The same point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. They commented that Members of another place use their cars differently, for
416
different purposes, and for constituency work, in a way that we do not. My noble friend Lord Peyton, who speaks with all the authority of the author of the scheme—even if, for reasons I did not appreciate, he was not given prime authorship when it was published— pointed out that he had been asked to look at the case for allowances for Members of another place and not for Peers.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred to the difficulty of parking cars and the expense involved. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that we should be particularly careful of the taxpayers' interests. Of course, he must be right in that regard, and I fully accept the point he made. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, seemed to introduce some political concepts into his statement which had not occurred to me. But as the noble Lord will realise, I am very much a nonpolitical animal. Nevertheless, he made it clear that he supports the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
I have to say that we have not yet discussed the amendment concerning mileage rates, which obviously we shall come to, but I must agree that these amendments would save the taxpayers' money. Although I am advocating another course, it would be quite wrong of me not to admit that, on balance, the amendments would do that. People with large cars would lose a considerable amount, and people with small cars would gain. On balance, I think there would be a saving of the taxpayers' money.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. Can he say anything in reply to my point about magistrates and county councillors, who receive only 19·1 pence per mile for a car of more than 2·3 litres compared with the 39 pence proposed by the Government?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, it was simply that the arrangements put forward for Members in another place and which we were seeking to copy here, were based on proposals made by my noble friend Lord Peyton and his committee. There are inevitably many different comparisons which can be made, and the noble Lord very properly makes yet another one.
Clearly, many of your Lordships feel that it is right not to appear to be using larger cars at this time, and to support smaller cars. That is a very proper approach; but I must say something on a rather broader front. In seeking to do my best for your Lordships and this House as far as various arrangements are concerned, it would be wrong if I did not say that it does help, from time to time, to work with another place. In some cases, it does help to follow their practices. To break away from those practices is perfectly reasonable if that is what your Lordships decide, but that does have disadvantages as well as, perhaps, an advantage on this occasion.
In my position as Leader of this House, and with the many different negotiations I have to make, it would be quite wrong of me not to register that point. But having done so I return to the point that this is entirely a matter for your Lordships personally to decide. I have made the points that I felt it right to make as Leader of the House, but I leave it entirely to your Lordships to decide what you wish.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with typical generosity the Leader of the House has mentioned that on the other side of the House as well as on this side there is to be a free vote. I welcome that most generous statement. I will deal first with the final point he made about breaking away from the practices of the Commons. I accept that the noble Viscount works hard on our behalf to ensure that we have a fair crack of the whip. But it does not seem to me that in changing on this occasion we would be doing anything other than that which was rational on the arguments which have been deployed. I am sure that can be explained to Members of another place. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in that respect, because we should make it quite clear that anything we do is no reflection on what may have been done in another place. If we were to do something different, it is because our circumstances, in respect of this particular issue, are quite different.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, about parking. Of course, we are not trying to force everyone to use public transport. We are trying to encourage people to use public transport; but it is recognised that we in this House are of different ages and of different vitalities. This bears on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. The worst accusation that has been made against me today is that I am too young. That applies only in this House: outside, my children take a very different view.
We recognise that there are many people coming to your Lordships' House who need to have adequate private transport. I do not believe that in passing this amendment we would seriously restrict the people who need that kind of transport. It is on that basis, and encouraged by the support I have received from all sides of the House, that I press my amendment.
4.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 128; Not-Contents, 64.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Aldenham, L.

De Freyne, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Diamond, L.

Amherst, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ampthill, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Annan, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Attlee, E.

Ezra, L.

Avebury, L.

Falkland, V.

Aylestone, L.

Foot, L.

Banks, L.

Gallacher, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

[Teller.]

Gosford, E.

Beswick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Birk, B.

Greenway, L.

Blanch, L.

Grimond, L.

Blease, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Haig, E.

Bottomley, L.

Hall, V.

Buckmaster, V.

Hampton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hanworth, V.

Cathcart, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Collison, L.

Hayter, L.

Craigavon, V.

Henley, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Hooson, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Howie of Troon, L.

418

Hughes, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Phillips, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ilchester, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Ingleby, V.

Rea, L.

Inglewood, L.

Renton, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Renwick, L.

Jacobson, L.

Romney, E.

Jacques, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rugby, L.

Jessel, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Kintore, E.

St. Davids, V.

Lawrence, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Leatherland, L.

Seear, B.

Listowel, E.

Seebohm, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Serota, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Somers, L.

Longford, E.

Spens, L.

Lothian, M.

Stamp, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stedman, B.

McNair, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Mais, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Marsh, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Stone, L.

Avon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mayhew, L.

Strathspey, L.

Milford, L.

Strauss, L.

Milverton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Molson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Monson, L.

Teviot, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Moyne, L.

Tranmire, L.

Mulley, L.

Underhill, L.

Newall, L.

Walston, L.

Nicol, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Norfolk, D.

Whaddon, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

White, B.

Oram, L.

Willis, L.

Pender, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Avon, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Bauer, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Boothby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Morris, L. [Teller.]

Broxbourne, L.

Northchurch, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Onslow, E.

Caithness, E.

Orkney, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Quinton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Sandys, L.

Cockfield, L.

Savile, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Selkirk, E.

Cox, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Daventry, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Denham, L.

Sudeley, L.

Denning, L.

Swinton, E.

Eccles, V.

Teynham, L.

Elton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Faithfull, B.

Torphichen, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Glanusk, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Hailsham of Saint

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marylebone, L.

Vivian, L.

Halsbury, E.

Westbury, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Killearn, L.

Wise, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Young, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.28 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I think I understood the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to say that Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 would be moved en bloc.
Lord Tordoffmoved Amendments Nos. 2 to 6: [Printed earlier: col. 409.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Tordoffmoved Amendment No. 7:
In paragraph (3), line 3, leave out "10,000" and insert "5,000".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be brief. I seek to move Amendment No. 7 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 8.
Amendment No. 8: In paragraph (3), line 4, leave out "20,000" and insert "10,000".
What I am doing here is questioning the Government on this limit of 20,000 miles for the cutoff point. It seems extremely high, as someone has already said in the earlier debate. The amount of contribution to the depreciation charges that are obtained at 20,000 miles a year is very high in relation to the total cost of the car. I should have thought that a lower figure, again, was more appropriate for your Lordships' House because of many of the suggestions that were made in the earlier debate. It is essentially a probing amendment. I should be grateful if the Government could indicate whether they will at some stage consider reducing the level. It seems to me to be excessive in relation to your Lordships' needs. I beg to move.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, clearly your Lordships' decision on the other amendments raises questions for this one as well. At this stage I should like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the arrangements that have been made so far as mileage is concerned are slightly important from the point of view of trying to make reasonable recompense for the actual costs involved. The arrangement affects that. For that reason, I should prefer to leave the matter as it stands, naturally having accepted what has been done on the other amendments. If having done that I have a chance to look into the matter against the background of the other decisions, I am perfectly prepared to do so.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
On Question, Whether the Motion, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, may I point out that there is no provision in the regulations for hire cars? There are a number of Peers who by virtue of living a great distance from an airfield, and/or age, and/or infirmity, are compelled to hire a car. Perhaps my noble friend could apply his mind to making a provision whereby the cost of hire cars in such circumstances can be defrayed.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ferrier has asked about the arrangements for Peers who are unable to drive their own cars and have to hire a car. Perhaps I may remind him that in July last year the House agreed that Members of this House who are disabled should be able to recover additional expenses for attendance at this House incurred by them on account of their disablement. These additional expenses in hiring a car can therefore, subject to the discretion of the Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses Committee, be met under the existing rules. I believe that they are now, and they certainly will be in the future.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, it is not just a question of those who are disabled having to hire a car. To give an example, I live 45 miles from Aberdeen airport, where there is only parking in the open. I can drive my car there, and, if it is not required at home, leave it there during the week between April and October. But in that part of the world I cannot possibly do so between October and April, because when I came back it would be frozen up. Therefore in the winter months I am obliged to take a taxi. I should very much like to know what the rules and regulations are.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, we can be paid for the trip there and back once a week, if one has only one car and no transport whatever otherwise than that. That applies if one has to take the car and your wife has no car to use until you return. That problem has been recognised. and there is this provision once a week. That would be fine if we could limit our trips to attend the House to only once a week. but that is not the case. I live a long way from an airport, and the second time that one makes the trip one has to pay for it oneself. I do not think that that is very logical, nor awfully just.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friend, of course this matter can he looked into again by the Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses Committee, and I will undertake that it should be. I believe that the matter has been looked at before and did not find favour on that occasion, but that does not mean that it cannot be looked at again, and that will certainly be done.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Water Supply in Wales
4.35 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement about the water supply situation in Wales which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The Statement is as follows:
"Since February of this year rainfall in the Principality has been abnormally low, and over the whole of the Welsh Water Authority area has only been 44 per cent. of the long-term average. The authority has been monitoring the water supply

421
situation carefully since Easter and taken measures to conserve stocks of water held in reservoirs by application for drought orders to reduce compensation water discharges from reservoirs and to increase abstraction from rivers. The authority has also sought to reduce consumption by banning the use of hosepipes and garden sprinklers. In spite of these measures reservoir levels have continued to fall and further action will be necessary to conserve the remaining stocks of water until there is sufficient rainfall to replenish them. Nobody can be certain when this will be, but meteorological records point to substantial rain—or so it is hoped—by the third week of October, and the WWA have formulated their emergency plans accordingly.
"The areas most seriously affected are South East Wales; Preseli, with a population of about 40,000 people; and the Lleyn Peninsula, where the influx of summer tourists more than doubles the population to about 66,000. However, the shortage of water in South East Wales gives the greatest cause for concern, because some 1 million people are involved. The WWA have therefore set up a Drought Liaison Committee for South East Wales with representatives from the local authorities, the health authorities, my department, the CBI, NFU, FUW and other bodies. The committee met last Monday when the WWA presented the facts about the supply situation and outlined their plans for meeting the shortage. In the first instance there will be a ban on the non-essential users of water such as automatic car washing plant, and a drought order has been signed to put this into effect. If the dry weather continues the WWA will then need to ensure a further reduction in consumption to about 50 per cent. of normal from 1st September. They intend to do this by shutting off supplies to domestic consumers for up to 17 hours per day; industrialists and agriculturists will be relied upon to make their own plans for reducing consumption by a similar amount. The organisations represented on the Drought Liaison Committee now have a month to consider the implications of these measures and to make their own plans accordingly. Further meetings of the committee will take place as necessary to resolve any outstanding problems before the WWA begin to shut off supplies.
"Problems of varying severity exist in other parts of the WWA area and appropriate measures are being taken to limit consumption and to make the best use of the available stocks of water. The powers available under the Drought Act 1976 are being and will continue to be used to the full, and there is close contact between the WWA and my department in order that I am kept regularly informed of the situation. Finally, I should like to pay tribute to the great efforts which are being made by WWA personnel to overcome the problems caused by the exceptionally dry weather of recent months."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for repeating the Statement. Is he aware that there is acute concern, especially in certain parts of Wales, about the effect of
422
the drought? As the Statement which he has read makes clear, south-east Wales is the area worst affected, and of course is the most populous and heavily industrialised part of Wales. Does the noble Lord agree that the position there is critical and indeed that a potentially serious public health hazard exists? Is it not the case that if we do not get rain in substantial quantities, the storage reservoirs in south-east Wales will run dry by the end of September?
The Statement refers to the Drought Act. Can the noble Lord say whether the Welsh Water Authority have submitted applications for an order under Section 2 of that Act which would enable the authority if necessary to move towards rota cuts which would enable limited supplies to last until the end of October? Is the noble Lord aware that there is great public concern about these cyclical droughts in areas of high rainfall like those in Wales? Will he say whether the Government have any long-term plans to deal with them? Can he say additionally how the Wye transfer project is working and how much longer it will take to complete? Can he confirm that after that project is completed it will make the south-east area safe for 10 years?
Finally, is the noble Lord satisfied that the Government are giving adequate financial encouragement to the Welsh Water Authority? Is it not the case that loan allocations offered by the Welsh Office to the authority have been reduced while the authority's own capital expenditure has increased? Will the Minister give an assurance that these policies, which we take to be short-sighted, will be reversed?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I also should like the thank the noble Lord for making the Statement in this House. Is he aware that the most alarming part of his Statement are the words "meteorological records point to rain by the third week of October" and the Welsh Water Authority have formulated their emergency plans accordingly? In the light of our experience is not there something to be said for drafting in Mr. Denis Howell so that we get rain rather earlier than that?
However, on a more serious note, perhaps I may say this. In view of the emergency in which we found ourselves in the long, dry summer of 1976, does not the existence of the present emergency in a land which, despite the present drought, still has a great deal of water around, point to the absence of expenditure on infrastructure and the means of taking water from the areas that have it to the areas—obviously those in south-east Wales— which are deeply affected? This is an industrial area with a high population. Does not the whole situation point to a failure to expend the necessary money to improve our infrastructure? Would the noble Lord not agree that there is something vastly wrong with the situation that Britain, which has experienced droughts of this kind before, is now in 1984 finding itself with droughts not only in Wales but in other parts of the country simply because various areas have not been linked up to enable water to be brought?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who recognise that the

423
situation in south-east Wales is very serious. It is an alarming situation at the moment as we are approaching the holiday season and there are many more tourists going into that area. Both noble Lords' questions have hinged on the question of expenditure and why this situation has come about. The noble and learned Lord mentioned the pumping stations and the laying of further pipes. I think he was really referring to a sort of grid system. Perhaps I could answer him in this way. The external financing limit of the Welsh Water Authority is the amount which the authority can raise from outside sources. This is the primary control exercised by the Government over capital expenditure of the authority. In the most recent years, the external financing limits and the extent to which they have been utilised by the authority were as follows. The limit set by the Government to the Welsh authority was £25.25 million in 1982–83 and the amount that the authority utilised was only £22.6 million. In 1983–84 they were again given £23 million and only used £18.6 million. So they have not used their full quota of finance. Therefore, they really could perhaps have done a little more.
In arriving at their capital expenditure in order to operate the pumping stations and so on—and there are many items in this—the capital expenditure plan for resources available to the authority consists not only of the external financing limit but also of the amount that they consider can be raised from the consumer charges assisted by savings that the authority have been achieving on their operating costs. By these means the authority have been able to undertake a capital expenditure programme in the past two years as follows. (I am reading out these expenses because it may sound to noble Lords as if nothing has been done and the Government have not given any money, whereas in fact the money is there.) The planned expenditure in 1982 and 1983 was £47 million. The actual expenditure in 1982–83 was £55.7 million. In 1983–84 £47 million was planned and the actual expenditure was in fact £50 million.
The noble and learned Lord mentioned a health hazard. If I may say so, the hospitals are quite safe. The sewage farms, which I think were also mentioned, as, equally, firemen, are provided under the Act with the ability to have and sustain water. The orders to which the noble Lord referred have been applied for for the south east under Section 2. So that is already in operation. There are many orders being applied for for many areas at this moment.
I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Lords. It is a very serious situation. We are hoping upon hope that by October, if not tomorrow, we shall get more rain in the south east. The situation is extremely serious.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question on a subject which was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord opposite? That is about the Wye/Usk Transfer Scheme. I recollect in 1976 urging the Welsh Water Authority to proceed with an emergency type of transfer scheme because that scheme would substantially alleviate the water shortage in a large part of South Wales. Would my noble friend please tell us whether or not that
424
scheme has now been completed? Is it now in full operation? Is he aware that that is capable of transferring very large quantities of water from the surplus areas to the shortage areas?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I know my noble friend was a great authority as regards the water authority, and specifically on the Wye transfer scheme to which he referred. The former river authorities had made a start in 1971 by seeking outline planning permission for a pumping station at Monmouth to transfer water from the Wye to the Usk. The justification for this scheme, as the noble Lord has said, was that demand for water in the area was expected to increase and supply would not be able to meet the additional demand in dry years—though it would be able to do so in wet years.
The Welsh Water Authority received outline planning permission for the pumping station at Monmouth in 1976, when they were considering a further report on the scheme. The 1976 drought emphasised the need to develop the scheme and the construction of a pipeline from Monmouth to Olway Brook was started.
My Lords, I am afraid my brief is rather faint at the moment so I shall have to confirm the names to your Lordships later. There is probably water spilt over my brier. So. if I may say so, the information is in the pipeline.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it the case that a tunnel has been erected but no pumps? What has been happening in the last six years?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I shall have to find out where the pumps have got to but I am sure they are not far away.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount will clear up one point. He gave a figure for the 1983 capital expenditure and the capital available. From the figures that the noble Viscount quoted. it seemed to me that there was a shortfall of several millions in expenditure and capital available. Has any explanation been given for this by the Welsh Water Authority?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I have not had an explanation of it as yet, but I shall certainly find out and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Soames: My Lords, all this sounds a very sorry story. Given the situation that now exists, is it out of the question that some of the water that is being sold from water authorities that have plenty to spare, I believe, to Gibraltar, might be sold to South Wales?
Viscount Long: My Lords, is my noble friend referring to water in bottled form or in barrels?
Lord Soames: In large tankers, my Lords. I am surprised that the Minister does not know.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I wonder if I might help the Minister. It is a litle hard since he is obviously not wholly conversant with the entire situation.

425
Throughout the whole of my lifetime, I have heard that at this period of the year, poor Wales is always having its water supply cut off. There have been many debates in your Lordships' House and I recall the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, describing how there was surplus water in disused pits that could be quickly and quite cheaply utilised. I also recall an occasion when we debated the reservoir that was to hold water for the Manchester area. It seems to me therefore that there must be remedies that could be brought about. May we ask that there should be an emergency debate fairly quickly when the House resumes after the recess, because this is an important matter? It comes up perennially.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Some of the pits are being used. Some cannot be used because they contain corrosive water that is damaging to machinery. But they certainly are being used and those that have not been used as yet are being brought into action.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, does my noble friend not feel that perhaps the answer might be to incorporate in Prayers in your Lordships' House a prayer for rain in South Wales?
Viscount Long: My Lords, yes. If you care to come to Prayers, no doubt we shall get them from the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Soames: My Lords, in the meantime, will the noble Viscount answer my question?
Viscount Long: My Lords, if I am right, my noble friend was referring to the exporting or importing of water?
Noble Lords: Exporting.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I am sorry but I have made clear that there are tankers— ships —carrying water in large quantities at the moment to Gibraltar. It sounds a very profitable business. However, could not some be diverted to South Wales?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am interested in my noble friend's question. I shall ask why it has not been diverted.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that when a serious situation similar to this was discussed when I was a Member of another place, one honourable Member who, I think, is now a Member of your Lordships' House, said that water is dynamite in Wales? If this goes on, it will be.
Viscount Long: My Lords, we had a debate just now on noble Lords' expenses for cars. No doubt, the Welsh contingent will be buying new cars with the money that they have got out of water sales.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is it not extraordinary that this problem should recur regularly in certain parts of the country every time we have the slightest spell of warm weather? Why do we not have a water supply system that can supply water when people need it?
426
What I cannot understand from what the noble Viscount had to say in answer to previous questions put by noble Lords was that the Welsh Water Authority has actually underspent its allocation when there is obviously a crying structural need for greater supplies of water in this part of South Wales. Can we not have an assurance that as a result of this situation —on which we are glad to learn that urgent action is being taken—an urgent study will also be made about how a recurrence can be avoided and what steps will be taken by the Welsh Water Authority and by the Government and whatever other authorities may be involved to make sure that we do not hear about this again in this House?
Viscount Long: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is quite right. I feel that there is a great deal of sympathy throughout the House on this question and the reasons why we are once again looking at restrictions and orders going out on the shortage of water. I shall inform my right honourable friend and ask him to see whether we cannot save any further situations of this kind in the future. I have to say, however, that Mother Nature does strike occasionally, say in 50 years or 100 years. It was only 1976, and now poor Wales has had a drought again. All we hope is that by the time of the next drought 500 years or 1,000 years hence, or whatever it is, we shall have the pumping station and the reservoirs situation right.
Baroness White: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that Wales does not sell water to Gibralter? That is the North-East of England. But we do sell water from the Severn Trent authority to the city of Birmingham, not Manchester. Would it be possible, and have any arrangements been made, to co-ordinate the water supply of Birmingham so that it might economise, too? Is it possible to divert anything from the Severn Trent authority to the Welsh Water Authority?
My second question is this. Is the noble Viscount aware that, as a consumer in Cardiff, I hope very much that the Welsh Water Authority will not delay too long some form of control of water consumption? It seems to me that they are being over-sanguine if they are leaving it until the begining of September.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I cannot answer on the point of how quickly any emergency can come into being. But my right honourable friend, and, indeed, as I have said, the committee working on this to find out the way to deal with the shortage of water have to come back by 1st September and will probably be back before then, because this is very serious. As to the transfer of water and selling it from one part of Wales to another, I should like to write to the noble Baroness because I could not answer at this stage.

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
4.56 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Clause 36 [Duties of custody officer before charge]:
Lord Hutchinson of Lullingtonmoved Amendment No. 78A:
Page 31, line 15, at end insert ("in the presence of a solicitor if he so requests").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is not an amendment that depends on the intervention of the Almighty for its solution. In moving the amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 81 and 85, which seek to insert similar words in similar circumstances, and also to refer, as I must, to Amendment No. 115.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me? I think that there should be the letter A after each of the numbers he has mentioned.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I am much obliged. There is an A after the Nos. 81, 85 and 115.
Amendment No. 81A: Page 38, line 35, at end insert ("in the presence of a solicitor if he so requests").
Amendment No. 85A: Page 41, line 2, at end insert ("in the presence of a solicitor if he so requests").
Amendment No. 115A: Page 55, line 3, at end insert—
("(3A) An officer of at least the rank of inspector may give a notice under subsection (3B) below if he has reasonable grounds for believing that any act likely to be done by a solicitor consulted by a person in the exercise of the right conferred by subsection (1) above—

(a) will lead to interference with or harm to evidence connected with a serious arrestable offence or interference with or physical injury to other persons; or

(b) will lead to the alerting of other persons suspected of having committed such an offence but not yet arrested for it; or

(c) will hinder the recovery of any property obtained as a result of such an offence.

(3B) A notice under this section is a notice stating the reasons why the officer wishes the solicitor to refrain from doing a specified act for a specified period not exceeding 36 hours from the relevant time.
(3C) An officer may give a notice under subsection (3B) above orally or in writing but, if he gives it orally, he shall confirm it in writing as soon as is practicable.
(3D) If a notice under subsection (3B) above is given—

(a) the detained person shall be informed of it; and

(b) it shall be noted on his custody record.

(3E) The duties imposed by subsection (3D) above shall be performed as soon as is practicable.
(3F) If the reasons for giving a notice under subsection (3B) above shall cease to subsist before the period specified in the notice has expired, the officer giving the notice shall so inform the solicitor as soon as is practicable, and thereupon the notice shall cease to have effect.
(3G) So long as a notice under subsection (3B) above remains in effect, the solicitor to whom it has been given shall not be treated as being under any duty to his client to do any act mentioned in the notice.").
This is a short but crucial amendment that to a degree foreshadows a later debate that we shall have on Amendment No. 131 of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and Amendment No. 139, to be moved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Amendment No. 131: After Clause 73, insert the following new clause:
("Improperly obtained evidence.
.—(1) If it appears to the court in any proceedings that any evidence (other than a confession) proposed to be given by the
428
prosecution may have been obtained improperly, the court shall not allow the evidence to be given unless—

(a) the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that it was obtained lawfully and in accordance with a code of practice (where applicable) issued, approved, and in force, under Part VI of this Act; or

(b) the court is satisfied that anything improperly done in obtaining it was of no material significance in all the circumstances of the case and ought, therefore, to be disregarded; or

(c) the court is satisfied that the probative value of the evidence, the gravity of the offence charged, and the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained are such that the public interest in the fair administration of the criminal law requires the evidence to be given, notwithstanding that it was obtained improperly.

(2) For the purposes of this section, evidence shall be treated as having been obtained improperly if it was obtained—

(a) in breach of any provision of this Act or of any other enactment or rule of law; or

(b) in excess of any power conferred by or obtained under this Act or any other enactment; or

(c) in breach of any provision of a code of practice issued, approved, and in force under Part VI of this Act; or

(d) as a result of any material deception in obtaining or exercising any power under this Act or any other enactment.").

Amendment No. 139: After Clause 75, insert the following new clause:
("Exclusion of unfair evidence.
.—(1) Where in any proceedings the prosecution proposes to rely on evidence which has been obtained from an accused person, the court may refuse to allow the evidence to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would be so prejudicial to the fairness of those proceedings that the court ought not to allow it to be given.
(2) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any rule of law requiring a court to exclude evidence.").
At the Committee stage—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope that I am not being a nuisance but I think that the noble Lord will agree that he will also be speaking to Amendments Nos. 116 and 118, which are part of a group and which should appear on the Order Paper at this point.
Amendment No. 116: Page 55, line 4, leave out subsections (4) to (18).
Amendment No. 118: After Clause 57 insert the following new clause:
("Questioning of arrested juveniles.
.—(1) An arrested juvenile shall only be questioned in the presence of an appropriate adult who is not a police officer subject to subsection (4) below.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, an arrested juvenile shall be entitled, if he so requests. to appoint the appropriate adult person of his choice who may be present during questioning in accordance with subsection (1) above.
(3) An 'appropriate adult person' may include any person so informed under section 55 of this Act, or any person so informed under section 54 of this Act, or any solicitor.
(4) Where any such adult persons are unavailable or unavailable within reasonable time, any other adult person who is not a police officer must be present in accordance with subsection (1) above.").
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, that is so. I am much obliged. At the Committee stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that this, in his opinion, was the most important part of the Bill because it introduces a new concept into English law, the statutory power to detain someone simply for the purpose of questioning him, that is, to detain him in

429
custody in order that he may be questioned. Your Lordships know that on Clause 36(2) we were involved mainly at the Committee stage with the words,
"to obtain such evidence by questioning him".
Your Lordships decided on a Division to retain those words, and this amendment adds to them, at the end of subsection (2):
"in the presence of a solicitor if he so requests".
Amendments Nos. 81A and 85A say the same thing in relation to later stages, when permission has been given for later and further and extended custody.
I should like to emphasise, particularly for those noble Lords who are not lawyers and are genuinely concerned to see, in no party way, that the balance between giving the police essential powers and preserving human rights is properly kept, what exactly this clause is providing in the way of powers. It means that a suspect who has the fundamental right that we have already heard so much about—the privilege against self-incrimination; that is, the right of silence—may be detained in a police station in order to be questioned so that evidence can be obtained from him; in other words, using ordinary language, in order to try to get him to confess, to get him to make an admission.
I am sure all your Lordships would agree that, with this Bill giving that power statutorily for the first time, if ever safeguards were paramount they are paramount in such circumstances. The essential safeguard that this amendment seeks to provide is the central one that if he is to be interrogated then it should be done in the presence of a solicitor if he wishes to have one. No doubt other noble Lords, who I hope will support this amendment, will put forward further reasons, but for me the essential reason for having a solicitor is this. Over recent years there has been a steady series of unacceptable miscarriages of justice. These miscarriages of justice have besmirched the fair face of the criminal justice system, and they are of the deepest concern to all those concerned with the criminal law; particularly, if I may say so, to those who have the responsibility of prosecuting in Her Majesty's courts.
These miscarriages of justice have come to light, not through the appeal courts but through outside agencies, and, above all, through the activities of Justice, the British section of the International Commission of Jurists. As your Lordships know, at the moment the chairman is my noble friend Lord Foot. They have come to light through the activities of Justice in particular, but also through the activities of various media organisations and through individuals such as Mr. Ludovic Kennedy; and on a number of occasions purely and simply because someone has come forward and confessed to a crime for which another person has been convicted and is serving a sentence of imprisonment.
What has been the common denominator of these miscarriages of justice? In almost every single one, for some reason or other, there have been false confessions, false admissions. I am not going to enumerate a large number of them, but your Lordships will be familiar with the very latest one, the case of Mycock, which only last week was decided by the Court of Appeal on a reference, the Court of Appeal having dismissed the appeal 16 years ago. That
430
appeal has now been allowed. That defendant has been in prison for 16 years. The appeal was allowed on the basis that the scientific evidence was no longer reliable. But in that case there was a confession. Of course, it is not on the basis that the confession was false that the appeal has been allowed, but the fact of the matter is that the confession must have been false.
Other cases include the Confait case, which has given rise to the whole of this Bill and is the reason that we are here. In that case, Sir Henry Fisher found that the questioning of one of the accused was unfair and oppressive. As your Lordships well know, in the Evans case a man was hung because he made a confession which after his death was discoverd to be a false confession. The case of Patrick Meehan is another instance where there were malpractices in the investigation in the police station; and your Lordships will know about the Luton murders, referred no less than five times to the Court of Appeal. In that case, statements and the contents of the statements were suppressed in the police station.
These miscarriages of justice surely must come to an end. They all have this common denominator, that if those accused persons had had a solicitor present when they were in the police station, in custody, probably none of those miscarriages of justice would have taken place. I know that my noble friend Lord Foot can speak with much more authority than me about the many other miscarriages which Justice have brought up over the last 10 or 12 years, nearly every one of them due to false confessions.
It will be said—it has already been said—that the code and Clause 57 of the Bill give a statutory right to legal advice. It is excellent that this Bill provides statutorily for that. But, of course, that same right can be removed and suspended at the say-so of the police if certain conditions are fulfilled. The right is nothing new. For a long time there has been the right, under the Judges' Rules, to legal representation in these circumstances. But, again, in the Judges' Rules power is given to the police to suspend the right in certain circumstances. It is that suspension that has given rise to many of these false confessions. At the moment, in the Bill, the right can be suspended if a senior police officer—I welcome that, because before it was any police officer—has reason to believe that harm might come to evidence, that other suspects might be alerted or that the recovery of property might be hindered. These are all reasons which can so easily be invoked in almost every serious case where a person is charged.
Why should this amendment not be accepted by the Government? At the Committee stage the noble Lord the Minister conceded that there was a strong case for an unqualified right to legal representation. He pointed out that it exists in many other Western countries. The Royal Commission found that the argument was finely balanced between the two views, as to whether or not there should be power to suspend the right. In the end, the Royal Commission came down in favour of that power being granted but said the officer involved should be no lower in rank than a sub-divisional commander.
The noble Lord the Minister said in Committee that the only reason for retaining this power to suspend the right was the risk of inadvertent damage being done, not by a dishonest solicitor but by an ordinary,

431
straightforward, honest solicitor who might inadvertently give information which it was crucial should not go outside the police station. We deal with that matter in Amendment No. 115A. Your Lordships will see when we come to deal with that amendment that we have set out a code whereby the solicitor can be formally asked by the officer in the police station and there will be set down what it is that the officer requests the solicitor not to do or not to divulge, or the person with whom he is not to get in touch.
So the situation will be perfectly clear to the solicitor when he goes into the police station and when he is present during the interrogation. I am thinking particularly of those rare occasions when, for example, there is concern about tipping off another alleged co-defendant or—to take the example which the noble Lord the Minister put forward in Committee —there could be a kidnap case in which the kidnapped person might be murdered if information got out. In those circumstances there is not a solicitor in the country who would not of course observe the officer's request. That is set out in Amendment No. 115A, and I suggest that it is the complete answer to what has been put forward as the only reason for not giving this right to a person who is in custody in the police station.
It would mean of course that the solicitor would bear and carry the responsibility. The solictor is an officer of the court, as are members of my own profession, and day in and day out we have to make decisions as regards which very often we have to put considerations of justice above our duty to our client. It is not a decision which is particularly difficult to reach. We have to make it over and over again. It is very like the type of decisions that doctors have to make in certain circumstances. Indeed, it is like the decisions that all professsional men have to make. Solicitors are covered by disciplinary rules and regulations in the same way as police officers are covered. This Bill is put forward on the basis that police officers act honestly and that if they do not do so they are liable to disciplinary sanctions. They are dealt with in the same way as solicitors.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, have all shown concern about what happens to young people, children and those who are in any way mentally unwell, when they are taken to a police station. They were concerned that all of them ought to have an adult with them when they are questioned. I support that proposition 100 per cent. But I would point out to them and to those who are to support them in their amendments, that the suspect—who in many, many cases is inadequate, fearful and so on—is just as much in need of protection in many cases as are those particular classes of people. Therefore, for those reasons I beg to move this amendment and I ask your Lordships to support it.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I am against the amendment. I can understand the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Huthchinson about cases which have arisen of late in which men have been shown to have been wrongly convicted, and there is also the question of confessions. That, I suggest, has nothing to do with the present clause or amendment. I trust that the
432
confessions will be dealt with when we discuss the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and the other amendments which deal with that matter later.
At the moment we are considering the case of a serious crime when the police do not know who committed it and they want to find out, investigate and to make inquiries all round. How far are they to be trammelled by the thought: is the man who they have before them to be able to notify his solicitor and to have his solicitor present, when there is a danger that, if that solicitor is alerted—it may be quite innocently—that solicitor or his clerk may tell other people where the stolen goods are or where the money has gone or they may alert the witnesses, and so on?
There is a good illustration, as I said previously in Committee, in the case of Houghton. In that case £2.5 million was stolen from Heathrow and there was a reward offered of £125,000. A man named Houghton wished to get that reward and he went to the police and said, "I can tell you something about that. I can tell you that £½million of it went to Ireland". The police were most interested. They asked him to make a statement, and he did so. It turned out that the police were a little suspicious because he knew a little too much about it—was he perhaps one of the accomplices himself? So they cautioned him, they took his statement and they did not tell any of his accomplices about it. They did not tell his solicitor. They kept it all to themselves and they kept him incommunicado while they followed up the leads. Those leads led them to Dublin and I think that eventually they got the
£½million back.
Then the question arose before the court as to whether the police had acted properly or improperly and whether indeed Houghton ought to have been questioned in the way in which he was questioned. Lord Justice Lawton in giving the judgment of the court approving, in effect, what had been done by the police—not the law of it—said:
"there was a danger that if Houghton had been allowed visitors whilst at the police station he could have got them to collect the money for him and put it in a place where the police could not get it. A solicitor could have been an innocent channel of communication for this purpose".
It is well known that the criminal fraternity in this country have access to solicitors and it is quite right that they should do so. Many solicitors have clients throughout the criminal fraternity and it is quite right that they should do so. But if a solicitor is told, "Your client Houghton is being detained. He wants to come and see you, but I must give you a notice that I cannot allow it; it is too dangerous", and if it is listened into by his clerk on the telephone or by anyone else, is there not a danger that most important information will be conveyed to accomplices and that other people may be alerted and may make their escape? Is there not a danger of witnesses not appearing? In serious cases of this kind, there is a real danger. I say nothing against the solicitor because he will be honourable and right. He belongs to a profession on which I have placed the greatest value throughout my professional career.
However, there is a danger in these serious cases that, if the police are bound to communicate with the solicitor, somehow or other the information may get round to the accomplices and all the efforts of the police may be thwarted in that way. The safeguard

433
against that is given in the clause itself as it stands. The man is entitled to
a solicitor; he is entitled to consult him, save when a superintendent or an officer of higher rank is quite satisfied that that right ought to be held up for a time because of the danger of witnesses diappearing and the money getting away, and all the dangers which such publicity would give to the cause of justice. I suggest that it is one of those cases which illustrates the importance in this day of the investigation of offences and their detection being given priority. For that reason the superintendent or higher rank should be authorised to say, "You will be allowed to see your solicitor, but not for the moment. There are too many dangers involved, and we must continue to make our investigation". On the whole, although it is a most important point, I would be against the amendment.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is indeed an important matter, and all of us will be glad to have had the benefit of the advice of the noble and learned Lord. Possibly it is fitting at this moment that a solicitor stands before your Lordships in order to give another point of view. In the Bill as it stands, this is what we are doing. I ask your Lordships not to think the whole time of a crime similar to that to which the noble and learned Lord referred us, involving millions of pounds worth of gold, or whatever it may be, and obviously being a classic crime of the highest order. Here, under the Bill as it stands, we are considering a serious arrestable offence. We had trouble with the definition of "serious arrestable offence", and the noble Lord the Minister found that he could not give way in regard to the major criticisms that we then made of it. One of the definitions of a "serious arrestable offence" is an offence which, in the view of the police officer concerned, causes a serious financial loss to someone. As we explained, the serious financial loss could be to the widow who has been robbed of her mite; it could be the pettiest theft, but it would still be a serious arrestable offence. It would be something that offended against the conscience of everyone of your Lordships, but obviously when it came before the court it would not be a case of the category to which the noble and learned Lord referred.
Before I dispose of that part of the argument, with the greatest possible respect to the noble and learned Lord, may I raise this point. The noble and learned Lord paid a compliment to my profession, which indeed has always honoured him, and honoured him especially in regard to the care that he took of that profession when he was Master of the Rolls. Referring to the very case which the noble and learned Lord quoted, what does one think a solicitor would have done had he come along at the very moment after this man had been detained at a police station? He was a man who subsequently confessed anyway; and one must not take it for granted that force or some other improper means were used. The noble and learned Lord did not include that dramatic matter in the story; if he had, with his usual wonderful way of telling a story I have no doubt that we would all have appreciated it.
What member of my profession, worthy of his salt, on being told by that man what he in fact told the
434
police, would not have advised that his best course was as soon as possible to say all that he knew about the matter and to ensure (as was the case here without the solicitor) that the gold, or whatever it was, was recovered, so that the solicitor, with counsel helping, might do his best for his client in a plea of mitigation? I know of no member of my profession who would not have given that advice, and the end was the same, except that the confession came after some 90-odd hours, whereas the confession might have come 24 hours afterwards if a solicitor, an honourable member of my profession, had been consulted. Therefore, I beg the noble and learned Lord not to use the great weight of his prestige and experience in putting that as a case which ought to persuade your Lordships that the right to see a solicitor should be postponed.
Having said that, let us take it for granted that we are dealing with someone who is innocent. In the Bill as it stands, that person, by way of detention, can be held for 96 hours. In certain circumstances, for up to 36 hours his relatives and friends cannot be told that he is even in a police station. Again, in certain circumstances that same man can be deprived of seeing a solicitor for 36 hours. What are we doing in this legislation in regard to the freedom of the subject? It may be of assistance to the policec—and we want to assist the police—but is not too much assistance being given to the police in these matters and too little to the individual who is scared inside a police station? I put it perfectly bluntly to your Lordships: he is scared out of his life, with no chance of finding out his legal rights, with no chance of even his family knowing that he is there. These are the rights that we are giving to the police.
However, let us concentrate on the solicitor. I agreed with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said. He was right to bring before your Lordships the need to have a solicitor available to an accused as soon as is practicable. In sheer honesty I must say to him that when he talks about the notice contained in Amendment No. 115A, my own profession has the gravest misgivings about the duty that would be cast upon its members if such a notice was served, and where their duty was split they would find it an undesirable precedent. According to my memory, the last line of that amendment says that during the currency of the notice the solicitor's duty to his client is suspended. That is an innovation in our law which my profession would regard as an inroad into their duties and privileges and which they would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to accept. But that does not mean that the spirit of this amendment is not right.
In conclusion, I would make an appeal to the noble Lord the Minister. I speak on behalf of the Law Society, and I have authority to do so. The Law Society is very worried about the hold-up of 36 hours. It feels that the police—with some justification from the police point of view—may really hold matters up because they believe that once a solicitor comes along it will not be so easy to obtain the confession that they would rather like to obtain. From their point of view that will be a sufficient justification. The Law Society is worried about this in the interests of justice; it is worried about it in the interests of the fairness of the administration of justice.

435
There should be a formula which covers the anxiety of the noble Lord the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, and which also protects the concern of the Law Society. I beg the noble Lord the Minister to allow an opportunity to occur between now and Third Reading for such a formula to be worked out with the Law Society. I ask him to make those facilities available. If such a formula can be discussed I hope it will be considered at the highest level—and that may enable a compromise solution to be before your Lordships at Third Reading.
The worst that could happen would be that if those discussions failed and a formula was not found acceptable to the noble Lord the Minister or his right honourable friend then your Lordships might consider such amendment as the Law Society might authorise me to put down before your Lordships.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Foot: My Lords, I intervene in this debate with some hesitation because I had come here intending to make a speech along certain lines. It has become unnecessary for me to do that in view of the admirable way in which this amendment and the other amendments which are connected with it were put to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I wanted to take the opportunity to try, if I can (I do this with the greatest possible temerity) to deal with two points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
I have no qualifications that one could compare with his in any way, but I have a qualification which, in connection with this amendment, is perhaps of some virtue and consequence; that is that I am a solicitor by occupation. I have spent the greater part of my professional life in the courts and in criminal matters. Therefore I have the benefit of some experience.
The other qualification I have which is purely adventitious is the one that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was good enough to refer to. That is that I am currently chairman of the council of Justice.
Although I have played no part in it myself, I am proud of the record of Justice over the years in turning up the cases of miscarriages of justice which have occurred. That task was undertaken for many years by the secretary of Justice, Tom Sargant. Many people owe their liberty today to the investigations that he made on their behalf.
It is perfectly correct that over the years Justice has been able to bring cases back to the Court of Appeal or to the Home Secretary and has had miscarriages of justice put right. But one wonders how many other cases are there where people are incarcerated, and may have been incarcerated for many years, on the basis of a confession, and sometimes only on the basis of confessions. It is an appalling thought that that state of affairs may exist to this day. That is why it is of prime importance that we should consider every possible way in which we can avoid these false confessions being made. The most certain way of avoiding that is to make sure that when a person is interrogated by the police, and when they are seeking to get a confession, that person has a solicitor by his side.
The importance of that is declared perfectly clearly
436
in the first subsection of Clause 57 where it says in ringing terms:
"A person arrested and held in custody in a police station or other premises shall be entitled, if he so requests, to consult a solicitor privately at any time".
I am bound to say that I was saddened and astonished to hear the noble and learned Lord say at the beginning of his speech that he thought that there was no connection between this amendment to provide the services of a solicitor to a person in police custody and false confessions. I should have thought that the whole history of all the cases of false confessions is a history of something being extracted from some person when he is in the custody of the police and when he is not defended or helped in any way. That is how it comes about-It astonishes me to hear the noble and learned Lord asserting that there is no connection between the two.
The noble and learned Lord's second point was that unless we allow the Bill to stand as drafted if one brought a solicitor in, and allowed a man to see a solicitor and get advice before he had been interrogated by the police, there was a risk: not that the solicitor would take part in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or pass on information to one of his confederates, but the risk was, according to the noble and learned Lord, that the solicitor might inadvertently convey to some outside party something that the police thought it necessary for them not to know. I cannot think that the noble and learned Lord has read Amendment No. 115A, the proposed amendment to Clause 57 which is the clause dealing with access to legal advice.
I shall briefly explain to the House what that amendment provides. We readily accept what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, at Committee stage upon this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has already referred to this; but I should like to quote in fairly full detail what Lord Elton said at that time. The noble Lord was talking about this subject, the risk of a solicitor interviewing a man in custody and then conveying some information to his confederates outside. What he said was this:
"I should like to ensure at once that there is no misunderstanding on one important point. The only reason for delaying access to a legal adviser concerns the risk that he would, either intentionally or, as in the example I have already given, and much more frequently, inadvertently convey information to confederates still at large which would undercut the investigation in progress and possibly imperil life. It is these considerations alone which lie behind subsections (5) to (9) of Clause 54."
It is not now Clause 54, but I believe it is Clause 57. The quotation continues:
"What a suspect's legal adviser says to him can never be a ground for delaying a consultation between them."
That is accepted.
"Delay can be authorised only on the basis of what the legal adviser might then do, once the consultation has been completed."
I will not weary the House with too much of this, but the noble Lord went on to say this:
"There may or may not be dishonest solicitors. I would be surprised if there were not, but I would not wish to repose much on it. It is certainly true that if the police suspect a solicitor of obstructing the course of justice they should acquire the evidence on which to act, whether by way of a prosecution or complaint to the Law Society."—[Official Report, 9/7/1984; cols. 641–642.]
What the amendment proposes is that when a man in custody—in detention, not yet charged; a

437
suspect—requests to see a solicitor, he should be afforded the opportunity of speaking to a solicitor before anything else happens. Clause 57 goes on to say that there are, nevertheless, two circumstances in which he shall not be allowed to see a solicitor at all. One is where it is not practicable to get a solicitor there in time and the other is where the course of justice might be perverted by some communication—inadvertent as the noble Lord conceded—being made to outside people. I say in passing that the professional criminal who is well aware of his rights is not going to be embarrassed in any way by being told that he cannot have the help of a solicitor. It is the chap who is not a professional criminal, it is the chap who, possibly for the first time, is being subjected to arrest and detention and who is in a state (as one can well imagine) of considerable alarm who is the person most in need of the assistance of a solicitor.
What does the Bill propose? It proposes that where the police think that there is a danger that if a man sees a solicitor the solicitor may, intentionally or inadvertently, disclose something to the outside world, then, subject to certain safeguards, they can delay the calling of a solicitor. That is what the Bill proposes. What Amendment No. 115A proposes is that if a police officer in charge of a case is of the opinion that it is risky to call in a solicitor, nevertheless, he should call in the solicitor and before the solicitor sees the client he should say to him, "The thing that we are worried about is this. We think that if this chap is allowed to communicate anything to the outside world that may pervert the course of justice, it may upset our inquiries, it may interfere with our inquiries, it may enable people to escape or enable people to hide the loot. All sorts of things can happen".
What the amendment provides is that if the police officer is of that opinion he should then serve a notice upon the solicitor saying, "The reason why we do not want you to disclose anything that you may be told by this man or even the fact that he is in custody is so-and-so. We are serving you now with a notice telling you that and telling you what we do not want to have disclosed". What then is the position on which the solicitor stands on the assumption that he is a honourable man and on the assumption that he is not intending to pervert the course of justice?
A solicitor—and one always says this with a little pride—is an officer of the Supreme Court. His first obligation is to the court, his first obligation is to justice. His obligations to his client are subsidiary to that in so far as they cannot be reconciled. I suggest that the solicitor, faced with such a notice, is in no difficulty whatever. He can make up his own mind as to whether he thinks the notice is justified. If he concludes that it is justified, then I should have thought he will invariably observe it, and he will not allow himself to be used to pervert the course of justice. lf, on the other hand, he thinks that the notice is wholly unreasonable, if he thinks that the delay which is imposed is wholly unreasonable, if he thinks it is unjustified and that the notice is a piece of bureaucratic interference, then what he can do—and he takes the risk of doing this—is to say, "No! I am going to exercise my independent judgment". If as a result of that something goes wrong, then he will be answerable not only to his own profession—not only
438
to his own professional body—but he may be answerable to the courts. That is what Amendment No. 115A seeks to do.
I fail to comprehend how it comes about that the noble and learned Lord can still think that there is any serious danger of there being an inadvertent disclosure by a solicitor in those circumstances—because he will have the fullest possible notice of the things that he must not do. I have spoken for much longer than I intended. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hutchinson that this is the most crucial part of this Bill. We are dealing here with a matter of the rights of the individual when he is at his most desperate and in terror. If it be right that, by the instrument of Amendment No. 115A, we can resolve that difficulty, can protect the rights of the individual and at the same time protect the powers of the police that their cases shall not he upset by wrong disclosure—if we can achieve those two things, as I think we can by Amendment No. 115A—then surely we ought to jump at the opportunity to do so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place at the very moment when the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, opened the amendment? However, this is an amendment on which I wish to intervene very briefly. First of all, to be fair about this, as I understood him, surely the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was really only seeking to point out that there were other amendments which were designed to avoid false and unreliable confessions. In no way did the noble and learned Lord suggest that we were not concerned with an important safeguard. Where I respectfully differ from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is that this is one of those safeguards which it seems to me impinges upon the rights of the subject. It is "access to legal advice".
If we are going to have any form of codification—and as I understand that is what this Bill is about—surely in some form we must grasp this nettle. The question to your Lordships is surely not, "Shall we forget about it?" and not, "Shall we pretend that there is no nettle?" but, "What shall we do about it?" This is where I find—as so often I find—the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, all but compelling. One appreciates some of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, but one has to set against them the very telling points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. His suggestion that an attempt should be made to find some acceptable formula is surely irresistible. We are apparently unlikely to find it tonight because, with respect, it is wholly unrealistic as I see it to seek to discuss this run of amendments without taking into full account all the implications of Amendment No. 115A. My information this morning at 8.30 was that the Law Society supported Amendment No. 115A, and that was confirmed, as I understood it, by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I heard, and I always accept what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says—and he shakes his head—
Lord Foot: My Lords, may I intervene, because the noble Lord may be pursuing a misconception? What view the Law Society took of the matter at 8.30 this

439
morning is something of which I am ignorant. I did not express any opinion, I think, as to what the view of the Law Society was then or is now.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I hear what he says; but Hansard I think will reveal—and if it is a misunderstanding, so be it—that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said that he had the support of the Law Society. Whether it does or does not, I accept wholly the noble Lord's—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me, as he always does with such courtesy, to make the position abundantly clear? I speak with the full authority of the Law Society, which I consulted very fully yesterday. They cannot be in favour of Amendment No. 115A. I am authorised to say that and I have said it very clearly and deliberately, but that does not mean that they are not in complete sympathy with the spirit of this amendment—namely, that there should be the right to consult a solicitor as soon as practicable.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord's intervention because this illuminates the attitude of the Law Society which is now totally clear, totally on the record, and not in doubt in any way. It is one which I support myself. What it comes to is that we cannot accept Amendment No. 115A as it stands and there is a problem of genuine concern which we need time to work out.
In a constructive vein, I would merely suggest that my noble friend the Minister, having listened to a very short but to the point discussion on this subject, might afford us the opportunity needed to allow this important aspect of the codification of the rights of the subject to be considered and formulated in an appropriate way.
In saying that, one surely has to accept that one cannot have one form of procedure in this regard for one type of criminal offence and another for another type of criminal offence. We cannot have one form of procedure for one type of suspect—the old lag—and another type of procedure for the other type of suspect. We certainly cannot have a varying procedure as between one type of solicitors and another. It must be generic, one must strike a mean and one cannot erect partitions such as this without reflecting discretionary decisions which have to be taken by the police in circumstances which might well endanger police-community relations and might well mitigate against the liberty of the subject.
In all those circumstances, it is right—is it not?—that one should see to it that whatever else one does, one does not impose an intolerable and unacceptable burden upon the police. But on the other hand, in the codification, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, some formula must be found to recognise this right and to codify it.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, we are, as I understand it, discussing Amendment No. 78A, which is to Clause 36, where a person is arrested for an offence without a warrant or under a warrant not endorsed for bail. I feel very stongly that the rights of
440
the individual come in here. I think it is very, very important that an individual who is apprehended and is at a police station should have equal rights with somebody who is before the magistrates or in a higher court—that is, in a court of law. For some time we have had court solicitors, and if any body who was not represented wanted to have some legal advice, we would put that case back so that he could have perhaps 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour to get the help of a legal adviser. If that can be done in court, I personally think it is absolutely right that if an individual is taken to a police station in the circumstances which have already been described, at a certain point—whatever that point is, whether it should be laid down by legislation or whether it should be at the instance of the superintendent or head of that police station—he should be entitled to have legal representation. I would go along with that.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am sorry to have to disagree with my noble and learned friend Lord Denning but I am very glad to join others in supporting this series of amendments, which I think are very important. I hope the Government will accept them, above all in view of the most comprehensive safeguards now contained in Amendment No. 115A, which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has explained to us so helpfully. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just told us, may I say that when I telephoned a representative of the organisation Justice at about quarter past six yesterday evening, I was given to understand that the Law Society had come round to accepting this series of amendments. It would appear that perhaps they have gone back on that. Nevertheless, I am not certain that the Law Society's present views are necessarily their last word on the subject.
I would agree that, in the absence of the safeguards contained in Amendment No. 115A, there would certainly be room for argument over the merits of the first of these amendments. However, with the safeguards contained in Amendment No. 115A, I would submit that our case is a cast iron one, at least if one considers that protecting the rights of the innocent should be our prime consideration.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, may I just make one point on this subject? We in this House are in great danger with the Bill of getting to a position where we say that in theory a subject has the right to silence, in theory he has the right to consult a solicitor, but in practice we make sure he does not.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying how glad I am to see the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, fit and well and with us again. I must say that I was tempted to hope that his convalescence would last another 24 hours, but I put that unworthy thought behind me.
Secondly, may I correct an error? I inadvertently put on the record that the group of amendments which your Lordships agreed we are speaking to finishes not with Amendment No. 119 but Amendment No. 118. I had it wrongly marked in manuscript, but your

441
Lordships will see that Amendment No. 119 belongs there and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, helpfully semaphored that information to me earlier.
Amendment No. 119: After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984
.—(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 13 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984:—
"13A.—(l) A person arrested under section 12(1) above, or arrested or detained under a power contained in an order made under section 13 above shall be informed at once that, subject to the following provisions of this section, he is entitled, if he so requests, to consult a solicitor privately at any time.
(2) A request under subsection (1) above and the time at which it was made shall be recorded in the custody record.
(3) If a person makes such a request, he must be permitted, subject to the following provisions of this section, to consult a solicitor as soon as practicable.
(4) In any case he must be permitted to consult a solicitor within 48 hours from the relevant time as defined in section 39(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or, if he has been detained at a place other than a police station, from the time at which he arrived at that place.
(5) Delay in compliance with a request is only permitted if an officer of at least the rank of superintendent authorises it.
(6) An officer may given an authorisation under subsection (5) above orally or in writing but, if he gives it orally, he shall confirm it in writing as soon as is practicable.
(7) An officer may only authorise delay where he has reasonable grounds for believing that the exercise of the right conferred by subsection (1) above at the time when the person detained desires to exercise it—

(a) will lead to interference with or harm to evidence connected with an act of terrorism or interference with or physical injury to other persons; or

(b) will lead to the alerting of other persons suspected of having committed an act of terrorism but not yet arrested for it; or

(c) will hinder the recovery of any property obtained as a result of such an act; or

(d) will lead to interference with the gathering of information about the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; or

(e) by alerting any person, will make it more difficult—

(i) to prevent an act of terrorism; or

(ii) to secure the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.

(8) If delay is authorised—

(a) the detained person shall be told the reason for it; and

(b) the reason shall be noted on his custody record.

(9) The duties imposed by subsection (8) above shall be performed as soon as is practicable.
(10) There may be no further delay in permitting the exercise of the right conferred by subsection (1) above once the reason for authorising delay ceases to subsist.
(11) If an officer of appropriate rank has reasonable grounds for believing that, unless he gives a direction under subsection (12) below, the exercise by a person of the right conferred by subsection (1) above will have any of the consequences specified in subsection (7) above, he may give a direction under that subsection.
(12) A direction under this subsection is a direction that the person desiring to exercise the right conferred by subsection (1) above may only consult a solicitor in the sight and hearing of a qualified officer of the uniformed branch of the force of which the officer giving the direction is a member.
(13) An officer is qualified for the purpose of subsection (12) above if—

(a) he is of at least the rank of inspector; and

(b) in the opinion of the officer giving the direction he has no connection with the case.

(14) An officer is of appropriate rank to give a direction under subsection (12) above if he is of at least the rank of Commander or Assistant Chief Constable.
(15) A direction under subsection (12) above shall cease to have effect once the reason for giving it ceases to subsist.".").
All the amendments in the group which comprise
442
Amendments Nos. 78A, 81A, 85A, 115A, 116 and I now, chastened, admit 119, all aim to confer an absolute right to legal advice on all those in police detention. The only exceptions to the rule would be those detained in connection with terrorism. May I first remind your Lordships that the Bill establishes in our law for the very first time a statutory right of access to legal advice which will be an absolute right for all those detained other than in connection with serious arrestable offences.
This is a new and important safeguard to the civil rights of suspects. The right becomes absolute for those suspected of serious arrestable offences at the end of 36 hours. This debate therefore comes down to one question: where should the line be drawn between cases where delay is available and cases where it is not? We all agree that delay should not be available in cases of less serious crime. We are all agreed that it should be available in the case of terrorist crime, and the noble Lords have that recorded in their amendment later on.
What is at issue is the cases in between, cases involving serious arrestable offences. Like the Royal Commission, we believe that delays should in those cases be available. Unlike the Royal Commission, the noble Lords opposite believe that it should not. We cannot discuss the noble Lord's proposal out of context, and the proper context, which has been referred to, is the array of safeguards which the Bill as already drafted activates whenever a decision to delay access to a solicitor is taken.
Let us consider what these safeguards are, and how they will work. As your Lordships will know, under the law at present access to a solicitor may be denied to a person in custody on suspicion of any offence for any length of time on the authority of an officer of any rank on criteria less precise than those in the Bill. The first of the new safeguards applied to that situation is that under Clause 55 delay will be possible only for, at the most, 36 hours in the case of serious crime and on the authorisation of an officer of at least the rank of superintendent, which is higher than that proposed in the amendment.
He cannot make his decision on a hunch or a whim. He will have to have reasonable grounds for believing that access to a solicitor will lead to one of the consequences listed in subsection (7). Moreover, he must inform the detained person of the reason why he has reached this conclusion. Nor will such reasons be left to recollection; they will be a matter of record. They must be noted in the custody record, which will subsequently be available to the person concerned; so there is a clear provision for challenging a decision to delay access to legal advice.
The Bill also makes provision for the establishment of duty solicitor schemes under the Legal Aid Act so that detained persons who want legal advice, at whatever time of day or night, will be able to obtain it. Nor can access to legal advice any more be denied by default. Section 6 of the draft detention code of practice also requires each detained person to be informed at the outset, both orally and in writing, of his right to legal advice. Again, the decision not to allow legal advice will be a matter of specific record. Section 6 requires the police to ask him, if he does not want to take up his right, to waive it in writing. The code goes on to
make it clear that a person may have

443
his solicitor present at the interview and that only actual misconduct on the solicitor's part will allow the police to require him to leave.
I have given that discursus having in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said a moment ago: that we are concerned with what will happen in practice. This is what will happen in practice where access to a solicitor is granted, as it will be in the overwhelming majority of cases, and what will happen in the few cases where it will not.
I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, reminded us, that there is a strong case in principle for an unqualified right of access to legal advice. Such rights do exist in many other Western countries and many bodies which gave evidence to the Royal Commission argued for such an unqualified right. Their arguments, like those of the noble Lord, carry great weight. But, of course, the Royal Commission did not feel able to accept those arguments because they feared the practical consequences for the investigation of serious crime that we fear. Clause 57 basically gives effect to the Commission's recommendations; namely, that while there should be a statutory right of access to legal advice, the existing wide discretion to delay access to legal advice should be retained, even if more strictly regulated and narrowed, and should be placed on a statutory basis. That is what is in the Bill.
Let there be no misunderstanding on one important point. The only reason for delaying access to a legal adviser is the risk that he would, either intentionally or inadvertently, convey information to confederates still at large which would undercut the investigation in progress. It is these considerations which lie behind subsections (5) to (9) of Clause 57. What a suspect's legal adviser says to him can never be a ground for delaying a consultation between them. Delay can be authorised only on the basis of what the legal adviser might then do once the consultation has been completed. Indeed, Annex B to the code makes it quite clear that access to a solicitor may not be delayed because he may advise the person not to answer questions. So the provisions in Clause 57 enabling the police to delay such consultations are not concerned with any anxiety arising from the giving of legal advice: they are simply a special case of the provision in Clause 55, enabling the police to hold a suspect temporarily incommunicado.
The arguments are all set out very clearly in paragraphs 86 to 93 of Chapter 4 of the Commission's report, and I do not wish to add much to them. The Commission inferred that solicitors might, on occasion, knowingly alert criminals to the fact that there was a police inquiry and so assist them to escape justice. Whether or not that is the case is for your Lordships and for the Commission, but I must stress that the existence of dishonest solicitors is no part of my case. Even if all solicitors are of unquestionable honesty, there is still the need for a provision under which access to legal advice can be delayed. The reason is that damage can be done by accident and unwittingly as well as by design. If a suspect asks a solicitor to pass on some innocent-sounding message to his wife or a friend, the solicitor may, quite innocently, by so doing cause stolen property to be
444
concealed or accomplices to evade capture. Yes, I will give way. I was about to anticipate the noble Lord: but—
Lord Foot: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Would he consider this? If, under our proposals in Amendment No. 115A, the suspect in the police station asks for a solicitor to be sent for, and if the solicitor then turns up and the police officer in charge of the matter—it would be a superintendent under the Bill and an inspector under our amendment—then says to the solicitor, "I don't want you to inform anybody that this man is under arrest, and the reason I don't want you to do that is because", whatever it may be, the solicitor is then apprised of the fact that he must not communicate with the wife and—
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me? I have taken his point. I think the rules of order at Report stage allow him only to ask a question. I think I have got the question he is asking, and the question he is asking (or, at least, the question which I shall convert it into) is: will the police inspector in this case (who is junior to the superintendent) in fact know the way in which the information which he does not want to get out of the police station will inadvertently get out? The first thing is that it may already be too late when the solicitor gets to the police station. The fact that a solicitor has been asked to come and attend to a particular client will be known to his staff, and if it is known to other people as a result of a purely chance conversation that a particular criminal is in the police station and is being helped by the solicitor, then there is nothing in Amendment No. 115A—it does not mention the solicitor's secretary or his clerk—to prevent the information getting out in that way.
The conversations between a solicitor and the suspect are, I take it the noble Lord intends, still to be carried on in private, except for terrorist offences, and so the police inspector will have no idea what has happened between them, and he might be suspicious of a message saying, "Tell my wife to let the pigeons out", or "Feed the budgerigar"; but, of course, he would not know that such a message had been given. So he can only give a blanket prohibition: "Don't talk to anybody about this case or mention the name of this criminal". But it could already be too late, because the purpose for which this meeting is taking place would be known and the cat would be out of the bag.
Perhaps I might also say to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that we are not dealing here with the single terrified amateur (that was the phrase he used) because the three criteria which justify the delay can only plausibly come into play in the case of the professionally organised criminal. One cannot imagine any of the provisions in subsection (7) leading to interference with or harm to evidence, or physical injury to other persons, or alerting other people who are suspected of having committed such an offence, etc., to the extent that the course of justice would be seriously diverted and the superintendent would have grounds, unless these people were awaiting the signal.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Lord said, "will lead to interference". The point is that they would lead only if he were guilty. If a man were innocent, they would not lead anywhere.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I readily change that to "would" from "will". I am sorry, but it was a slip. I do not think we ought to assume either the guilt or the innocence of the person in this case, though we were invited at one stage for a moment to take it for granted that he was innocent.
May I offer another reassurance? Whatever may have been the practice some years ago, delay of access is not now a common event. A survey was conducted in all stations in the metropolitan district for the three months' period August to October 1982. That survey found that in the case of persons detained without charge for more than 24 hours but fewer than 48 hours, requests for access to legal advice were refused on only six occasions and that span of time goes beyond what we propose. Nearly half of the 29 persons detained for 48 hours or more asked for legal advice and this was refused on only one occasion.
The fact of the matter is that those who want legal advice are prevented from receiving it only exceptionally at present, and Clause 57 regulates this discretion even more tightly. It contains formidable new safeguards, but the amendments seek to go further and to prevent the police from detaining a person for the purposes of questioning him and at the same time interfering with his right of access to a solicitor.
The trouble is that on rare occasions it may be both right and necessary for the police to do both those things. I am haunted by the vision, which I conjured up at Committee stage, of a person arrested on suspicion of involvement in kidnapping, where there are real grounds for fearing that access to a solicitor or anyone else would result in the murder of the victim. The captors may actually have promised as much. The need to question the subject is evident and the need to keep him temporarily incommunicado stares us in the face, and I am at one with the noble and learned Lord who so ably supported me a moment ago. This amendment could in those cases be no less than a death warrant for the victim.
I do not want to appear intransigent in all this. I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has persuasively and eloquently said about the concern of the Law Society, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway also very helpfully illuminated this. I recognise that the Law Society are still concerned about this matter. They no doubt recognise that we also are concerned—deeply concerned—for the safety of the public and for the proper protection of the public from serious crime. This is a concern which we cannot afford to set aside.
But if the Law Society have devised, or can devise, a formula which meets their concern without any threat to the interests which I have stated and which we have a duty to protect, we should be very glad to hear of it. I cannot of course predict the answer to such an approach; but I can say that the Home Office would be interested to discuss such an approach. But what is now on the Marshalled List in this group of amendments is not acceptable and I therefore hope that your Lordships will not attempt to put it into the Bill.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, in replying very shortly to what has been said, may I make just two or three very brief points? It seems now
446
from what the noble Lord the Minister has said—and I agree with him—that we are dealing with a very few serious cases which come up. But the Minister has not perhaps treated the matter with quite sufficient seriousness when balancing the right of the individual against the power of the police. If we are dealing with only a small number of vital and crucial cases in every year, surely one can ask why therefore should this right not be given?
The miscarriages of justice—to which the Minister did not refer in his reply and which lie at the basis of this amendment—occur in a small proportion of cases. They occur in many cases of murder, where the person is not a criminal but is a member of the public without convictions. But it should be said, too, that the man with convictions also requires the protection of the law if the law is to be the proper procedural law which we can admire, because the man with convictions is often picked up when an offence has been committed which is similar to the kind of offence that he has committed formerly.
He is taken to the police station and interrogated and the suggestion is made that, as he is a bank robber, he has robbed a certain bank. Very often—and this has been shown in the miscarriages of justice—that man is the victim of a miscarriage of justice because if in the trial he suggests that something improper has happened at the police station, then, as your Lordships know, the whole of his convictions can be brought into the trial. Therefore, he is in that sense extremely vulnerable, just as an inadequate and totally innocent person is also extremely vulnerable.
As I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, you cannot have and you do not want one system for the convicted, the old lag, and another system for the ordinary inadequate or innocent person. They are both vulnerable in exactly the same way as other people who suffer from various other drawbacks are vulnerable. We are all vulnerable when we get into a police station alone. We have certain rights, and this amendment simply sees to it that, in that vulnerable situation from which these miscarriages of justice always come people will simply be told at long last, "You have this right. You shall have this right."
The last point that I want to make to the noble Lord the Minister is that it is not realistic to say that the simple summoning of a solicitor will alert the kidnapper, who will kill the victim. If that situation arises, all the police have to do is to get hold of the duty solicitor who is provided for in the Bill. He will always be on duty under this scheme and will be told, "There is someone here who requires your assistance." There is no need to give any names. There is no need to give away anything at all. The duty solicitor will come and he will be told of the serious situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. Having been told that, he will consider the circumstances. We all have to make these decisions, and in those circumstances the administration of justice comes above the interests of the client.
Having said all that, and having expressed my disappointment in the reply of the noble Lord the Minister, I heard in his last words some possible encouragement to us on this matter. If I heard that—and I hope that I heard it rightly—and he

447
undertakes to consider this matter and to receive any suggestions which may come forward from the Law Society to resolve this problem, which is recognised throughout the House as a fundamental one, then I do not wish to divide the House. It is on that basis that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.19 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggsmoved manuscript Amendment No. 78B:
Page 32, line 20, after ("him") insert ("and any person who is required to be informed of his detention under section 55 of this Act").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to one which was part of a group moved at Committee stage. The general principle behind all those amendments was to make it the duty of the police to inform a parent or an independent adult of the detention of a juvenile and to keep such an adult informed of all the different stages through which the juvenile will pass during detention. I shall not go through all the arguments which were used in support of the amendments because although the Minister did not smile upon all the amendments in that group, he nevertheless accepted this amendment in principle. However, he said that he needed to give further thought to the drafting. Therefore, we are moving it again today to remind the Minister of his commitment and to make sure that the small crumb of comfort which he gave to us at the Committee stage will not be swept under the carpet. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am quite happy to repeat the undertaking which I gave at the Committee stage. I assure the noble Baroness that we have not forgotten our undertakings. We intend to bring them forward at Third Reading, if they cannot be brought forward at Report.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Responsibilities in relation to persons detained]:
Baroness Trumpingtonmoved Amendment No. 79:
Page 34, line 28, leave out from ("If") to second ("the") in line 30 and insert ("an arrested juvenile is transferred to the care of a local authority in pursuance of arrangements made under section 37(7) above,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which I beg to move.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, Section 37(7) is mentioned in this amendment, where the word "impracticable" is used. My noble friend Lady Faithfull has asked me to ask my noble friend whether or not these words are too wide. Will a juvenile be able to be held in custody instead of being put into the care of the social services—which I know everybody wishes to happen, including the Government—if no place can be found for that juvenile? On behalf of my noble friend, may I ask for elucidation of that word?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on my noble friend's behalf, may I assure my noble friend, who is speaking on her noble friend's behalf, that the intention is simply to provide against rare occurrences. It may happen, for instance, that all the social workers in a particular local authority area are on strike and refusing to accept people—or there may be a blizzard, or something of that nature. It is not a device to slide out of the commitment which we have already given.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was worried about resources. She thought that Section 37(7) could easily cover the situation where a local authority's expenditure has been cut, which we know happens all too often, and where the available facilities are overstretched, in which case the police could say, "It is not practicable" and therefore not do it. The noble Baroness was very anxious to be reassured on this point. What the noble Lord has said does not quite give us that reassurance.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I cannot remember verbatim what I said in Committee, but I remember what was in my head. What was in my head was that local authorities have arrangements between each other, which mean that they take in difficult cases from neighbours. I think my noble friend was worried in particular about unruly certificates and really difficult children. The fact is that, regardless of the level of resources, it is not always necessary to have separate provision for this type of case in, for instance, every London borough. Therefore, one borough will have the accommodation and charge the other boroughs for it. So the resources question is already overcome. That is, I believe, more or less how I expressed it in Committee. If there is any shade of meaning which has escaped me or which I have falsely painted into the picture, I shall write to my noble friend, to my noble friend's noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: And, my Lords, to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who is most concerned about this.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggsmoved manuscript Amendment No. 79ZA:
Page 34, line 32 at end insert—
(" ( ) It shall be the duty of the local authority to ensure that the arrested juvenile is treated in accordance with the duties and responsibilities imposed on the local authority under section 18(1), (2) and (3) of the Child Care Act 1980 in respect of children in their care.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is another amendment which we moved at the Committee stage and towards which the Minister was sympathetic. Although in no way casting doubt on the Minister's words—far be it from me to do so—I should like his commitment that this matter will be dealt with at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, on this occasion my answer is the same as my answer to manuscript Amendment No. 78B.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Review of police detention]:
Lord Monsonmoved Amendment No. 79A:
Page 35, line 19, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("subsections (4) and (4A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I speak at the same time to Amendment No. 79B, for which Amendment No. 79A is a paving amendment.
Amendment No. 79B: Page 35, line 40, at end insert—
("(4A) When a review is postponed under subsection (4) above, the review officer shall calculate the timing of subsequent reviews as if no postponement had taken place.").
The purpose of these amendments, which have not been entirely easy to draft, is to ensure that if a review of detention has to be postponed for one reason or another, the detainee will not he accidentally penalised thereby. In the normal way, under the provisions of Clause 39, reviews of detention will be carried out at or before the sixth hour of detention and subsequently at or before the 15th hour, the 24th hour, the 33rd hour, the 42nd hour, the 51st hour, and so on. However, as I pointed out at the Committee stage, if the first review cannot be carried out until, say, 11 hours of detention have elapsed, as Clause 39 stands the subsequent reviews need not be carried out before the 20th hour, the 29th hour, the 38th hour, the 47th hour, and so on. In other words, there is no provision for compensating for the delay. There is no provision for catching up.
At the last stage, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, acknowledged that there was a problem and promised to look at it. However, it is obvious that time has not permitted him to put down a Government amendment—hence my own. This amendment would ensure that even if the first review—to revert to my example —could not take place for 11 hours, the subsequent reviews would still take place at or before the 15th hour, the 24th hour, the 33rd hour, and so on, which I am sure your Lordships will agree is only fair. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am glad to say that in the short time since the Committee stage we have been able to consider what the noble Lord proposes and we believe it to be an admirable suggestion. Unfortunately, in the short time available we have been unable to convince ourselves as to whether or not the noble Lord's drafting is absolutely watertight. I hope he will forgive me if I ask him to allow us at Third Reading to bring back an amendment of our own, if necessary, to replace his amendment, otherwise we shall be happy to see the noble Lord's amendment on the Marshalled List at that stage.
Lord Monson: My Lords, may I say how delighted I am by what the noble Lord has just said—and rather stunned, if I may say so. I had not thought that the wording of my amendment was even approximately right, so I am glad to know that I got pretty near it. With that assurance from the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 79B not moved.]
450
Clause 40 [Limits on period of detention without charge]:
6.28 p.m.
Lord Mishconmoved Amendment No. 80:
Page 37, line 13, leave out ("sections 41 and") and insert ("section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the previous debates which have taken place, I propose to try to summarise the arguments and then to appeal to noble Lords for their support. With Amendment No. 80, I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to take Amendments Nos. 82, 86 to 91 and 93A.
Amendment No. 82: Leave out Clause 41.
Amendment No. 86: Page 41, line 9, leave out ("36") and insert ("24").
Amendment No. 87: Page 41, line 14, leave out ("36") and insert ("24").
Amendment No. 88: Page 41, line 24, leave out ("36") and insert ("24").
Amendment No. 89: Page 41, line 28, leave out ("36") and insert ("24").
Amendment No. 90: Page 41, line 40, leave out ("36") and insert ("24").
Amendment No. 91: Page 42, line 8, leave out ("36") and insert ("24").
Amendment No. 93A: Page 42, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("before") in line 35.
The whole effect of this group of amendments would be as follows: that for the first time there would be incorporated in our law a very clear period of time during which detention could take place before a charge was preferred. If these amendments are agreed to, that period of time will be 24 hours, with the consent and authority of the police alone. Then there will be a further period of 24 hours, if the court so approves. So the total maximum time—and I put it very clearly, I hope—during which somebody can be detained before a charge is preferred is 48 hours.
I am so glad when I can say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is with us. He put the position with the clarity for which he is so well-known at column 613 of the Official Report when he was speaking at Committee stage on the 9th July. I am going to read a short excerpt from what he said:
"It may be that the police should have powers to detain for inquiries in such a case."
The case from which he was quoting was the one which he also quoted this afternoon:
"They have not got them now. Parliament may have to decide whether they should have them. The courts cannot do so. There is the important question for your Lordships today: whether there should be power to detain for questioning in such circumstances. It is a very difficult question, if I may say so, but most important, because the efforts of the police may be hampered. I do not say that the man himself should necessarily be warned, or have a solicitor, and so on, but it is a most important question for the police in the course of their investigations, and I wonder which way we should come down."
Then, right at the end of his memorable remarks, he said:
"On the whole, if I may say so, it is a very near thing against the amendments and to support the Bill as it stands."
The noble Lord the Minister answered that, and I quote from column 614:
"I respond to the noble and learned Lord by saying, first, that we recognise that the idea that it is lawful or proper for the police to detain a person who they have arrested for an offence, in order to question him before he is brought before a court on a charge is a relatively recent development in criminal procedure."

451
In proposing these amendments, we recognise that we are facing a new situation in criminal procedure. We are not saying (as we might say): "Please, the Scots appear to have got away with the law which has as a maximum six hours' detention; their police have not complained; they have not asked for any amendment to that six hours." We have not spoken along those lines although we could have done so. We have not spoken about the Magistrates' Courts' Act of 1980, which deals with 24 hours as the reasonable practicable time. We have said: "We recognise the difficulties of the modern age and of the unfortunate crime wave; and balancing, as we think we ought, this innovation in our statutory law, we say the police shoud have the power to detain for 24 hours before charging, and if they want any further time they must go to the court and the court can give another 24 hours." We ask your Lordships to say that even if you allow for the rest periods, meals, and so on, 48 hours is quite enough to take away from the liberty of the subject before a charge is preferred.
If I went on addressing the House and endeavoured to copy the eloquence of some of your Lordships, which I do not possess, I could not improve what I believe to be a meritorious cause. If we are to codify the right to detain, 48 hours is more than enough, but 48 hours is the maximum proposed in this amendment.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. Before I do so, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for the kind words which he addressed towards me. I should also like to inform him that the Get Well card which he promised—to which I saw reference when I read the Official Report—did not in fact arrive.
In supporting this amendment I make the point that if a solicitor was, as a matter of statutory right, going to be allowed access to an accused in a police station, then of course detention for a considerable period would be perfectly acceptable. It might be that a little longer would be perfectly acceptable in a special case; but if that right is not going to be given to the accused, I most strongly support 48 hours as the absolute ceiling. It has already been said that this is a new situation and it is giving a suspect greater rights than he had before. Up to a point that is true, but the common law made it perfectly clear. In the normal way, by statute, a person should be brought before the magistrates' court within 24 hours; he should be brought before the court as soon as practicable. The common law laid it down that 48 hours should be the normal maximum period. For anything over that one would have recourse to habeas corpus proceedings with all the delay which that involves. Nevertheless, that right had been established.
What this amendment achieves, as I see it, is the status quo position at common law. It is admirable that it has been put in the Bill now, and we know exactly where we are on periods of time. I strongly support this period of 48 hours as a maximum.
Lord Denning: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was good enough to quote what I said. I adhere to every word I said on that occasion. This
452
power of police detention is a most important and new power. I wavered then and I waver now as to what the right result should be, but I think the review procedure which is prescribed by the Bill (after six hours, after nine hours, and so on) should be carried out and eventually before a magistrate when the person can be represented. On the whole, it seems that my mind comes down just as it did before, in favour of the Bill as it stands.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is now generally accepted that the law governing detention in police custody is hopeless1y vague and out-of-date. Under Section 43 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, a person who is arrested without a warrant and is detained in custody must be brought before a magistrates' court as soon as practicable. The expression "as soon as practicable" is underlined; and although, as we have seen it was intended originally—back in the last century—to authorise delay only to the extent that there were logistical delays in bringing a person to court, for many years now it has become the accepted practice for production in court to be delayed in order to enable the police to conduct inquiries and interview the arrested person. In two recent cases (Hudson and Sherman and Apps) the courts adopted the view that "as soon as practicable" must mean something like 48 hours at most. But in a more recent and authoritative judgment, Nycander, the courts have now held that there is no rigid rule in the legislation which specifies how long detention may last: each case must be judged according to the circumstances. Nycander himself had been detained without charge for about 90 hours. So the background against which the proposals in Part IV of the Bill have to be set is that there is no fixed or absolute limit on detention without charge, and no provision at all for independent or systematic reviews of detention while it is taking place.
On any fair assessment of the Bill it must be accepted that the provisions of Part IV represent a substantial reform of the present situation. There is, for the first time, an absolute time limit on detention without charge, and that safeguard is additional to what the Royal Commission recommended. We shall be debating later whether that limit is about right or should be advanced in time; but it is an important new development. Those who have sought to play down its significance on the grounds that detention beyond this point rarely if ever occurs nowadays should remember that when we were debating earlier clauses of the Bill, it was they who argued that good police practice was an insufficient safeguard and that it was important to ensure that certain things could not lawfully be done.
The second innovation in Part IV is the introduction of reviews of detention. Noble Lords opposite argued at this stage before that the first independent review of detention should take place by the 24 hour point rather than the 36 hour point. I will explain in a moment why this is not an argument which commends itself to us. But it is very important for us all to be clear that even a 36 hour review is a very substantial improvement on the present situation. and that review is itself the end point of a series of progressively more demanding and more independent reviews of the need for detention by the police themselves, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has aptly drawn our attention. Under the

453
Bill, when an arrested person is first brought to a police station, his case must be considered by the custody officer, who—other than in exceptional circumstances—must be detached from the investigation in progress. If he remains uncharged after six hours, the case must be reviewed by an officer of at least inspector rank, who must similarly be detached from the investigation. Thereafter, detention without charge must be reviewed every nine hours, until the person is released or brought before a court. And by the 24 hour point (the one we are interested in) an officer of superintendent rank must have reviewed the case.
And whereas under the present law detention beyond 24 hours is possible in any case which appears to the police to he serious—a subjective test if ever there was one—under Clause 40 the superintendent must, in order to authorise continuing detention, apply the objective test of whether or not the offence under investigation is a serious arrestable offence. So there is a whole new framework of supervision and review intended to ensure that detention is controlled and that inquiries are being conducted, in the words of Clause 40, diligently and expeditiously.
In a nutshell: under the present law an arrested person can be detained without charge, without limit of time, and without any review of that detention by a court at the time it is taking place. Under the Bill, detention beyond 36 hours must be authorised by a court. We do not believe that a full inter partes review of detention at the 24 hour point would be safe and we believe that it would be an impracticable further step to take, however "natural" 24 hours may appear to be as a cut-off point.
Although the previous Bill as originally introduced into Parliament provided for the first wholly independent review of detention to be at the 24 hour point—and I wonder whether that lurks at the back of the minds of noble Lords opposite—this review would have taken the form only of an ex parte hearing by a single magistrate. The first inter partes hearing at which the suspect would have been present and would have been represented would not have taken place until 48 hours. We have brought that forward by 12 hours. I mention this to show that we have no objection in principle to independent review of detention by the magistrates at the 24 hour point. After all, this was a feature of the original Bill. The objections relate to difficulties of a strictly practical kind which are inherent in the holding of inter partes hearings at such an early stage.
If I may summarise what I said in Committee, there is a marked difference in the degree of the business that would result from the 24 hour and the 36 hour reviews. The available information suggests, as I told your Lordships in Committee, that about 22,000 people a year are detained without charge by the police for 24 hours or more but the number who have not been charged or released by 36 hours is very much smaller—only a few hundred. These are of course precisely the cases which are the most serious, which present the police with the greatest difficulties, and which it is particularly important to ensure that they bring to a successful conclusion.
With these figures in mind it is clear that a requirement to hold an inter partes review by 24 hours would
454
place a substantial new burden on the courts. Only in a minority of cases—perhaps one quarter of them—would the 24 hour point fall when the court is normally sitting. If the police were forced to make applications for warrants for further detention in advance of that point, the total number of applications would be even greater than 22,000. Cases would undoubtedly arise in which the police, for good reason, would apply for a warrant where detention beyond charge for more than 24 hours turned out to be necessary.
I could go on but I am sure your Lordships are seized of the point from Committee stage that the difference in volume is a macro difference which would place substantial difficulties in the way of the courts and would place difficulties also in the way of the police, who would have to stop their inquiries not at 48 hours but in time for them to prepare their application and for the suspect to apply his. It would also be the case that at the 24 hour point the police would have to display their hand in open court—so this would affect both the courts and the police. Those are both points of which I do not wish your Lordships to lose sight.
The advancement of the inter partes review would automatically reduce the period under Clauses 55 and 57 for which, exceptionally, delay of notification of arrest would be authorised. It has been accepted by the Criminal Bar Association that on occasions even 36 hours might be too early. The case they had in mind concerned a kidnapping of the type I described when speaking to the last amendment.
It seems to us that the risks would obviously be that much greater if the period were reduced to 24 hours. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind both the difficulties and burdens and the expense for the courts. I may remind your Lordships that I have responsibility for the prison service, and one of the great difficulties we have there—and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has thought of this before me—is the inexorable growth in the number of people remanded because of the business before the courts. If we are to place another 20,000-plus cases before the courts, we will have more people yet in prison who have been charged but not tried. I hope your Lordships will remember them as well as those people whom the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is remembering and who are in police stations without having been charged.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister one question in order to put the record straight. He stated that the Criminal Bar Association agreed that people should be held in custody for up to 36 hours. The true position is that they agreed to that only on the basis that such persons had a solicitor with them.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while the noble Lord the Minister is considering a possible correction, I will ask him to consider another. He just stated that these applications take place in open court. I believe he will find that the applications, although inter partes, do not take place in open court. The Minister may care to rectify that mistake, if it is a mistake. If I have made the mistake, then I will of course withdraw and apologise to him.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am in a slight logistic difficulty in this matter. As regards the term "open court", I used it as a layman. I had intended to refer to an inter partes hearing. That is the kind of slip one gets from an amateur trying to do a professional job, and for that I apologise.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I have always said that in my judgment the Minister is a great loss to my profession. Indeed, he speaks with all the qualification almost of a trained lawyer. The Minister has explained why he used the words "open court" and may I say that these applications take place very speedily because they are not in open court. Therefore, the papers come before a couple of magistrates who might be sitting, and it is a fairly simple matter for them to deal with the hearing.
I am going to confine my remarks to saying this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, with all his experience, had heard all the arguments of the Government on the last occasion and all the arguments that we tried to advance for our amendments. He has been fair enough and good enough to say that, at the end of the day, he was left in some doubt, but that in trying to resolve the doubt decided that just possibly he should vote the other way and not in favour of the amendments. He is kind enough to nod his head in agreement. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is in doubt after hearing all the arguments, all of us are entitled to have a doubt and are entitled to resolve it in a different way from the way that he did. I trust that that will be the position. I feel that the House should now express its view.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to put the record straight. I think I am right in saying that the Criminal Bar Association did in fact accept that there were cases when it was necessary to keep people incommunicado for 36 hours. If I am wrong about that I will readily correct it, but I believe the Criminal Bar Association did give that opinion—and I understand that I am right.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the time has come to put the Question? The Question is, That Amendment No. 80 be agreed to?
6.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 80) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 88.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Bottomley, L.

Ardwick, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Attlee, E.

Collison, L.

Aylestone, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Bernstein, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Beswick, L.

Diamond, L.

Birk, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Blease, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

456

Ennals, L.

Molson, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mountevans, L.

Foot, L.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gifford, L.

Phillips, B.

Glenamara, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rochester, L.

Hampton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hanworth, V.

Seear, B.

Hooson, L.

Serota, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Stallard, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Stedman, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

[Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

Stone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lockwood, B.

Tordoff, L.

Longford, E.

Underhill, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mishcon, L.

White, B.

Molloy, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Auckland, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Avon, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bauer, L.

Long, V.

Bellwin, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bessborough, E.

Marley, L.

Brookes, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Avon, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Milverton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mottistone, L.

Colerine, L.

Munster, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Colwyn, L.

Newall, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Cox, B.

Pender, L.

Craigavon, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Crathorne, L.

Plant, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Radnor, E.

Daventry, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Denning, L.

Rochdale, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Romney, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

St. Davids, V.

Eccles, V.

Saltoun, Ly.

Ellenborough, L.

Savile, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

Spens, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Stamp, L.

Ferrier, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gainford, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Teviot, L.

Glanusk, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Gray, L.

Torphichen, L.

Greenway, L.

Tranmire, L.

Gridley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Trumpington, B.

Marylebone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Vickers, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Vivian, L.

Killearn, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in moving that further consideration of this Bill on Report be now adjourned, I should perhaps say for your Lordships'

457
convenience that we shall not return to the Bill until 7.45 p.m. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Finance Act,

Appropriation Act,

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act,

Cable and Broadcasting Act,

Repatriation of Prisoners Act,

Health and Social Security Act,

Trade Union Act,

Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council Act,

Dartford Tunnel Act,

Portsea Harbour Company Act,

Cornwall County Council Act,

British Railways (No. 2) Act.

Motor Vehicles Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1984
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Motor Vehicles Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1984, laid before the House on 27th June, be approved.
These regulations have been laid in draft under powers contained in the Consumer Safety Act 1978. They form the second part of the department's measures to improve tyre safety. The first part —improved tyre tread depth—came into effect on 1st November 1983.
There has been widespread concern over the sale of potentially dangerous sub-standard tyres. Some motorists have been sold tyres whose speed capability is less than 20 miles per hour. These tyres come from defective batches which manufacturers sell cheaply for use on low-speed vehicles. Some manufacturers clearly mark the tyres to this effect, but others do not or unscrupulous tyre dealers buff off the markings before selling them to unsuspecting members of the public.
There has also been concern over the quality of some re-treaded tyres. Retreads (also known as remoulds) are tyres which, having worn out the tread pattern, are given a new tread to extend their life. A retread clearly is only as good as its casing. Unfortunately, unsuitable casings are sometimes used, or they are inadequately prepared, or the new tread is inadequately applied.
As a result, these regulations have been laid. If approved, they will make it illegal from 1st January 1985 to supply a new car tyre unless it is approved to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation 30 and marked "E". Tyres have to pass a searching combined load and speed performance drum test. It will also be illegal to supply a retreaded tyre unless it has been manufactured and marked in accordance with British Standard
458
BSAU144b of 1977. This lays down requirements for examining and preparing the tyre casing before processing and the inspection of the finished tyre. It also requires retreaded tyres to be capable of being used at motorway speeds.
In future, manufacturers who downgrade sub-standard car tyres will be required to remove the "E" approval mark which will make it illegal to supply those tyres in the United Kingdom. Any manufacturer who ignores this requirement risks heavy fines and the withdrawal of his approval certificate to make tyres of the type in question.
The regulations have a wide scope and bite on all tyre suppliers, not just manufacturers. Tyre dealers, for instance, will have to take all reasonable steps and exercise all due diligence to avoid committing an offence.
We believe that these draft regulations are an important step forward in improving tyre safety. They have, quite deservedly, received widespread support, including that of the tyre industry itself. I believe that when these regulations are in force they will stop the sale of sub-standard tyres in this country. I commend the draft regulations to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th June be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for outlining the regulations. I do not think that we need say much about them except that they are worthwhile and in the interests of road safety. I am very pleased that the noble Lord emphasised the fact that the tyre manufacturers have given them their full support. We know the problems that there are with certain re-treaded tyres.
Can the Minister say whether supplies of re-treaded or inferior tyres come in from overseas? If so, can we be assured that we can also stop their import, in addition to any police supervision that we may have when they are on a vehicle? Is there any reason why the date of operation is not until 1st January 1985 as regards the first use of the tyre?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for explaining the regulations, and join in congratulating the Government. This is the second part of their two-pronged attack on the tyre problem. The way they have tackled it and have succeeded in producing the regulations is admirable.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for their reception of these draft regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about the date for bringing into effect the regulations. Of all the organisations representing the tyre industry which we consulted, only the British Rubber Manufacturers Association said that three months was sufficient. The National Tyre Distributors Association, which represents the tyre dealers, said that its members probably needed six months to clear old stock. The ITMA, which represents foreign manufacturers, also said that its members needed at least six months. That seems a not unreasonable timescale.

459
Overseas manufactured tyres will have to comply with ECE Regulation 30 and be suitably marked, as will any re-treaded or remoulded tyres from overseas. They will also have to conform to the British standard. I do not have it to hand, but I am sure that noble Lords will accept that it clearly sets down the markings that re-tread or remould tyres must have.
I am grateful to both noble Lords for underlining the importance of the regulations. As the House will know, very many accidents are caused by the ill-use of certain tyres. We are sure that when the regulations come into force they will have a marked effect in reducing certainly the risk of accidents due to tyre failure and inadequate tyres. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1984
7.9 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Industry) Order 1984, laid before the House on 4th July, be approved.
The order is before your Lordships today because levies in excess of 1 per cent. require an affirmative resolution of each House under the Industrial Training Act 1982. Noble Lords are aware of the importance of the engineering industry, which is the largest manufacturing sector in terms of employment. Engineering output rose in the seond half of 1983, and there are signs that this growth will continue. It is important, therefore, to ensure that adequate training takes place in the industry so that economic growth is not hindered by skill shortages, as has sometimes happened in the past. The levy is expected to raise about £130 million before exemption, and will be used for necessary training in the engineering industry.
The levy covers the period to 31st August 1984, and is in two main parts. The first is mainstream engineering establishments—a levy of 1 per cent. of emoluments, of which 0.0625 per cent. is non-exemptible. The non-exemptible levy will be used to meet the major part of the board's operating costs. The exemptible levy will be used for grants and training programmes considered necessary by the board. Establishments employing fewer than 60 employees will be exempt from levy but may still qualify for certain grants from the board.
For establishments in the mechanical and electrical construction industry sector, the levy is in several parts. For off-site employees, no levy is payable by establishments of up to 30 employees. For establishments of more than 30 employees, 1 per cent. of total emoluments is payable, of which 0·15 per cent. will be non-exemptible. For site employees, no levy will be paid on the first £50,000 of emoluments; on emoluments over £50,000 a non-exemptible levy of 1·12 per cent. will be payable. The main product of the levy will be used to finance training initiatives to meet the sector's needs.
The proposals were agreed unanimously by the employer and employee members of the Mechanical
460
and Electrical Construction Industry Sector Committee and were endorsed by the board without dissent. The Board has received letters of support from the two employer organisations in the sector, The Oil and Chemical Plant Constructors' Association and the National Engineering Construction Employers' Association, as well as a number of firms not members of the association. There is thus consensus in the industry for the proposals as required by the 1982 Industrial Training Act. I therefore recommend the Order to your Lordships. It has widespread support and is very necessary to meet the industry's training needs for the future. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th July be approved.—(Viscount Long).
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the constructive and informative manner in which he has introduced this order. Before I became a Peer and was sent to this House, when I was a Member in another place, I was a person employed in general engineering. Because of belonging to that particular industry, I am as aware as probably most Peers, and perhaps better informed, on the subject of the rundown in skilled apprenticeships in that particular industry.
Having said that I welcome the order, may I say I have one little worry about it, which is that unfortunately, it does not go far enough. Obviously public expenditure has a great hearing on this. There is no question at all that more apprentices are required for general engineering in this country at present. I am glad to see the proposals have the support of the Oil and Chemical Plant Constructors' Association and the National Engineering Construction Employers' Association. These are very big employers of people and usually operate in some of the better areas for our export performance.
One of the points which worries me is that there does not appear to be any provision in this order for what I would call specialised apprentices' training. If we look into the future of the engineering industry itself, even looking at the general concept or picture, it is obvious that because it is such a broad based industry varying from machine tools to highly technical, modernised equipment, we are dealing with areas that are now becoming almost industries of excellence, industries of the future. I should like to see the Government in their next round of dealing with this particular industry, providing some kind of funding for this. There is no doubt that our seed corn for the future are highly trained youngsters in specialsed industries which are able to compete with our industrial rivals from abroad.
I see the estimates of some of the engineering employers. They are on record as stating that they should like to see a production of 13,000 apprentices annually in training. I understand that the present figure will be 6,000 from the training board scheme itself and 1,500 from the youth training scheme. So this is a step in the right direction. I think this illustrates the point that I am trying to make, that if there is an upturn of a considerable dimension in this particular industry we will be lacking in apprentices needed to train and in apprentices on site to take up these particular posts as they are created.

461
Nothing could illustrate this more than some of the figures that were given in the debate in another place on 19th July when it was stated at col. 5 of the Official Report of the Fifth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments:
"A recent NEDO report has confirmed for the Government what the Labour party and the trade unions have argued consistently for many years: that, in comparison with all our major competitors, we have failed to train our work force. The report mentions Germany and Japan… We spend only half of the £8 billion spent by the Germans on training".
I think this indicates the kind of targets that we must aim for. If we are going to compete on level terms with the advanced industrial nations, certainly the countries in Europe which are almost on our doorstep—for instance Germany and France—we have to have the input at the bottom end of the industrial scale with highly skilled apprentices who are able to give the industry the benefit of their skills on equal terms with our contemporary rivals in the EEC. But having said that I look forward to future orders of this kind that perhaps may be able to deal more generously with the situation than the present one. However, having said that, I welcome the order.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for supporting this very important order. He asked me one or two questions. Before I answer them, I should like to say that I am glad that he, like me and others in your Lordships' House, realises how extremely important it is that we have money in order to train these apprentices. Because when we come out of the recession, if we have not got the skilled labour in the form of a skilled man behind the lathe or whatever machine it is, then we will be hampering economic growth and there will be a tremendous shortage. So I am most grateful for the way that the noble Lord has brought out that point.
He also said that he felt that for the specialised apprenticeships, the Government were not doing quite enough in that direction. I should say to the noble Lord that the Government are at present running apprenticeship schemes for technicians—which is what he was really referring to—and foundry pattern makers, as well as encouraging employers, through the exemption scheme, to train apprentices.
In saying that, I sadly agree that there is at the moment a slight decline in apprenticeships. But we hope, as time goes on and the money is provided for them, to make them come forward. The financial side is agreed by the employers and the unions. So, having said that, then it is up to the employers, whatever their levy is for the year, to deal with it. If more finance is needed, then an agreement must be sought. Having said that, I hope I have answered the noble Lord who has questioned me very kindly on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, may I with leave briefly ask the Minister something? Just to illustrate the importance that I and other noble Lords place on apprenticeship training, I was rated as a highly skilled man in my job. I left the industry 12 years ago. If I were to re-enter it now, I would no doubt find it a strange, new world. That is why I think this type of activity is so important.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until a quarter to eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.20 to 7.45 p.m.]

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
[Consideration of Amendments on Report resumed.]
Clause 41 [Authorisation of continued detention]:
[Amendments Nos. 81A and 82 not moved.]
Clause 42 [Warrants of further detention]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 40, line 23, after ("application") insert ("on oath").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 84 and 92.
Amendment No. 84: Page 40, line 32, leave out ("it") and insert ("the information").
Amendment No. 92: Page 42, line 15, leave out ("be on oath and shall").
We realised in Committee, as a result of shrewd amendments proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Hutchinson, that in Clause 42 we had got our informations mixed up with our applications. I promised then to unmix them. At least, I think that it was actually my noble friend who promised to do so. The information supporting an application for a warrant of further detention will be in writing. There is therefore no need for it to be on oath, as the Law Society has pointed out. This was the point made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Amendment No. 92 accordingly removes this requirement from subsection (14). It is the application that should be on oath and Amendment No. 83 ensures this. Finally, what the detained person should have is not a copy of the application but the information. Hence Amendment No. 84. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am endeavouring with due modesty to take the very courteous speech of the noble Baroness on board. I am most grateful to her for what she says and I am most grateful for the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpingtonmoved Amendment No. 84: [Printed above.]
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments No. 85A and Nos. 86 to 91 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpingtonmoved Amendment No. 92: [Printed above.]
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 93A not moved.]
Clause 43 [Extension of warrants of further detention):
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Hayter): My Lords, Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 are alternatives.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 94:
Leave out Clause 43 and insert the following new clause:
("Limit on detention.
43. No person shall be kept in police detention under this Part of this Act for more than 72 hours without being charged.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is undoubtedly one of the most controversial but nevertheless one of the most important amendments so far as this Report stage is concerned. It is, in my submission, something that goes to the very root of the whole principle of the concept of detention.
My noble friends and I, over the earlier courses of the Bill in this House, had taken the view, greatly though we respect the noble Lord the Minister, that it might well be that in this House and in another place the Government had taken too lightly the concept of detention. We take the view that detention is something far more fundamental and epoch-making in relation to the administration of our criminal law than the Government would have the community believe. Up to the passage of this Bill, which we apprehend will in due course take place, the whole basis of detention is non-statutory. Indeed, one could put it another way and say that detention previous to charge is in many cases unlawful in the procedures of England and Wales.
Therefore, on any view, the legitimation of the process of detention is a very serious inroad into private liberty. Indeed, in my submission, it is one of the most massive inroads into private liberty made in this century. It is an inroad which will have many direct and many indirect effects. One of the direct effects of this concept will be that the time limits which appear in the Act, whatever they be, will inevitably have their effect upon the way in which learned judges exercise discretion in relation to applications for writs of habeas corpus.
Secondly, inevitably a new psychology will prevail among police offices as to the length of the period for which it will be appropriate to detain persons before charge. And inevitably, in my submission, the idea will gain currency that the maxima laid down in the Act can properly be regarded as the norm. In my respectful submission, police officers would be less than human if they were not to act in that way.
There are, we maintain, two very considerable safeguards which should be considered. One is the presence of a solicitor at the point in time when a person is actually questioned. The House has heard numerous debates in relation to that matter. The other is to fix an absolute limit as to the total period during
464
which a person can be kept in custody without charge—to set, as it were, a "ne plus extra" limit and to say, "That is an absolute barrier, and beyond that limit one shall not go".
That of course is what the provisions of Clause 43 bring about, and the whole purpose of this amendment which I am now moving is to say that that limit shall not be 96 hours but shall be 72 hours. If I may digress for a moment before coming to the question of whether it should be 72 hours rather than 96 hours, I would say that we do not regard the setting of a lower limit at 72 hours as being in any way alternative to the right of a person to have his solicitor present from an early stage in these proceedings. They are parallel rights. Each of them is an important basic human right, but they are utterly different rights.
The right to have a solicitor present is an important right at that point in time when the subject is actually being questioned. One can say, without being over-emotive, that of all the experiences that a person has in life, probably there will be no moment when it is more important for him to have legal advice and the support of a professional legal adviser than that exact moment in time. But the House has already dealt with that matter. I do not want to go back on that, though I thought it right to comment on it because it sets the framework, as it were, for this amendment.
During the course of a period in custody that might last many scores of hours, it may well be that the period of actual questioning will not take more than perhaps an hour-and-a-half in total, in two or three sessions. In between those periods of questioning there will be long, lonely periods of custody and of uncertainty. A person may be questioned three times inside the space of an hour. Then perhaps he will be left alone for 30 hours, visited only by the gaoler bringing his food and hearing only the occasional noise in the corridor outside of somebody checking to see if he is all right. He will be waiting all the time for the key to turn in the door and for someone to come to question him a fourth time.
I cannot remember the exact quotation; I think it is in Oscar Wilde's Ballad of Reading Gaol that he describes custody as being a situation where every minute is an hour, and every hour a day, and every day a week. All effluxion of time is relative. We talk, perhaps fairly lightly, of 72 hours or 96 hours as being a fairly limited period of time. To a person in custody —I hope the House will not misunderstand me—it can be a form of torture. It is not of course designed as torture by the police officers concerned, but it can be the most effective form of torture imaginable when a person is left there, lonely and uncertain, with only the agony of his own thoughts and doubts.
One could go on for a very long time in sketching, as it were, the background to this issue. Bearing in mind that the House has set its face against giving a person an absolute right to have his solicitor present when questioned, we say that the absolute limit or the total period of custody should be 72 hours; and in saying that we are convinced that that is a very long and substantial period, and correspondingly a very serious and massive inroad into private liberty.
On earlier occasions the House has heard quoted a considerable amount of data, and I am not going to

465
repeat it. I make these points very generally. In every other common law country, detention for a period of 72 hours, quite apart from 96 hours, is very excessive. Taking a whole range of countries in the world, I think one would have to go to Ethiopia before one found a country that had a comparable period of time allowable for detention without charge. From the data published by the Home Office and other reputable bodies, it appears that about 98 per cent. or so of persons who are kept in detention without charge are released by the end of a period of 24 hours. It is only in the most exceptional cases that a person would be detained as long as 72 hours.
It seems that what the Government have done here, in my submission rather cynically and capriciously, is to say, "Well, although in 1983, in the metropolitan police district, there weren't any persons kept for as long as 96 hours, we will say 96 because it is 24 hours beyond the limit that we were ever pushed to in relation to any specific case". That is not the way to deal with human liberty. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will all be impressed with the eloquent words of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. It is a new feature in our English law that there should be police detention and time limits set. Therefore, it is most important to get it right if we can.
I can well understand that there is the protection of the application to the magistrates' court after 36 hours and then for the magistrates' court, comprising two magistrates, to consider whether further detention is justified in all the circumstances of the case. That is a judicial body which should be well trained and experienced in matters of individual liberty.
I can well understand that the circumstances of detention may be oppressive—indeed, they may be so oppressive almost as to negative any confession that is made. Indeed, under the later provisions of the Bill they would negative any confession. But this is a matter of judgment. I happened to speak to one of the Lord Justices who is most experienced in our criminal law, namely, Lord Justice Lawton. It was his view that 96 hours was just about right. I would not set my own experience against his, but in view of the inquiries which I have made I would, on the whole, support the Bill and not the amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I do not really think that this is a legal question. It is a moral question, and therefore I do not pay the same respect to the views of eminent lawyers as I do on legal questions. In my view, 72 hours is already an excessive period to keep anybody in detention for questioning and I am very happy to support the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, this Bill imposes a general and absolute limit on detention without charge of 96 hours. In certain circumstances, where a person is arrested in one part of the country and has to be transferred to another, the total time in police custody may exceed this figure, but the introduction into the law of an overall limit is a safeguard against unnecessarily prolonged detention, which is entirely new to the statute book. I would reflect that so often noble Lords make speeches as though what we were introducing
466
was some new threat to the liberty of the individual, when in fact what we are doing is introducing a new safeguard to the liberty of the individual, because hitherto there has been no limit and we are proposing one.
The Bill introduces certainty into a part of the law which the courts themselves have held to stand badly in need of clarification, and it also places an absolute limit on a power which the Royal Commission proposed should be renewable without such limit. We considered the Royal Commission scheme, but we felt that a scheme of detention which was open-ended in the way in which they proposed could not command public confidence. We thought that there must be an absolute limit to it and we then decided that the correct limit was 96 hours—and in view of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said, we are not alone in thinking that that is the right time to choose.
The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, gave a sketch of how he thought we had arrived at the figure. He thought that we had looked at various areas and decided that nothing took 96 hours and therefore it was safe to put the limit there. He was not, in fact, exactly right. We arrived at the figure only after a careful consideration of the experience of the police and the Customs and Excise in dealing with complicated and difficult cases involving major crime. We looked at cases in which prolonged detention had occurred and asked whether the investigation could have been concluded more quickly, and if so how. It became clear that in some cases 96 hours had been necessary, and we provided in the Bill accordingly. Other cases have, indeed, taken longer—and I repeat that for the benefit of the noble Lord: other cases have, indeed, taken longer—but most, even of sophisticated and conspiratorial crimes, can be brought to charge within this time and so we thought it right to place the stop at that point.
It can be argued that as it is very rare for detention to exceed 96 hours, the introduction of the limit is not much of a safeguard and therefore it should be less. That, in effect, is what noble Lords opposite are doing. But the shorter the allowable time the more cases there will be in which criminals will have to be released, some of them to vanish for good, simply because the police will not have had time to complete their cases. We have chosen a level which gives enough time for very nearly all the cases. To argue for less is to argue, therefore, not for the protection of those who are unjustly accused, but for the escape of those who are genuinely guilty. There is no merit in imposing a limit which is less than the time now spent only because it is less. When the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, argues for that, he is arguing with his heart rather than with his head. I think that the reduction in time might satisfy the emotions of some, but it can scarcely convince the intellects of any. We have to legislate with our heads as well as with our hearts.
Some limit there ought to be—we are all agreed about that. We do not want the police to have a power which experience shows they do not need or which they scarcely ever need. That is what we are proposing. By imposing it at 96 hours we ensure that they do have the power which experience shows they have needed in the past for really difficult cases, but we require them

467
to ensure that such cases are completed within that time. That may prove very difficult and if apology is needed it is not to the movers of this amendment—it is to the police who will have to work under the brand new limit that we are already imposing upon them.
Let us consider what may arise. When a number of suspects are detained in connection with a single offence or set of offences, then their stories have to be checked one against the other. The interviewing officers have to meet frequently to compare notes and pool information. Identification parades may have to be held. There may be language difficulties, requiring interpreters to be found. Inquiries may have to be made to check alibis or to obtain other forms of corroboration. In one recent case a person who was in the end convicted of murder gave six different and conflicting explanations of his movements at the relevant time, all of which had to be followed up. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, in an earlier debate pointed out how extremely important it was to validate confessions as well as alibis; and that takes time. Inquiries may have to be made abroad. The suspect may require medical treatment. He will have to be allowed rest and refreshment. Your Lordships will remember that this is now mandatory and it is also a new provision under our proposals. Forensic tests may have to be completed. Extensive searches of premises may be required.
The fact that the police are generally able to bring their inquiries to a conclusion—even in the case of the most complicated major crime—within a period well short of 96 hours is a clear proof of their expertise and professionalism. Indeed, a number of the few cases in which investigations have gone wrong might have avoided injustice if more rather than less time and trouble had been taken because it is a question of time and trouble and the painstaking and methodical accumulation and analysis of evidence.
I was interested in the comparison which the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made. I think that on this occasion he did not fall into the temptation of looking at Scotland, but if I am wrong about that I am happy to respond. But I thought I heard him say that we would have to go to Ethiopia to find a country which had power to detain without charge for as long as we can. It may be that he is tempted by that particular bucket shop air price, but he only has to go to the Netherlands to find a period of 102 hours, and he only has to go to Sweden to find a period of 120 hours.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I am happy to be corrected; it was a very serious lapse on my part. I did intend to refer to the Netherlands, but in the context of having been condemned by the European Court of Justice for that very reason.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not familiar with the case and, therefore, I cannot say what was the basis of the dissatisfaction of the European court; whether it was limited to a pure regard for the clock or whether, as I suspect, it was also tinged by what happened during the period in question. It seems to me that the case of the Netherlands with 102 hours as opposed to our 96, and the case of Sweden with 120 hours as opposed to our 96, is, if we are to pray foreign countries in aid, perfectly valid.
468
What do we expect in our country?—because this is, in fact, an English and a Welsh question that we are asking; not an Ethiopian question, nor a Dutch question or a Swedish question. We expect our police to question a suspect in order to establish his account of the facts, to check that account by outside inquiries, to interview witnesses, and put the facts to the suspect for him to explain, and to make certain that they have the right suspect. The great majority of all investigations are not complex and are concluded in a very few hours. In any complex investigation, however, there is therefore a continuous interplay of interview and legwork, and it does not consist simply of leaving someone locked in his cell waiting for the key to turn.
I have already explained that we did not pluck 96 hours out of the air. We looked at actual recent cases of serious crime which required extensive investigation, and found that only on rare occasions was 96 hours necessary. The investigations could not have been conducted more quickly or efficiently; if there had been a shorter limit on detention, the suspects concerned would have been released, gone to ground, destroyed evidence, covered their tracks or committed further crime. We have provided details of these cases to critics of the Bill and asked how they could or should have been handled better. This challenge has not been taken up.
It cannot be taken up because the figures that have been suggested as alternatives to 96 hours—and in this case it is 72 hours—have, it seems, been plucked out of the air. They are not based on any study of actual cases. They rest on pure theory. We are legislating, and it is not enough to juggle with theoretical figures; we have to fit the law to the actual needs of our people and the police who protect them.
But our scheme has not neglected the interests of the suspect and we have not assumed his guilt. A very crucial point in the scheme is reached at 36 hours. This is the point by which anyone detained without charge must be brought before a court, must have legal advice and must be represented. If the court authorises a further period of detention—and it can only do so in the case of the most serious crime and if the investigation is being conducted expeditiously—then it is clear that any questioning that then takes place does so with the suspect's co-operation, because it has to be expected by the court that it will produce results and if the response of the suspect (with the advice of his solicitor, which will be to hand) to the magistrate is that he will not answer further questions, then there is no purpose in the further detention. He will have absolute right of access to a solicitor and to have a solicitor present while he is being questioned.
So the prospect conjured up of someone being interrogated at length until his will crumbles and he is prepared to admit anything, true or false, is wholly misdirected and wholly fanciful. I concede that it was not advanced this evening, but it was advanced at an earlier stage. The suspect will be entitled to legal advice; there will be strict limits on the length of questioning permitted; there will be new safeguards for the young and the mentally handicapped, who are particularly at risk; and there will be at least a second inter partes hearing if the full 96 hours has to be used. All these go to show that the purpose of a 96-hour

469
limit is not to give the police time to wear down a suspect, but rather to give them enough time to secure and verify enough evidence to establish the innocence of a suspect or to allow a fair trial to take place.
If your Lordships agreed to this amendment, you would be doing a great disservice to both the police and the people whom you wish the police to protect, and you will be doing so to no libertarian purpose at all. The Bill provides very ample protection for the innocent suspect. I hope that your Lordships will see that it also provides sufficient powers for the police because we have two jobs to do. One is to protect the innocent suspect—and noble Lords are very active indeed in that—and the other is to help the police to protect every other innocent citizen, of whatever rank, race or religion he may be, from the criminals who threaten him—and that is something on which we would also welcome support.
I hope that noble Lords opposite and your Lordships generally will see that what we propose is both necessary and just and that you will allow the police a proper power to operate under the scrutiny of the courts to do a job that is in all conscience difficult enough already.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him a question for clarification. We are speaking about 96 hours. How many hours of those 96 are without the presence of a solicitor? I think that it is 36, but I am not quite sure.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it depends upon the case. It can be as much as 36 hours, but I was at great pains earlier this evening to explain to your Lordships how experience had proved in recent years that even without the safeguards limiting this use of time placed upon the police, the number of occasions when a solicitor is kept from his client for as much as 36 hours—indeed, for as much as 24 hours—is very few indeed. The number for the longer period amounts to 0·007 per cent. of all cases.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Elton, why the Government propose a maximum period of detention for England and Wales no less than 16 times longer than the maximum period of detention allowed in Scotland.
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the understanding that nobody else will intervene, I shall use the second shaft allowed me by tradition and by your Lordships' leave to reply to the noble Lord. He will be well aware that the structure of the law in Scotland, were a person has to be charged almost as soon as he is arrested, is totally different from that which applies here. We are looking at an amendment to reduce the time from 96 hours to 72 hours, and the question, therefore, is why noble Lords opposite want to have 12 times as much as the Scots. So I do not think that the noble Lord's question bears exactly on this case.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I am sorry to say that we are extremely disappointed with the noble Lord's reply. We are dealing with a matter of the utmost importance—of that there can be no doubt whatever. The Minister sought to justify 96 hours
470
rather than 72 hours on the basis that there were a few cases—or that there could be a few cases over the years. I should like to make two points in relation to that. It is not for those of us who support the amendment to justify the reduction of that level from 96 hours to 72 hours; it is for the Government to justify that further inroad into private liberty.
Secondly, if the argument that the Minister proposes is to be accepted in logic, it is an argument which, if one accepts the basic postulate, is impossible to counter. In fact, if he says, "Indeed, there is only one case likely to occur over the next five years, so only one person will be affected", if there is general merit in that line of approach, it cannot be countered. The fewer the people, the stonger his position. In fact, if he were to say, "We do not think that there will be any case over the next five years, but there may be beyond that time", then he is in a completely fireproof situation. But is that a proper yardstick? Unless the Government are able to show that there is a reasonable number of cases that justifies this serious inroad, then, in my submission probably they are not entitled to say that they should set the limit at 96 hours. Indeed, if that is a good argument, why set it at 96? Why not make it 150 hours? Why stop there?
Lord Elton: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I think it would not be right for me to intervene before the noble Lord sits down because it would spoil his climax, and that is an unkind and discourteous thing to do. But he asked me some questions. I have some cases here. I do not think your Lordships will wish to hear them read out, but these cases are all from 1983. The three on the top of my file all fell between 72 and 96 hours. Having said that—and there are many other cases—I will merely leave the noble Lord with a question. Would he, if he were designing the runway at Heathrow, think that it was sufficient to have it only three-quarters of a mile long because very few aeroplanes took a full mile to pull up?
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord the Minister, for whose powers of reasoning, for whose wisdom and for whose personality in general I have very great admiration, I do not think that that is one of the best arguments that he has articulated in the context of this Bill in general. The main argument put forward by the Government is that this is a protection, and not an inroad. That argument simply cannot be sustained unless one ignores the fact that since the early seventeenth century we have had habeas corpus Acts to preserve a person's liberties from arbitrary arrest. The very fact of habeas corpus was the safeguard, and it is only if one turns a blind eye to that massive safeguard in our laws that one can say that there was no safeguard previously. The late Professor A. V. Dicey reckoned that the writ of habeas corpus was more valuable than a hundred declarations of human liberty. The question we ask is: after this 96-hour rule, what value will there be to the writ of habeas corpus within that period?
But the basic fallacy of the Minister's argument goes even deeper than that. It is that effective police questioning, effective police investigation and the efficient analysis of forensic evidence can only take

471
place while a person is held in custody. That is nonsense, with great respect. Even in relation to the gravest crimes it happens often that a person will be brought in for questioning, he will be questioned for hour upon hour and nothing will emerge. He will then be sent home and sometimes will be bailed to appear on a future occasion—what lawyers know as Section 38 bail. Upon other occasions he will be allowed home without any commitment whatsoever and will be brought hack again and again. That, as so many of your Lordships will know, happens very often in murder cases.
However, the Minister seems to argue on the basis that unless a person is kept in detention the system simply cannot work. There are many more arguments, but those are the main ones, and they will not be improved by repetition. Therefore, on that basis we say that we are very proud to divide the House on this matter as we regard it as an issue of fundamental principle.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am sure he would want to be fair and acquaint the House with the fact that this is the first time as far as I am aware—I think it came out during Second Reading—that there has been a limit. There has never been a limit before, and it has now been settled at 96 hours. The noble Lord has been a lawyer, a barrister and a judge for many years, and he will be aware that an upper limit has to be set under which one can operate, from tines right through to terms of imprisonment. Someone may be able to he imprisoned by law for 20 years and they might be able to be fined £20,000, but that is the top limit. The Government think that 96 hours is the top limit, but it is by no means likely that a man will be kept in custody for the whole of that time. It is only fair to make it clear to the House that that is the operation of this amendment.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Baroness makes a fair point in relation to that matter. It is an absolute limit, as I understand it, so far as that particular session of detention is concerned. I believe I am right in saying that if that person is released he could be re-detained again and again ad infinitum. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point.
Be that as it may, I accept that Section 43, in so far as that session of detention is concerned, sets an absolute limit. On the other hand, I think that the noble Baroness is mistaken when she considers that there were no limits before. The limits that existed before were such limits as, in the discretion of a learned judge upon an application fora writ of habeas corpus, he considered it proper to set. In a particular case he may determine that 20 hours' detention is too much and that the man must be immediately released. In another case he might think that 60 hours is the proper time. So there are such limits as are considered appropriate, within the bounds of judicial discretion, to each individual case.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we must not turn this into a Committee stage debate. I have been asked to give a statement of fact, and with your Lordships' leave I
472
refer the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, to Clause 46(6), which makes the hours in detention on separate occasions aggregate, and to Clause 42(19), where:
"A person released under subsection (18) above shall not be rearrested without a warrant for the offence for which he was previously arrested unless new evidence justifying a further arrest has come to light since his release".
So unless there is a new case to answer, at the 96-hour curtain it is finished, it is off. That is new, my noble friend is absolutely right, and I think your Lordships probably want to decide the matter.
8.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 94) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 60.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Collison, L.

Meston, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mishcon, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Diamond, L.

Molson, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Phillips, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ennals, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Foot, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gifford, L.

[Teller.]

Hooson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

White, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Auckland, L.

Inglewood, L.

Avon, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Bauer, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Beloff, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Caithness, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Carthcart, E.

Norwich, Bp.

Coleraine, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Colwyn, L.

Plant, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cox, B.

Rochdale, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Savile, L.

Denning, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Drumalbyn, L.

Teviot, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Torphichen, L.

Elton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Vickers, B.

Gray, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Greenway, L.

Young, B.

Gridley, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Marylebone, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
8.35 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 96:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation for detention without charge.
. A person kept in police detention under this Part of this Act and subsequently released without being charged with an offence shall be entitled to compenation from Public Funds at the rate of £1 for every complete hour spent in detention in excess of six hours.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would he nice to think that this amendment would find as much favour with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as did my previous amendment. Somehow I have a premonition that this may not be the case. The purpose of this amendment is to provide a modest cash sum by way of compensation for those innocent—and I stress "innocent"—individuals who are detained in police custody under Part IV of this Bill and then subsequently released without being charged with an offence. The rate proposed in the amendment is deliberately modest in that it represents minimal compensation and not damages, punitive or otherwise; although it might be opportune to point out to your Lordships that paragraph 5 of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that everyone who has been a victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this article shall have an enforceable right to compensation. Of course, it may well be that in future some detainees may claim that their detentions contravene paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 5. On that we shall have to wait and see.
Nobody would pretend that a sum of £18 for 24 hours' detention, £42 for 48 hours' detention, £66 for 72 hours' detention or £90 (which would be the maximum) for 96 hours' detention would fully compensate any but a very small minority of innocent detainees in terms of worry, anxiety, loss of earnings and so on. None the less, it would partially compensate them for material losses suffered and, more important, the gesture would I think minimise the psychological stress of detention. Most important of all, the idea of partial compensation would, I believe, reconcile public opinion to this controversial part of the Bill. It is a great mistake to assume that it is only those on the centre or on the Left who are unhappy about it. A great many true blue Tories also have misgivings about this part, to my certain knowledge.
These are novel proposals but, apart from two exceptions that I shall come to in a moment, the same can be said for the detention provisions themselves. Novel problems deserve novel remedies. The exceptions that I mentioned are the detention provisions in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Order. Both my noble friend Lord Hylton on February 6th and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, on July 17th called for compensation for innocent individuals detained under those measures. So did the noble Lord, Lord Shackelton, on February 6th, certainly so far as some specific circumstances are concerned. Despite, or possibly because of, my strong support for the anti-terrorism legislation in question, I would certainly endorse those pleas. In other words, I believe that if we agree to compensation it should be consistent and apply across the board.
Now to the details of the amendment. I have not
474
provided for any compensation for detention of less than six hours' duration. Although it is not very pleasant for an innocent person to be locked up for even six hours, one has to draw a line somewhere. The other reason is that the Scottish Act with a maximum period of detention of six hours, as we have already established, does not provide compensation for any innocent person detained for that period of time.
Your Lordships may have differing ideas about the adequacy or otherwise of the suggested £1 hourly rate; but the important thing is to get the principle accepted. The details can be adjusted at Third Reading. For the same reason, I have not at the present stage allowed for any indexation of the hourly rate against inflation. Again, this could he inserted at the next stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, will doubtless point out that the people arrested, as opposed to merely detained and then later released, are not at present entitled to compensation. True, but in the very nature of things a greater proportion of those merely detained, as opposed to being arrested, where greater proof is required, are likely to be innocent. Nor has this proposal anything to do with Section 48 of the 1964 Police Act which empowers chief constables to pay damages and/or costs out of police funds in respect of wrongful acts committed by constables under their direction.
Absolutely no wrongdoing or even carelessness on the part of the police is implied by my amendment. It merely recognises that in an imperfect world honest mistakes—for example, mistaken identity—can and will happen. The right analogy, I suggest, is with expenses paid to those on jury service. Jurors, like innocent detainees, have to suffer inconvenience, possible discomfort, and certainly loss of earnings in order that the guilty may be convicted and punished. I am not one of those who are in favour of soft treatment for the guilty: quite the opposite, especially where crimes of violence are concerned. However, I am in favour of soft treatment—extremely soft treatment—for the innocent, both on the grounds of natural justice and because it will make the task of the police that much easier by getting public opinion more wholeheartedly on to the side of the law. I beg to move.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, we on these Benches have considerable respect for the principles which underlie the amendment moved by the noble Lord. However, having said that, at the same time we do not agree with the detail of the amendment, nor indeed the tactical approach that the noble Lord has adopted. For one reason, we think that although the modest sum that he stipulates for every hour of detention would not break police funds, nevertheless it might have a somewhat stultifying effect upon the attitude which the police should properly have in relation to the conduct of their investigations. Further-more—and perhaps even more important—there is the danger that if Parliament were to legislate that £1 an hour should properly represent compensation here, it might have some effect upon the levels of compensation which at the moment I apprehend are very much higher in those cases involving unlawful arrest. The sums of money that are regularly adjudicated by judges in our courts are at a very different level.

475
Nevertheless, we think that the noble Lord has done this House a service in raising this all-important question. Really, there are two questions. One is the general point of whether the Government intend to take seriously the obligations of the United Kingdom under Article 14, paragraph 6 of the United Nations Convention on Human Rights which has already been referred to by the noble Lord. We have been a signatory to that Convention for something like 18 years. and yet although we are tied by our obligations under that Convention to making some scheme of compensation payable for people who have been wrongfully deprived of their liberty, there does not seem to be the slightest intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to take that obligation seriously.
The noble Lord the Minister, when dealing with this matter in October 1982, said in reply to a question from my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, that the Select Committee on Home Affairs was gestating in its views and deliberations upon this matter, and that eventually there would be some report which would deal with it. Article 14 paragraph 6, as I understand it, deals with those persons who have been convicted and who have later successfully had such convictions laid aside.
The question that is raised in the noble Lord's amendment is slightly different, but in a reply to a Written Question by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner on the 2nd December 1982. the noble Lord the Minister, was asked whether there had ever been made, and if so how often, any ex gratia payments to an innocent person who had suffered a period of imprisonment when on remand, pending his trial. The reply of the noble Lord was that when an ex gratia payment is to be made by way of compensation for wrongful imprisonment, the time spent on remand in custody is normally taken into account in the assessment of the sum to be offered. In a few cases, for example one in 1979, two in 1980 and one in 1981, ex gratia payments have been made to persons who have been remanded in custody but not convicted. This is very germane to the issue raised by the noble Lord's amendment, and I am sure that the House would wish to know what scheme, if any, and what policy the Government have in relation to such ex gratia payments. Is it intended that there should be a more formal scheme? Did the Select Committee on Home Affairs report upon such a matter? Generally, does the Government intend to place the matter upon a formal basis?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I have a considerable respect for the views of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and I entirely share the sentiments that he expressed in moving this amendment. I am very sorry that I did not see him beforehand to tell him what my rooted objection is to this particular amendment; it has only crystallised in my mind as I have listened to the debate.
It seems to me that there is a basic objection to going down this route. which is that if compensation is paid it will be regarded by the police as a criticism of them. Therefore, in any given situation they will be tempted to lay the charge and allow the magristrate to dismiss
476
it rather than risk the suggestion that they are being criticised. If the penalty were higher, there would be an even greater temptation to do that.
Nevertheless, dealing with the matter entirely as a matter of principle. I wholly agree with the general views that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has expressed, but I think that following this line of approach would be counterproductive to what we seek to achieve.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, is saying that I could not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, may I refer to something nearer home which has occurred this week? I asked a Question of Her Majesty's Government on whether they know that a Russian ship, destined for this country but diverted to a dock in Hamburg, had been found there with two millions pounds worth of heroin destined for Britain. It was in Hamburg because of the dock strike and certain people had been detained by the Hamburg authorities. If we were to go ahead with an amendment of this kind, it is not inconceivable that to come to a satisfactory solution with regard to the investigations which were carried out in Hamburg, our authorities in this country might well be detaining people in connection with that offence which was discovered overseas—in other words, an international ring of smugglers.
In the circumstances, I think it is unreasonable to fetter the police with an amendment of this kind when investigations might turn out to last very much longer than six hours and the people they pulled in in this country might well be innocent of any offence, but nevertheless they have to be called in in order to investigate.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will accept my presence at this Dispatch Box as a pale imitation, if not a pale shadow, of my noble friend. I sympathise with the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to compensate those detained and then released without charge. I do not pretend that being detained by the police for a lengthy period is likely to be other than an unpleasant experience for the person concerned; but the noble Lord's scheme would compensate him financially whatever the circumstances, and that is indeed a radical departure.
There are many ways in which the work of the police may result in a member of the public suffering some detriment. If a person believes that he has suffered because of police action he may sue the chief officer, and the police authority must pay any award the court may make. But in deciding whether the police are liable for the loss the court will consider the individual circumstances and, in particular, whether the police acted reasonably in pursuance of their duties. If the court concludes that the police have used their powers reasonably, it is not likely to find them liable for the loss. It is still open to the police authority, however, to make an ex gratia payment if it considers it appropriate to do so. But, again, a court in considering the level of compensation, or the police authority in determining the ex gratia payment, will take into account the individual circumstances involved, such as the extent of any loss, the distress suffered and whether the person concerned contributed in any way to his misfortune.

477
What the noble Lord, Lord Monson, proposes in this new clause is an automatic right to a set level of compensation. There is a presumption that the released person has suffered a detriment for which the taxpayer or the ratepayer—the clause does not say which—should compensate him. Furthermore, the presumption is that the detriment is the same in every case. for the compensation is at the same rate. So there is no decision as to liability, no decision as to whether a detriment has been suffered, and no decision as to the extent of that detriment.
I am sure that we can readily think of circumstances in which compensation is not appropriate at all; for example, when a person released on one occasion is subsequently charged with the suspected offence after further enquiries, or where a person has deliberately cast suspicion upon himself. Yet in this area of police activity it is proposed to substitute the general judgment of Parliament for the judgment of the court in individual cases.
I think it is clear what would happen. Anyone with time on his hands and a shortage of money would walk into a police station, confess to murder, spin matters out for more than six hours and then retract. I believe that, serious as this area of activity is, and involving as it does a temporary loss of liberty, we should nonetheless be wary of trespassing upon issues which are properly for the civil courts.
The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred to our international obligations; but they, of course, relate to unlawful or wrongful detention. If there is such detention, then the person may seek redress by suing. The amendment provides for compensation irrespective of the fault, which is of course another matter altogether. I am told that the review of the criminal injuries compensation arrangements is still continuing. I am not sure whether there is anything to add to that, but if there is my noble friend or I will write to the noble Lord. However, I believe that it is a slightly different matter from the one contained in the amendment before us.
I hope, therefore, that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will see the problems that his amendment poses, and will not wish to press it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Hooson, for their qualified support. To the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, may I say this. I did attempt, obviously without total success, to make it clear that the sum I proposed represented only partial compensation—token compensation, one might say. I deliberately did not want to confuse it with compensation payable where wrongful behaviour on the part of the police was concerned, and where the compensation payable would be, rightly, of a quite different order.
To the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, may I say that I do not believe my amendment would in any way fetter the police. Certainly it is not intended to do so. We are, after all, talking about pretty trivial sums of money.
This leads me to what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said. I contend that the low level of compensation I have proposed justifies the simplicity of my formula, which was meant to save a lot of
478
money which would otherwise be involved in administration. I cannot believe there would be many people who would deliberately purport to be guilty and get locked up in a police station merely in order to gain a few pounds. But, having said that, I did not entertain serious hopes that this amendment would be accepted. I think it has been a most useful discussion; and with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Searches of detained persons]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 49, line 30, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) The custody officer at a police station shall ascertain and record or cause to be recorded everything which a person has with him when he is—

(a) brought to the station after being arrested elsewhere or after being committed to custody by an order or sentence of a court; or

(b) arrested at the station after having attended voluntarily there or having accompanied a constable there without having been arrested.

(1A) In the case of an arrested person the record shall be made as part of his custody record.
(1B) Subject to subsection (1C) below, a custody officer may seize and retain any such thing or cause any such thing to be seized and retained.
(1C) Clothes and personal effects may only be seized if the custody officer—

(a) believes that the person from whom they are seized may use them—

(i) to cause physical injury to himself or any other person;

(ii) to damage property:

(iii) to interfere with evidence; or

(iv) to assist him to escape; or

(b) has reasonable grounds for believing that they may be evidence relating to an offence.

(1D) Where anything is seized, the person from whom it is seized shall be told the reason for the seizure unless he is—

(a) violent or likely to become violent; or

(b) incapable of understanding what is said to him.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will speak also to Amendment No. 98.
Amendment No. 98: Page 50, line 9. leave out subsections (6) to (8).
These are essentially drafting amendments which simplify the clause by bringing forward the substance of subsections (6) to (8). There is only one point to which I should draw your Lordships' attention. The scope of the clause is extended to cover not only persons brought to a police station under arrest but also those brought to a police station under an order of the court committing them to custody. The need to ascertain what property such persons have on them is clearly just as great as in the case of arrested persons. That is why we have extended it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Eltonmoved Amendment No. 98:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 97. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Eltonmoved Amendment No. 99:
[Printed earlier: col. 224.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this little

479
regarded amendment with Amendment No. 54, of which your Lordships took due notice. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Intimate searches]:
8.59 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 51, line 6, after ("him") insert ("either

(i) a Class A drug (as defined in section 2(1)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971); or

(ii)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it has been suggested that we should take Amendments Nos. 100 to 106 together.
Amendment No. 101:[Printed earlier.]
Amendment No. 102: Page 51, line 16, at end insert—
(" ( ) An intimate search of the genital or anal orifices shall be by way of an examination by a registered medical practitioner.").
Amendment No. 103: [As an amendment to Amendment No. 102]
At end insert ("or a registered midwife or a registered general nurse.").
Amendment No. 104: Page 51, line 18, after ("practitioner") insert ("or a registered midwife or a registered general nurse").
Amendment No. 105: Page 51, line 21, leave out ("constable") and insert ("trained nurse or midwife").
Amendment No. 106: Page 51, line 22, leave out subsection (6).
I come back to your Lordships, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, advised at Committe stage, with an amendment which is narrower. This amendment now limits the power of search of carriers of controlled drugs to Class A drugs. These are the most dangerous drugs, such as heroin and cocaine. There is no doubt that they do terrible harm to the victims who take them.
If your Lordships agree to this amendment, it will still mean that the police will have fewer powers to search for drugs than they now have under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. That Act leaves the sort of drugs open. The power for the police to search exists now. This Bill will remove it unless amended. The threat that someone can undergo an intimate search is a very important deterrent. Also, if someone is arrested and has concealed drugs, in most cases he takes them out himself when he knows that if he does not he will be searched.
The police are very worried that if this power to search goes, prostitutes will be used to carry drugs around the country. This, to them, could be easy money and less hard work than their usual job. A very tragic aspect of drug addiction is that many girls who cannot live without heroin turn to prostitution. as it is the only way that they can get the money to buy the drugs which they must have. Turning to crime is also a method of getting the necessary cash.
The flood of heroin is alarming. Your Lordships may be surprised when I say that a support group run by a Baptist minister exists in Harrogate, the mayor of Scarborough has told me that they have a problem there and in the village of Masham, in rural north Yorkshire, there is thought to be a pusher. The college staff at nearby Swinton, who run courses for young people from industry and for the unemployed, do not let their young people go down to the village. Is this freedom?
Dangerous addictive drugs have become a plague in our modern society. I know that the Government are making concerted efforts in other ways to try to catch the big pushers, but the small fish down the line can do just as much harm to the individual. Many people have seen those who become addicted destroy them-selves. Among other people, I asked two 17-year-old boys at random what they thought about intimate search for pushers. They both said simultaneously that search was necessary, though neither of the boys was a model of good behaviour. I also asked an Indian community worker from Bradford and he said the same. When talking to an Italian last Thursday, he was aghast when I told him that we would be the only country in Europe not to have this power.
My feelings are the same as those of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who said at the Committee stage:
"I personally am against intimate body searches, for various reasons: but I am far, far more against anyone and anything to do with drugs."—[0fficial Report, 9/7/84: col. 709.]
One of your Lordships gave me a leter from the laboratory of the Government Chemist, which reads:
"This laboratory has been collaborating with a UK industrial company in the development of a device which would detect the concealment of drugs such as heroin and cocaine."
As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said at Committee stage, there are technical devices such as ultrasound which can be used instead of manual search. Progress in this field is advancing.
The Royal College of Nursing have given their unequivocal support. The recommendation of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure was that intimate body searches should be given legal authority. I personally feel, in the interests of health and safety for all, that there should be a clear code of practice and specially trained medical people to do it, if it is thought to be really necessary. This amendment has the full support of the all-party Parliamentary Drug Misuse Committee. I hope that if it is accepted it will help to close a loophole to pushers of dangerous drugs.
I end by saying, with every respect to the Minister, that your Lordships might be confused by Amendment No. 101 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Clause 54 is not very clear, but I am told that "anything" in this case does not apply to drugs. As regards Clause 113(8) on page 101, I am told by an eminent lawyer in your Lordships' House that the definition does not apply to Clause 54 as the law would interpret it. It is not dealing with or describing serious arrestable offences—
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness and your Lordships permit me to intervene, because I think it will make things easier? I did not interrupt when the noble Baroness called the group as Amendments Nos. 100 to 106. She is quite right that Amendment No. 101 has nothing to do with this group and it has already been discussed with No. 36. So your Lordships need not be confused on that issue. I am sorry and I should have made it clear sooner.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for making that clear. I do not think we should be vague about heroin. I now turn to the other amendments. Amendment No. 103 just adds the words,
"or a registered midwife or a registered general nurse",

481
to,
"a registered medical practitioner".
It should be in the code of practice that all people allowed to do intimate search must be adequately trained to do it, whoever they are. I think that if nurses were attached to police stations, not only for searching but also for helping with many different problems such as the mentally handicapped, it would be better for the image of the police. A nurse, like a doctor, is professionally trained in a caring profession. A nurse would be neutral and would keep a balance. I also think that the services of a nurse would be advisable when using such equipment as ultrasound. A nurse could be easily trained to do it.
If Amendment No. 103 is added to No. 102, there will be three other amendments in the group. Perhaps the Committee will decide which are the most satisfactory. It will he much easier to make a decision about what to do when we have heard the Minister and other noble Lords. We must not forget that concern is mounting outside this House over the disastrous consequences of escalating drug misuse. If we do not do the correct thing, Parliament will no doubt be blamed for it. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I believe that the House—indeed, the country at large—will be very grateful to the noble Baroness for her pertinacity in moving this amendment on this occasion, altered as it is from the amendment that she moved at Committee stage, because of what the noble Lord the Minister very correctly said on that occasion about the inclusion of soft drugs. She can certainly count upon the support of my noble friends—if I may speak for them, as I am authorised to do on this occasion—in her desire to see that every conceivable step is taken to stop the filthiest trade that is ever practised in any country in the world, which this is. If we succeed in doing that, or at least in stemming it, we are not only catching people who deserve to be caught and brought under the criminal law, but we are most likely saving the lives of many young people.
It ought to be borne in mind, so we realise what we are doing if we pass these amendments, as I hope we shall, that we are merely giving to the police the same right that officers of Customs and Excise, as I understand it, have at the moment. We are protecting the position by ensuring that proper officers, such as doctors, midwives and qualified nurses, carry out these searches when they are required. I believe that the House will want not only to express gratitude to the noble Baroness but to do something practical by supporting her completely on this occasion.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am very glad that this bunch of amendments has been taken together. They cover a very sensitive but very important matter. I am entirely with the noble Baroness in what she seeks to achieve by Amendment No. 100. It appears to me that the pushing of Class A drugs is much more widespread throughout the country than is generally appreciated by the public. We hear a great deal about the black spots, but drug pushing on a considerable scale takes place throughout the country. However, one must look at the practical effect of the proposed amendment.
482
It was the fertile mind of my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington which implanted this idea in my mind: let us take the noble Baroness's example that a prostitute is being used by drug pushers to carry drugs in an intimate part, that she is arrested and accused of carrying such a drug and that she immediately responds with words to the effect, "Push off, I've only got Class B". How is that situation to be dealt with under this amendment?
It seems to me that in theory the noble Baroness is right. My noble friends and I propose to support her amendment on the understanding that it might have to be tightened up later. The amendment appears to deal with the much greater potential evil than does Clause 54. If we look at subsection (1) of Clause 54:
"If an officer of at least the rank of superintendent has reasonable grounds for believing—
(a) that a person who has been arrested and is in police detention may have concealed on him an article which could be used to cause physical injury to himself or others and which might be so used while he is in police detention or in the custody of a court"
we see that it governs the rest of the clause.
I would make the point that we are dealing with a fairly rare circumstance. I was not present at the Committee stage but I have read very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said about the subject. It seemed to me, as a result of reading his speech, that he had considered it very carefully. He gave as an example somebody who had a known suicidal tendency who had concealed razor blades and intended to use them. However, the danger of an unqualified person searching for the concealed razor blades might in that event be very much worse than just allowing the situation to continue. I have much more sympathy for what the noble Baroness proposes as the major reason for a search—that is, searching for, say, a Class A drug. The whole situation would, however, be changed if we removed the right of a police constable, however careful he or she may be, to perform the search. If we limit the right to search the anal and vaginal orifice simply to a qualified doctor, midwife or nurse, we remove the main objection that people would have.
I do not believe that an intimate search should in any event be embarked upon except in quite exceptional circumstances. That is generally agreed on both sides of the House. Nevertheless, when we agree about these exceptional circumstances we must go further. We accept the amendment moved by the noble Baroness to Amendment No. 102, which stands in my name and that of my noble friends, to add to the registered medical practitioner the registered midwife or the registered general nurse. If the amendment were accepted, the whole clause could, I believe, be accepted.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I am glad to be associated with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give very serious and sympathetic consideration to it. It strengthens the Government's hand in showing the need for this at first very distasteful concept of intimate search. All of us recognise that it is distasteful and that there is the danger of deprivation of liberty. However, I remember that about half an hour ago the noble Lord used the phrase, "We have to legislate with our heads as well as with

483
our hearts". I believe that the amendment tries to deal with the unpleasantness of the intimate search concept and strengthens the Bill by saying that there are real reasons today why such searches should take place under very stringent conditions. I am very glad that the noble Baroness has linked her speech with Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 which follow. I believe that nurses often have to do unpleasant things but they are, as it were, above the battle concerning the justice issue, and they are there to help with the mercy issue. I believe that if there were nurses linked with police stations in the same way as are police surgeons—even in the way in which this House depends on its own nursing sister, who is part of the community here—that would be good.
The second reason why I hope that Her Majesty's Government may well take this amendment on board is because it does seek to meet this new and alarming drug danger, which I believe is really reaching epidemic proportions. It is true that any Bill has a time-lag factor in it, and the painstaking drafting of this Bill must have taken place quite a long time ago as we know. I have done research on this drug epidemic, especially with young people. and drugs are being sold very cheaply to young people, who get hooked very early. We are not being alarmist but realistic when we talk about a drug epidemic. For those two reasons, I hope that the Government will believe that this amendment should he taken on board at this stage.
Lord Denning: My Lords, drug addiction is the greatest social evil of our time; drug trafficking is the greatest crime of our time. As the Lord Chief Justice said recently. all the first-class criminals are turning from bank robbery to trafficking heroin because it is less dangerous and more profitable. The cases in the courts illustrate how widespread the transportation of drugs is today.
There was a case in this House where a customs officer checked a car which was going through the Green Lane. He found in the deflated spare tyre in the back of the car packets of heroin. He turned to the man himself, undid his clothing and found more packets of heroin strapped to his body. The man said. "I did not know it was heroin; I thought it was just currency notes." And he got away with it.
The other case I wish to illustrate to you is where in Cambridge the police obtained a warrant to search a house for drugs. They found nothing in the house, but the owner happened to return while they were there and they searched him. He had a little tin on him containing a little plastic bag with a few grains of drug. He was in unlawful possession and was duly convicted. Those are instances of trafficking.
Surely, if this amendment is not passed it will be the easiest thing in the world to escape conviction. A prostitute, or any other woman employed by these people, can conceal drugs on her or inside her and then say, if the medical people or the superintendent authorises a search, "Oh, you can't search me, I can go straight through." It gives a licence to drug traffickers to go unscathed with these drugs concealed inside them.
For the prevention and destruction of this great evil and this great crime, surely there should be the power
484
of intimate search. The search can only be authorised by a person of the rank of superintendent. He has got to have reasonable grounds for believing that there is a drug, so you do not search anyone who comes along; the superintendent has to have reasonable grounds for believing there is something there and that a search ought to be made for the purpose. If protection is given by saying that it should not be a police officer but a medical person or midwife, surely this amendment ought to be accepted by your Lordships.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I wish to speak very briefly to these amendments, and with special reference to Amendments Nos. 103 to 106. in order to put the views of two of the Royal colleges most directly concerned. I have consulted both the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives and understand they support the view that, if intimate body searches are to be undertaken, it is clearly preferable that they should be conducted by members of the health care professions rather than by the police, for the very obvious reason that appropriately qualified, professional staff will be better equipped in terms of knowledge and experience and because it will be less humiliating—especially for innocent persons—to be searched by a member of the caring professions than by a police officer.
The Royal College of Nursing hopes also that the Government will take into account two other suggestions which I believe were made on previous occasions. First, it is suggested that such searches should be conducted in a clinical setting and not in a police station. Secondly, such searches should be carried out by a person of the same sex as the person being searched. I hope the Government will agree that all these suggestions are eminently reasonable and that they can help the professions concerned by assisting in making them legally acceptable.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, in Committee I supported the noble Baroness and said at that time that I was very much against intimate body searches—even more against hard drugs. I will now embarrass myself, but I hope not your Lordships. by speaking only to Amendments Nos. 102 and 103. Ferdinand de Lesseps built the Suez Canal but I had my canal rebuilt by Mr. Elton, a surgeon. I am sorry to say that there is no way I would allow a non-medical person to search me, because my rebuilt "Suez canal" is of such a size that unless someone was medically qualified they could do me an injury. I cannot be unique in this respect.
Quite honestly, I would rather not have to stand up and explain intimate medical details concerning myself to your Lordships, but it is a fact in my case, and it might be a fact in the case of other people. I would have no worry at all about any search, however intimate, made by a medical practitioner, midwife or nurse. Indeed, any Member of your Lordships' House who has had a haemorroidectomy will know that you were looked after by nurses who were very gentle and kind, and that there was no embarrassment at all. If these amendments are passed, there is no way that I would ever allow a policeman—whether he be a superintendent or anything else—to search me.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, as a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing and a member of the drug committee which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has recently started, I become more and more horrified by the information that I receive through those organisations and by the appalling things that do go on and can go on if they are not stopped. I agree with everything that has been said, particularly by my noble friend Lady Cox, and I should like to support her in every way.
I am more particularly anxious that these searches should be carried out by nurses or doctors if the subject is a woman—or even if the subject is a man, that they should not he made by a constable but by a trained doctor. This is vital. We are legislating for something about which we have never had to legislate before and it gives rise to some terrifying and horrible thoughts. The only way that one can make such searches possible and tolerable is that suggested by my noble friend Lady Cox—by trained and expert medical people. nurses, general practitioners, or what-have-you. They should not be undertaken by people who have no experience. I hope the Government realise that we all feel frightfully strongly about this and that they will accept these amendments.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will come back with an amendment on Third Reading incorporating Amendment No. 100 of the noble Baroness, with which I think we all agree, and a mixture of Amendments Nos. 102 and 103. This would then read:
"An intimate search of the genital or anal orifices shall be by way of an examination by a registered practitioner or a registered midwife or a registered general nurse of the same sex as the person being examined.".
That would cover the whole aspect and should be the end of the argument. I very much hope that that is what the noble Lord will say.
Lord Plant: My Lords. I have discussed this with various police organisations and they would very much welcome not having to do the search and that it should be done by a medical practitioner, midwife or nurse. What would horrify them would be if there were no powers for intimate body searches because then body orifices would become much more common hiding places. The police are certain that this amendment is essential in combating ingenious and inventive criminals.
The Lord Chief Justice said yesterday, or the day before, that there had to be a vigorous attack on the trade of heroin. I believe that the Government have taken note of that. We have to stop these evil people from plying their trade. If we do not pass this amendment, so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I believe that we shall live to regret it. I had a similar amendment in Committee, but it was wider. I have not proceeded with that amendment because I thought there would be a greater chance of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, being supported. There has been a torrent of support and sympathy for this amendment; not only in this Chamber but certainly among the police, and I believe among the public.
486
We must not protect the trade of illicit drugs. The police are united in support of this amendment. One reason why the Government have cold feet is because the BMA said that it did not want to undertake this unpleasant task. I have spoken to many doctors; they were never consulted by the BMA. Certainly police surgeons would undertake the task. We should carry this amendment because we have to decide what should be the laws of the country and we have to protect the citizens against the abuse and the use of hard drugs. If we do not carry this amendment, we shall be doing much to see that these evil people get their way.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the amendment which she has brought before us. I also say at the outset that I was involved for a number of years, not in this country but overseas, with international drug smugglers and people who smuggled heroin, opium and that kind of contraband.
I see tonight a greater urgency that the Government should take very quick action on the suppression of this evil. I support wholeheartedly what was said of these evil men by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He said that it was an evil we had to eradicate as soon as possible.
I want to refer to an incident which happened in 1930, many years ago when I was the age of 24. The Colonial Office sent out instructions to Malaya, where I was serving, that the League of Nations, as it was then constituted, had given an edict to Her Majesty's Government that in the territories for which they were responsible they should carry out the suppression of opium smoking. We on the spot were put in a great difficulty. We had been getting a considerable amount of Government revenue from the sale of opium. run from Government shops. We had in that country Chinese, who were indigenous and who had been working there for many years, and it was a situation that we had to accept.
Nevertheless, we accepted the orders of Her Majesty's Government and immediately started to register smokers and ration them according to a medical report which came from the doctors. I consider that we succeeded in reducing the consumption of that narcotic, which to a large extent has the same effect as heroin. We succeeded in that, but we did not eradicate the smoking or otherwise taking of opium.
It has been reported in the press, and on wide and responsible authority, that heroin is in circulation not only in our cities but countrywide among many of our young people. I press my noble friend the Minister, who will be speaking to that amendment shortly, to listen sympathetically to everthing that has been said in this connection in your Lordships' House.
Finally, I say this. We have a moral obligation to protect the youth in this country. It is exceedingly difficult to eradicate something once addiction has been established. It looks like becoming established here if something is not done urgently to deal with the situation. I hope that Her Majesty's Government feel that they have a moral obligation not to he complacent but to act with the utmost urgency to deal with the situation.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I should like briefly to associate myself with everything that has been said tonight. I think that we have approached this grave subject practically, and that is the way that it must be approached today in this country. As we all know, there is a tremendous escalation of the problem. Ten days ago I was speaking at a local hospital in a certain part of the country. A magistrate came up to me and asked me about drugs. I said, "What about them?" She said that she would like me to know that on their bench they had had a survey done of only robberies in the past year. It was a large and busy PSD, and 80 per cent. of the robberries in that one area were connected with drugs.
I am sure that I need not draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that Clause 54(2) states:
"An intimate search under this section may only be conducted at a police station or at a hospital".
In view of what has been said today, I feel that we should perhaps consider taking out the words, "at a police station". There are certainly as many hopsitals as police stations. If we go along with what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others said, and decide that those who are qualified in medicine should be the only people to conduct intimate searches, we should go one step further and say that they should be conducted in hospital.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask whether she considers that under the amendment they could raise a qualified person in the police station; that is to say, a registered nurse? Would there be any objection then? It seems to me that if they can produce a medical practitioner or a registered nurse to carry out the search. it is unnecessary to move the person to a hospital.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, it is very important that the search should be under clinical conditions; those do not often exist in a police station.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I briefly say that it is not only a privilege but I consider it a plain personal duty to support these amendments.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as I have added my name to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on the amendment, I too should like formally to support it. I think that everything has been said. I emphasise the deterrent effect that I think this power would exercise. In particular, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was very brave to make the statements that he did, which bring home to us how people would feel. I support the point that the searches must be conducted by suitably qualified people. On the point about the necessary clinical conditions, some police stations are large enough to have quite good clinical conditions. If that is so, there is no reason why the search could not be at a police station. It would depend purely on the standard of the facility available.
Lord Gray: My Lords, I should like to support this series of amendments. Faced with the obscentity of the increasing traffic in drugs, I think that we have a clear
488
duty to give this power to the police in the manner proposed in this series of amendments.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, almost everything has been said on this matter. However, I hope your Lordships will permit me to contribute my mite. I have a number of paragraphs describing how the Bill came to be as it is. I do not think your Lordships will wish to listen to the history. I will merely remind your Lorships that his power was in the Bill when we first introduced it in another place, but we took it out last summer owing to the repeated anxious reminders that we had from the medical profession that they were not happy with it. We had good reason for that. However, I would rather turn now to the amendments that are before us in this group and, as a preliminary, to refer, as did the noble Baroness in moving her Amendment No. 100, to something which I think is not entirely relevant but which was raised at the Committee stage and which ought to be laid to rest.
There was a reference to the ultrasonic—I think they were otherwise described in Hansard but the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, assures me that "ultrasonic" was the word he meant to say—and X-ray devices which might be able to be used instead of the powers conferred in the Bill. There are two facts. one technical and one legal. which means that this is not the case. The technical fact is that there may be objects of a moderate or small size and of moderate density or reflectivity which might simply not be detected by the devices. The other is that even if you see that there is an object there you still need the power to remove it. So the power, the need to legislate, remains.
Let us therefore look at the various proposals now on the Order Paper and first consider those that concern the question of who may undertake an intimate search, regardless of what the search is for. As the Bill stands, it is only doctors or, if the participation of a doctor is impracticable, a police officer who may do it. In Committee there was a good deal of support on all sides for the proposals that nurses and midwives too should be eligible, as it were, on the basis that both their expert knowledge of the body and their ethical responsibilities made them better equipped to carry out a search than a police officer. My noble friend Lady Trumpington accepted that there was a strong case for this, subject to consultations with the professional bodies concerned. She also noted that this applied to any intimate search irrespective of the orifice concerned.
The consultations that we have been able to conduct in the short time available have produced support for this proposition. If a trained nurse or midwife can and is willing to undertake a procedure of this kind, then it is clearly better that they should do it rather than a police officer. Our consultations have thrown out various points of detail which will need to be resolved; for example, whether this extension of the power should extend to all or only to certain nominated nursing staff. But I am able to tell your Lordships that, in view of the general acceptance of the principle involved, the Government accept that amendments to the Bill for this purpose are desirable.
Two further questions arise, however, if nurses and midwives are authorised under the Bill to conduct

489
intimate searches: first, whether there is still any need for the reserve police power in subsections (5) and (6); secondly, whether, as envisaged in Amendments Nos. 105 and 106, nurses and midwives should be so authorised only if it is impracticable for a doctor to be involved. As to the first question, my noble friend made it clear in Committee that we would still take the view that there is a need to retain subsections (5) and (6). She made the point then that the addition of nurses and midwives would reduce still further the already very small likelihood that a police officer would be called upon to perform an intimate search. But we still believe that it is necessary to provide for those very rare occasions on which it is simply not possible or practicable to secure medical or nursing assistance in time to be of use, as may be the case if a violent and disturbed person is brought to a police station under arrest.
We cannot be certain that the rapid removal of a concealed weapon will never take overriding priority. It might be very unlikely, but we have to legislate for all circumstances. It is for this reason that I would not advise your Lordships to accept Amendments Nos. 105 and 106, which would abolish this police reserve power completely. Nor, for the same reason, could I recommend Amendments Nos. 102 and 103, which seek to abolish the reserve power in respect of genital and anal searches only. I can see the obvious appeal of this since the genital and anal orifices are so much the most intimate of all body orifices and subject to the sort of difficulties that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has courageously referred to.
The amendments would not have ruled out the possibility of the police themselves searching David Martin, who had, of course, concealed a penknife in his mouth. Nevertheless, there have been cases where weapons have been concealed not in the mouth but in the other orifices. I shall not repeat the examples that I gave at the Committee stage because your Lordships will be familiar with them. What you are interested in is the principle of the availability of the nurses and midwives, and that we concede.
I believe that the evidence that we have shows that the risks of abolishing the reserve police power outweigh the risks of retaining it. What, in effect, I am asking your Lordships to weigh is a small risk of injury—we have no record of any such injury caused—against a very real risk of death. It must be right therefore to take the former risk.
Next, there is the question of whether it should be possible for searches to be undertaken by nurses and midwives only if the services of a doctor could not be secured whether because he was unavailable or whether because, like the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, he has ethical reservations about undertaking intimate searches. I do not think that it is desirable to establish a pecking order of this kind, which will take time in any case. I think that in the urgent circumstances we are talking about the first person qualified under the Bill available should be enabled to make the search.
To sum matters up so far, the Government support the approach suggested by the noble Baroness in Amendment No. 104. Some points of detail remain to be settled in further consultation. I hope that she will be content not to press her amendment now, but I
490
willingly undertake to bring forward a Government amendment on the same lines at Third Reading.
I turn now to the question raised by Amendment No. 100. This seeks to extend the power of intimate search beyond the protective and into the investigative sphere. Of course, the possession of dangerous addictive drugs does raise issues concerning both the health and the welfare of the person concerned, and indeed of society at large. If there are reasonable grounds for believing that the drugs might be taken out and swallowed, then the powers in the Bill as drafted would come into play. One example which I spared your Lordships was of someone who had successfully committed suicide with tablets concealed in the rectum. But, in the context of this amendment, we are not talking about articles which present an immediate risk of injury but of helping the police to eradicate the foul menace of drugs by securing evidence to prosecute those dealing in them. What is proposed by this amendment, as by the Royal Commission, is essentially therefore an investigative power.
I explained in Committee why we were opposed to such an extension of the Bill drawing particular attention to the views clearly put to us by the medical profession. However, I said then that we would obviously need to reconsider the matter if there had been a change of view within the profession. I understand. as noble Lords have indicated, that there is now a better understanding of the terrible threat to the health of society as a whole posed by heroin and a recognition of the need to do everything that we can to counter this threat. I understand also that in certain circumstances and subject to strict safeguards, members of the nursing profession might be willing to remove dangerous drugs without consent.
In the light of these indications, tentative though they may at this stage still be, that the balance of professional opinion may be shifting, though still divided, in the light of the views expressed by noble Lords in debate, we accept that it would be unwise to shut the door for the foreseeable future on searches for drugs. Having said that, I should make clear that we remain firmly of the view that such searches where they involve actual probing of body orifices should never be undertaken by police officers. The situation is quite different from the protective search undertaken to remove a dangerous weapon. There, time may be of the essence.
In the case of drugs, a reserve police power would be inappropriate, both because of the risk to the health of the suspected person which would be posed by a procedure of this kind undertaken by an unqualified person, and for the community relations reasons which I stressed at Committee stage and which, I remind your Lordships, are one of the foundation stones upon which the Bill is erected. But, on reflection, we do accept that there is a case for permitting doctors or members of the nursing profession to remove class A drugs in the absence of consent in the interests of the health of the person concerned and that of potential victims of the drug menace. Of course, the Bill could not and would not require them to undertake any procedure. It would simply provide them with a protection in law against an action for assault if they decided that it would be consistent with conscience and professional ethics to

491
assist the police in this way; so they would not be compelled, as it were—one cannot, I think, compel them—to make the search if they do not wish to do so.
The implications of what I have said require very careful thought. I could not advise your Lordships to accept Amendment No. 100 as it stands. In the first place, it draws in individuals suspected of possessing any amount of a class A drug, however small. But the target we are aiming at is the dealer and smuggler who keeps the engine of destruction fuelled. The Royal Commission recommended that the power should be restricted to evidence of the grave offences of supplying. importing and exporting controlled drugs. The scope of the power should, I am sure, be limited in this way.
Secondly, I believe that there may be a case for providing that it should be possible for such searches to be carried out, as my noble friends Lady Cox and Lady Macleod suggested, only at hospitals or doctors' surgeries by suitably qualified personnel. The need for a rapid search at the police station will not arise, and it is surely much better for all concerned that the procedure should be as far removed as possible from the arena of the police station. Of course, the noble Baroness's amendment as it stands leaves to the police a reserve power which neither she nor, I think, most of your Lordships—nor, as the noble Lord, Lord Plant, most helpfully told your Lordships, the police themselves—feel that they should be asked to use.
But these and other matters, such as those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and the question of sex mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, all require detailed working out with those concerned, and we shall undertake the necessary consultations over the coming weeks, during the Recess.
I hope that I have said enough to show the noble Baroness and your Lordships that she has persuaded us, with your Lordships' eloquent support, on to a new course; and to persuade her, therefore, to agree to withdraw her amendment now so that we can incorporate suitable provisions as a result of consultation during the coming Recess.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down. I should like to say that so far as I can see there is only one issue remaining. I think the House and the Government agree that in general the noble Baroness's amendment should be worked out and agreed to. It seems to me that the point which still remains between us is whether there should be any power reserved for somebody other than a medical practitioner, or a trained nurse of either sex, or a midwife, to do this examination. On this side of the House we feel passionately strongly that there should not remain a right for the police constable to do this. We have got from the noble Lord no indication of what he thinks about this, and I think we ought to have something.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the noble Lord will read Hansard, he will find that he and I are entirely agreed on this matter.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I have listened very carefully to
492
what he said. He will forgive me for querying this, but in regard to the concealed weapon he said that there should be a reserve police power. That is what my noble friend was referring to.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I apologise; I thought we were discussing the amendment about searches for drugs, not the searches for weapons. I have addressed myself simply to that matter and I think I have made myself absolutely clear as to what are the Government's intentions. I feel like a partridge that has twice tried to settle and each time been shot at. I hope noble Lords will let me finally get to the ground.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am just wondering whether the noble Baroness wishes to reply to the debate on the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have supported this, and to say a very big "Thank you" to the Minister and to the Government. Picking up the point made by the noble Lord. Lord Hooson, I want to say that at Committee stage I asked that very same question about how one defines whether the drug in question is heroin or cannabis. The police have drug squads. They are watching and they know the various dealers; at least. we hope they do.
That leads me on to the last point I want to make. Having read yesterday in the report of speeches at a law dinner that there are not enough police working in the drug squads. I hope very much that the Government will encourage more experts in searching for drugs so that we can catch these devils. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 100.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Eltonmoved Amendment No. 101:
[Printed earlier: col. 221.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the next amendment is Amendment No. 102.
Lord Monson: My Lords—
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the mover must move the amendment first.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Hoosonmoved Amendment No. 102:
[Printed earlier: col. 479.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords. I apologise. I was not sure whether or not the noble Lord. Lord Hooson, was going to move the amendment, as he had spoken to it previously. I was under the impression that we were dealing essentially with Amendment No. 100, which I agree has been dealt with in a satisfactory way. However, I should like to say something about Amendments Nos. 102 and 103, because although I

493
was extremely happy about the noble Lord's reply to Amendment No. 100, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, I am not happy with his objections to—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will permit me to raise a point of order which can be decided by those much more experienced than I? The debate was conducted on a grouping which included all these amendments. The debate has been concluded, and concluded in a most satisfactory way with every point being dealt with. Even if the Minister did not agree with some of the things said, he said so, and they are under consideration. I do feel that we ought to get a move on.
Lord Monson: Of course, my Lords, if that is the wish of the House; but Amendment No. 100—
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think I have called Amendment No. 102, and that it has been moved. Let me be sure where I stand. I understand that Amendment No. 102 was moved?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I moved the amendment, but I was going to add that, in the light of the noble Lord's undertaking that the whole of the clause would be recast, I wished to withdraw it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 not moved.]
Lord Hunter of Newingtonhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 105:
[Printed earlier: col. 479.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the light of what the Minister has said. I shall not move Amendment No. 105.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Lord Eltonmoved Amendments Nos. 107 and 108:
[Printed earlier: cot 221]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Trcfgarne spoke to Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 with Amendment No. 36. I beg to move both amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Eltonmoved Amendment No. 109:
[Printed earlier: col. 224.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 109 with Amendment No. 54. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Right to have someone informed when arrested]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 110:
Page 52, line 28, leave out ("without delay") and insert ("as soon as is practicable").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am told that this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is as precipitate as he always is, but on this occasion not absolutely correct. We are dealing here with a very important clause about information being given either to a member of the family or to a friend that a person is in a police station. On the last occasion the noble Lord said that possibly the words "without delay" were difficult words to include in the Bill. although originally they were in the Bill, because it might mean that a civil claim arose against the police if there was one minute of delay.
This is an extremely important clause for people who are detained in police stations and whose families, as I am reminded, are so concerned and worried about them. The amendment now before the House is to substitute the phrase "as soon as is practicable" for the phrase "without delay". That can mean anything, and the police can decide that it really is not practicable because they have a number of other things—they may be quite minor things—to which to attend and they cannot send someone round to the house to say that someone is in the police station.
I am suggesting to the Minister—and indeed to the noble and learned Lord—that if the words were to be "without undue delay" (and he may wish to consider this), so that we are inserting the word "undue", that would meet the point, and we would not have the very wide term "as soon as practicable", which I humbly submit is not suitable in this context to protect the interests of the person who is detained.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. was good enough to give some preliminary indication of his remarks. and therefore I am in a position to reply to him as a result of his courtesy in so doing. I am advised that the phrase "without undue delay", which is what he has suggested, is actually a laxer test for the police because it suggests that some delay, whether or not necessary, is acceptable, provided that the delay is not great.
The purpose of this amendment is to make the language of the Bill consistent. The expression "as soon as practicable" occurs in other clauses in the Bill, such as Clauses 36(4), 56 and 57(3), and, as was pointed out in Committee on 9th July (at col. 736 of Hansard) in response to an amendment which would have substituted the expression "without delay" for the phrase "as soon as practicable" in Clause 57(3), one cannot sensibly require the police to do something sooner than it was practicable so to do.
I should have thought that it was desirable in itself that the Bill should at least be consistent in its terminology. The expression "as soon as practicable" is thought to be preferable because, with the best will in the world, there must occasionally be some delay. For instance, the telephone lines from one town to another may be engaged; or the custody officer may have to deal urgently with another person at the station who has become violent. There are innumerable reasons why from time to time some delay is inevitable. So long as the police are under a duty to comply with a request as soon as practicable, I am advised and I believe that that is enough. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the House will have been very pleased to hear the speech that the noble and learned Lord made on a drafting amendment. In the circumstances, I shall obviously consider what has been said but for the moment I sit down.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Giffordmoved Amendment No. 11OA:
Page 52, line 37, leave out ("36") and insert ("12").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench. Clause 55, as my noble friend Lord Mishcon said, deals with the very important matter of the right of somebody to have a friend or relative informed if he is under arrest. This is a different question from the right of access to a solicitor. We are not talking about the right to see someone, but merely the basic right for someone to know where you are.
The Bill proposes that that right can be denied, in certain circumstances, for up to 36 hours. One of the nightmares about a police state is the arrest in the middle of the night, the person being taken off to the police station and nobody knowing where he is. He is not able to get any message out about where he is. We all agree that there must be some limit on the time over which that can extend. The Government have proposed a limit of 36 hours: a limit which can be as much as two nights and a day, which we suggest is extreme to the point of inhumanity. It is not just a question of the person in custody not being able to get any intimation out to his relatives.
The code of practice in paragraph 5.5 states that where an inquiry as to the whereabouts of a detained person is made by a relative, the information will not be given if the provisions of this clause apply. In other words, the police will be entitled to deny to a relative who inquires, "Is my son at the police station?" and that can continue over a period of 36 hours.
Of course, there are conflicting dangers. There is the danger, which I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will tell us about. that if the news of an arrest gets out it can get to accomplices. But the dangers are surely limited. The news gets around particularly in the world of the criminal fraternity. We are talking in our amendment about a time limit of 12 hours which surely is a limit of what is reasonable.
Even if there is a danger, the danger must be tempered by the considerations the other way. Some of your Lordships will have received a letter from a distinguished professor, Professor Leigh of the London School of Economics. He says this:
"We must balance the interests of efficiency in investigation with that of the dictates of humanity. I cannot think it right that a person should be held incommunicado. It is a form of mental torture to which I would hope we in England would not subject fellow citizens."
Let us consider the dangers the other way round. When relatives find that one of their loved ones is missing, the anguish that that can cause is extraordinary. I recently had the privilege of chairing a committee of investigation into certain arrests and detentions in South Wales where young people had been arrested and nobody had been told. I heard from relatives, most law-abiding and respectable people, who had been round from police station to police
496
station and eventually to the morgue to try to find where their loved ones were, because the police refused to say that they were in a particular police station.
That situation—enduring over 36 hours—is, in my submission to your Lordships, intolerable. The faith of those relatives and their friends in the fairness of the system of police investigation was shattered. Let us therefore put a limit of 12 hours at most on the right of the police in any circumstances to deny that very simple and, we would suggest, almost always harmless right: the fact that the arrest should be made known to a relative. Grouped with this amendment is the linked Amendment No. 116A. which would impose the same time limit on the power of the police to withhold access to a solicitor. I am not going to speak to that because we have had a full debate on it. The question of how long someone should be held incommunicado raises different points. I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, mentioned the right of someone to know where you are. Even more important, I would say, is the right of a person's family to know that he or she is not dead or seriously injured as the result of a traffic accident, for example, or of having dropped down in the street with a heart attack. That is what husbands and/or wives fear most if their spouse, for whatever reason, fails to appear.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. I think that in our debates on these matters we lose sight very quickly of the balance which we are trying to keep. Over and over again an isolated case is given as an example to justify a power. All of us can always think of an isolated case where you feel that you ought to have overwhelming powers. The fact of the matter is that to keep somebody in custody for 36 hours without letting anybody know gives a tremendous power to those in the police station to obtain a confession or an admission from that person which may turn out, as I have already said earlier in the day, to lead inevitably to an appalling miscarriage of justice.
People make confessions and admissions purely because they are in a police station isolated, totally isolated, locked up in a cell, knowing the situation outside, that their wife is going to do this or the child needs collecting or they promised to do this or that and the wife could be sitting at home expecting a child to come home or whatever it is. In those circumstances, they will say anything to get out of that police station or to get their families informed of where they are. I would support this amendment as a practical lawyer—as is also the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. One repeatedly sees in front of one that people make confessions and admissions in police stations because they are incarcerated incommunicado for a very considerable time. It is a great danger. I believe that 36 hours is too long for someone to disappear. Twelve hours is surely enough.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I really do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, added much to the wisdom of nations by talking about a police state when we are obviously talking about a question of degree; or by talking about the police telling lies with

497
such gusto when that is not the case in the main. And I rather doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, was really helping us much by referring to this question of confessions, with which we shall be dealing at much greater length in a later clause.
Clauses 55 and 57, with which this amendment is concerned, provide for a delay of 36 hours in exercising the rights to have someone informed of the arrest and to obtain legal advice. These amendments would reduce the time to 12 hours. The figure of 36 hours was adopted in order to link up with the first independent review of detention under Clause 42, and there are good reasons for keeping the three provisions—that is, under Clauses 42, 55, and 57—in line.
Special considerations apply in the case of persons detained under the terrorism provisions, to whom the 36-hour review will not apply, so the figure in their case is different. But in the case of persons detained in right of arrest for a serious arrestable offence under the general criminal law, the latest point at which they must he brought to court if still uncharged is also the natural limit for incommunicado detention. It was for this reason that the previous Bill, as originally introduced, provided for notification of arrest to be delayed up to 48 hours. since that would then have been the point at which the first inter partes review of detention took place.
Indeed, some of the reasons which caused us to consider that the time of the first inter partes review should be no later than 36 hours, rather than 24 hours, are also reasons for maintaining 36 hours as the limit on the delay of a notification of arrest. It was necessary for us, as those responsible for the safety of other human beings as well as those under suspicion, to take account of the exceptional cases involving very serious crime where premature disclosure of the fact that a person had been arrested could have the most harmful consequences.
To some extent, of course, any figure one chooses is an arbitrary figure. but on occasion it is clear that 12 hours is insufficient. It has been accepted by the Criminal Bar Association. which is composed of at least as practical lawyers, if your Lordships will allow me to say so, as Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, that on occasions even 36 hours might be too early. The case they had in mind concerned a kidnapping in which it was essential for the victim's safety that the fact that one member of the kidnapping gang had been arrested was not disclosed. I wonder whose side we are really on in these cases. The risks would obviously be much greater if the period were reduced to 12 hours. It is right to regard this issue in terms of risk. We are already taking a risk by placing a 36-hour limit where none now exists.
Of course, this does not mean that a delay will occur in all or, indeed, a great many cases. The clause, as your Lordships will know, is based on Section 62 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. I must remind the House that that Act was not passed under a Conservative Government. It not only allows an indefinite delay but also allows it on criteria which are considerably vaguer than in Clause 55, referring simply to
"the interest of the investigation or prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders".
498
I have quoted those last words from the Act.
Even so, the great majority of requests are dealt with quickly. In 1982 there were approximately 1,600,000 arrests, and only 1,353 requests under Section 62 of the 1977 Act were delayed for over four hours. A minute number, 114, were delayed for over 24 hours. Thus, only in a minute proportion of cases—0.007 per cent., in fact—was there delay for more than 24 hours in complying with a request under Section 62 of that Act passed by a Labour Administration. There is therefore every reason for confidence that, through a higher definition of the cases in which delay is permitted, the clause is likely to reduce the minute proportion still further.
At the same time, as I have said, it is necessary to provide for the exceptional case in which 12 hours is not enough. I have one or two cases to refer to. and I shall revert to them. But what would have happened in those cases if this amendment had been in force? The arguments in the case of Clause 57 are similar because, as has already been explained, the power to restrict a person's access to a solicitor is simply a special case of the need to keep him incommunicado. There may well be cases where the police are happy to grant access to a solicitor but not to someone named by the suspect.
The point in his detention after which it no longer becomes possible to keep him incommunicado is 36 hours or the hearing of an application for a warrant of further detention, if that is earlier. So, logically, it is also the point at which the right should become absolute. Your Lordships have already agreed that the latest time for the first inter partes review of detention should be 36 hours; but I must stress certain points. First, the exercise of the right of access to legal advice cannot be delayed once the reasons which have justified it no longer exist. Secondly, the exercise of the right cannot be interfered with once a person has been charged with an offence or detained on the authority of a warrant for further detention. Thirdly, access to legal advice must be allowed before any court hearing, which obviously includes the hearing of an application for a warrant of further detention. That is made clear in paragraph 3 of Annex C to the draft detention code. I am confident that the power to delay access to a solicitor for more than 12 hours will be exercised only in the most compelling cases of serious crime.
I promised to give your Lordships one or two examples. They all date, I think, from 1983, which is comparatively recent. Let us take one from July of that year, which was a conspiracy to rob. The reason for delay was that another person had to be arrested in connection with the same offence. It was feared that the friend might inform another person. Another example concerned a drugs case—another very serious offence. I am afraid this is from April 1982—I said earlier that they all related to 1983: that is not true. The reason for the delay was that inquiries were continuing into drug offences and it was believed that notification of the named person would prevent the arrest of others involved.
Then there was another case of deception with drug offences. The person arrested was a known dealer in drugs. His premises were searched under authority of a drugs warrant. During the search £39,000 was found in a box in the garden, with jewellery. It was believed

499
that a third person involved with others was jointly responsible for other burglaries of a similar nature. It was desirable to recover as much of the stolen property as possible and to search his address. If he was allowed contact with others it might have hindered the investigation.
Another case concerning drugs was thought likely to interfere with the course of justice, as other people were to be interviewed about the large amount of controlled drugs involved. There was another case which concerned detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It was thought that it might impede inquiries in Northern Ireland and lead to threats to persons supplying information.
It is all very well to talk in emotive terms, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, does almost on every occasion and as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, does invariably: but really we must decide whose side we are on in these matters. Human lives are involved—human lives of the utmost importance—and innocent lives, and other people are under suspicion. Clearly these are matters of degree and they-are matters of judgment, but the advice we have received is that 36 hours is the right period and 12 hours is the wrong period. I am not going to plead guilty to starting a police state or to encouraging police to tell lies, simply because I am on the side of those who are investigating drugs offences and kidnapping.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, it is not a justified riposte, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, to suggest that those who put forward some decent basic minimum periods during which people could be held incommunicado are somehow on the side of criminals because that is what they propose. We are on the side of decent standards and this Bill, in many respects, is eroding them.
In answer to the various examples which we were given, the answer is surely that you cannot keep arrests secret. The news gets out. If the police have to arrest a number of people they have to co-ordinate their actions because the word gets around. I would be very surpised indeed if there were any case more often than once or twice a year in which an arrest had been kept secret from accomplices for more than 12 hours and someone's life was in danger.
I shall not press this amendment for one reason only, and that is because in the linked debate which we have had about the right of access to a solicitor a lot of wise things have been said, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be considering what, if anything, can be done to meet some of the objections that were raised on that matter. Quite clearly, if there is some change in the Bill on the question of the right of access to a solicitor, it may affect what should be done about the right of someone to have a friend informed. For that reason only, and not because anything the noble and learned Lord said has convinced me, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.20 p.m.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 111:
Page 53, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 39 and insert—
500
("(a) subsection (2)(a) above shall have effect as if for the words "for a serious arrestable offence" there were substituted the words "under the terrorism provisions";
(b) subsection (3) above shall have effect as if for the words from "within" onwards there were substituted the words, "before the end of the period beyond which he may no longer be detained without the authority of the Secretary of State".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 117.
Amendment No. 117: Page 56, line 3, leave out (""48" were substituted for "36"") and insert ("for the words from "within" onwards there were substituted the words "before the end of the period beyond which he may no longer be detained without the authority of the Secretary of State" ").
I believe that these are drafting amendments. These amendments to Clauses 55 and 57 both clarify the application of the provisions of the clauses to a person detained under the terrorism provisions. The former amendment also ensures that the three paragraphs constituting subsection (12) of Clause 55 appear in the correct order. The intended effect of Clause 55(12) and 57(13) is that, whereas the rights conferred by those two clauses become absolute after 36 hours in the case of a person detained under the general criminal law, a further 12 hours' delay is possible in the case of persons detained in connection with terrorism, as recommended by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
However, as drafted these two subsections do not quite work as they should, because they refer the reader back to subsections (3) and (4) respectively, both of which embody the concept of the relevant time as defined in Clause 40(2). Going back to that subsection we find that the relevant time starts, generally speaking, on arrival at the police station. But persons may be detained under the terrorism provisions at a place other than a police station; for instance, on board a vessel. Indeed, Clause 29(11)(c) expressly disapplies the requirement to take an arrested person to a police station in such a case. The effect of these amendments is therefore to ensure that the maximum period of delay in such cases is indeed 48 hours from the time that detention begins. The amendments—I am instructed and believe—do no more than clarify the position. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Additional rights of children and young persons who are arrested]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 112:
Page 54. line 23, at end insert—
("and
(b) in the case of a child or young person in the care of a voluntary organisation in which parental rights and duties with respect to him are vested by virtue of a resolution under section 64(1) of the Child Care Act 1980, a reference to that organisation.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides for the case where a child is in the care not of a local authority but of a voluntary organisation, and it requires the police to inform the organisation of the arrest instead of the local authority. I think I can call it either drafting or technical, but it could probably be debated. My Lords. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

501
Clause 57 [Access to legal advice]:
Lord Mishconmoved Amendment No. 112A:
Page 54, line 36, leave out from ("person") to ("or") in line 37 and insert ("who is in police detention or who, for the purpose of assisting with an investigation, attends voluntarily at a police station or any other place where a constable is present and is cautioned").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may, I propose to speak to Amendment No. 112B as well as to No. 112A.
Amendment No. 112B: Page 54, line 38, at end insert ("and nothing in this Act shall be taken as detracting from the right of any person not held in police detention to consult a solicitor privately at any stage of an investigation").
May I make it clear that these amendments have their origin in the Law Society, which is extremely worried about a problem of which I wish to tell your Lordships. The Bill as at present drawn provides that legal advice is to be restricted to those in police detention at a police station. That poses and creates a very real problem. The Government clearly envisaged that the right to legal advice should be available to others who are at a police station but who are not in police detention, because successive draft codes of practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of suspects have stated that:
"Any person at a police station may consult and communicate privately with a solicitor of his own choice".
I believe that the latest draft I have seen provides for this in paragraph 6(1). The code goes on to make it clear specifically that those who are attending voluntarily under Clause 28 of the Bill but who have been cautioned may obtain legal advice. This is therefore one of those cases in which the code of practice provides a wider entitlement than that contained in the Bill.
What is clear under the Bill is that duty solicitor committees established by the Law Society will have the power to make arrangements for the provision of advice and assistance. They are hoping to have a 24-hour duty solicitor scheme which will operate at police stations continually. All that that will really mean is that they will have the power to make arrangements for the provision of advice and assistance only to those persons who are actually held in police detention.
This is likely to have very serious implications. It means that the duty solicitor scheme will not, as I have said, extend to those who attend at police stations voluntarily to help the police with their inquiries, even when—and the amendments are limited to this situation—they have been cautioned. If, therefore, the suspect wishes to have legal advice at that early stage, it will not be available from the duty solicitor and may not be available from other solicitors.
One doubts whether this is what the Government intended. One further doubts whether, if that is the Government's intention, it will be approved by your Lordships' House. If such advice is to be available to volunteers from duty solicitors, as the code of practice says it is, it is necessary for the duty solicitor committees to have the power to make arrangements in relation to all persons who attend at a police station voluntarily in order to help the police with their inquiries and who are cautioned as well as those who are in police detention.
502
The consequences of not making this change are, first, that any solicitor attending a person voluntarily at a police station and who has been cautioned will, presumably, not get paid and, secondly, that the volunteer at a police station will not be able to avail himself or herself of the welcome new arrangements to be made by the Government for free legal advice and assistance while at the police station. One recollects that during the Committee stage in another place—I am quoting from the Official Report of the Standing Committee of 28th February 1984 at col. 1434—the Minister of State said:
"The Committee will agree that there is no doubt about our concern to make the right of access to legal advice effective".
I respectfully suggest that that right will not be effective unless, as now, legal advice is as available to those voluntarily at the police station and who are cautioned as to those who are in police detention. It is not right that the code of practice implies that it will be. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I hope I am not going to make a false point to begin with. However, I am about to repeat what I have been told: that the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, has spoken to Amendment No. 120A. It so happens that Amendment No. 120A is an amendment which I was going to agree to in principle. But if, as he ought to have been, the noble Lord was speaking to Amendment No. 112A, my present inclination is to resist the amendment. I hope I am not at cross-purposes. It is very easy to get at cross-purposes and I apologise if either of us is.
Amendments Nos. 112A and 112B deal with the situation of those who are not under arrest but have been cautioned, as I understand it. They assert that such persons are entitled to consult a solicitor privately at any time. Of course, they are perfectly entitled to consult a solicitor at any time under the existing law. On the face of them, these two amendments might cast doubt on the right to legal advice of those who have neither been arrested nor cautioned; hence the second part of Amendment No. 112B, which declares that nothing in the Bill detracts from this right.
My Lords, similar amendments were rejected during Committee stage. My noble friend pointed out at that stage that ample provision was made in the code of practice for this situation. I need only refer to paragraph 11.4, which requires that a person who has been cautioned but is not under arrest must be informed that he is free to leave and must be reminded that he may obtain legal advice if he wishes. The provision is also found in paragraph 3.8.
My noble friends and I have made the point on several occasions that the code will be an enforceable document, as strictly adhered to by the police as the Bill from which it springs. It is, of course, built into the Bill by Clause 66, particularly by subsection (7) of that clause. I do not want to weary your Lordships by repeating the arguments made on that point. Suffice it to say that if the noble Lord is concerned that this provision may be overlooked or ignored because it is in the code, I can reassure him that it will not be so overlooked.
I do not think that these two amendments to which we are speaking, Nos. 112A and 112B, raise any issue

503
of principle or substance. The Bill confers an express right of access to legal advice on persons in police custody only because police interference with that right would otherwise be possible. Where the person is not under arrest there is no need to confer a statutory right of access to legal advice on him, any more than there is to confer a statutory right of access to a plumber or electrician. If the person is under caution the police must, in accordance with the code of practice, in addition tell him that he can obtain legal advice if he wishes, and that is sufficient. The Bill does not permit any interference with his freedom to consult a solicitor if he wishes, and he can leave at any time if he wishes to go and see a solicitor away from the police station. I believe that is plain enough, and I see no reason to add to the Bill unnecessarily by purporting to confer rights on citizens who are free to go about their business as they wish.
I will tell the noble Lord in advance that when he comes to Amendment No. 120A, which is not altogether dissimilar and which may have deceived those who were advising him in the matter, he will have a very sympathetic response along the lines which I have indicated.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am so gratified by the promise of what is going to happen to Amendment No. 120A that I feel the less I say the better. I therefore propose to read with great pleasure, as always, what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, and wait with eager anticipation to move Amendment No. 120A. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 112B not moved.]
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment Nos. 113 and 114:
Page 55, line 2, leave out ("subject to the following provisions of this section")
line 3, at end insert ("except to the extent that delay is permitted by this section")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with you Lordships' permission, perhaps I may deal with Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 at the same time. I am instructed and advised that these are drafting amendments, and no more. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 115 has been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hutchinson of Lullingtonhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 115A:
[Printed earlier: col. 427.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to move this amendment, but I shall return to this matter at a later stage unless I have good reason for not doing so—and that will depend, of course, on whether something satisfactory emerges in relation to Amendment No. 78A.
[Amendment No. 115A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 116 and 116A not moved.]
Lord Eltonmoved Amendment No. 117:
[Printed earlier: col. 500.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.36 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggsmoved Amendment No. 118:
[Printed earlier: col. 428.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords. I should like to move amendment No. 118 with the utmost speed. The purpose of this proposed new clause is to ensure the presence of an adult during the questioning of a juvenile—either an adult as designated under Clauses 54 and 55 of this Bill or an adult chosen by the young person himself. In either case, it will be an independent adult who is not a police officer.
It has been generally accepted that children and young people have a special status with regard to questioning. Indeed, the code of practice states:
"All these special groups may be particularly open to suggestion, and it is important to obtain corroboration of any facts admitted wherever possible".
The reason we want the extra protection that would be provided by the amendment is that there is considerable proof emerging from discussions with young people, parents, social workers and solicitors, and from cases referred to the Children's Legal Centre, that pressure is put on young people if they are detained in police custody for long periods in the absence of an independent adult.
I think it should not be underestimated how even those young people who may appear very aggressive when questioned by police on the streets can feel totally intimidated once inside a police station. They may then be inclined to say anything to the police in the belief—utterly mistaken, of course—that this will get them out of the police station quicker and home sooner.
It has been said, and it must be true, that juveniles are more susceptible to persuasion through fear or favour, and consequently are more likely than adults to make a false admission of guilt. Indeed, it is a sobering thought that this actually happened in the celebrated Confait case, where three young people were led into admitting, in confession statements, a murder that they could not have committed. It seems to us essential to prevent any risk of such a thing ever happening again.
There can be no doubt that the presence of an independent adult during the whole period of questioning of a juvenile would prevent that juvenile blurting out just anything in order to get away. At the same time, it would prevent an over-zealous policeman from pressurising him in order to gain information. Moreover, such a procedure would go some way towards helping to conserve that all-important relationship between young people and the police forces. It is for these reasons that we consider it right to bring within this Bill the all-important safeguard provided by the presence of an independent adult during the questioning of a juvenile. That is what our amendment is designed to do. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not dismiss this as an emotional amendment. He described a number of the statements which my noble friend Lord Hutchinson made as being emotional, but when one is dealing with certain aspects of this Bill, if one is without emotion it tends to be without merit.
I do not accuse the noble and learned Lord of being without emotion. We all remember with the greatest pleasure how, as a loyal Churchman, he turned on the Bishops and rent them in the most gloriously emotional way. I approve of that and I should like to feel that the noble and learned Lord approves of my noble friend Lord Hutchinson when he expresses some emotion.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the last thing I do is describe amendments as emotional. Sometimes one discusses seriously the question whether or not speeches are emotional and whether the emotion is in place or out of place. But I shall not pursue that matter.
I do not think that there is any real difference of principle between the noble Baroness and her noble friend Lord Donaldson in this matter. The effect of the new clause would be to place an absolute prohibition on the questioning of a juvenile in police custody in the absence of a responsible adult. It also makes a supplementary provision concerning who that adult should be. A new clause to the same effect, identical in terms, was rejected in the Commons Committee and it was not moved in the Lords Committee on 9th July. Obviously the purpose is to prevent delay in notifying the parents of his arrest and the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have added other reasons.
We follow the Royal Commission's view and it is probably right to remind the House of what that view is. I quote paragraph 4.103 of its report that it is,
"essential that a juvenile should have an adult person present other than the police when he is interviewed and it is highly desirable that the adult should be someone in whom the juvenile has confidence, his parent or guardian, or someone else he knows as a social worker or school teacher.".
However, the corn mission acknowledged—and we agree with it—that there must be exceptional circumstances in which any delay in interviewing a juvenile while his parents or other adult are awaited could have very serious consequences. I quote again from the report, paragraph 4.104:
"Juveniles, unfortunately, can be involved in serious offences … and we think it would be contrary to the public interest to prevent the police questioning a juvenile where, for example, life is at risk.".
We also accepted the commission's recommendation in the next paragraph of its report that the rules governing questioning should make clearer the circumstances in which the police may properly question a juvenile in the absence of an adult. Paragraphs 13.1 to 13.3 in Annex C of the draft detention code give effect to this recommendation and indeed go beyond it. Whereas the present position under the administrative directions is simply that juveniles should so far as practicable be interviewed only in the presence of an adult, those paragraphs very considerably tighten up this requirement. Under Annex C a juvenile may be questioned in the absence of a responsible adult if a superintendent judges that delay in beginning the interview will involve an
506
immediate risk of harm to persons or serious damage to property; and questioning must cease once that immediate risk has been averted.
That seems to me to be a substantial new safeguard. It would however be quite wrong to place an absolute prohibition on questioning in the absence of an adult, for example, even where life was at risk. It is, unfortunately, the experience of the police that sometimes the parents of a juvenile in trouble are unwilling to come to the police station or simply cannot be found; and while there are obviously well-established channels of communication between the police and social services departments, difficulties can and do arise when an arrest takes place at night. It may be that they should not arise; but the fact is that sometimes the police have to wait a long time before they can get anyone to come to the police station to be present at an interview. The police cannot, for instance, be expected to stop casual passers-by in the street and ask them to come into the police station so that they can begin an urgent interview: that would be unrealistic.
I should like to emphasise however that the draft detention code will ensure that questioning in the absence of an adult will occur only when authorised by a senior officer in strictly defined circumstances; and to remind your Lordships that Clause 56 places a clear duty on the police to inform parents of the arrest of their children as soon as practicable. If there are cases where the police fail in this duty, the appropriate disciplinary procedures are available. It is not satisfactory to impede the investigation of serious crime, as this new clause would do, where the police are not at fault.
I suggest that the right view is that, with this explanation, the noble Baroness will realise that there is no serious question of principle between us, and that the Bill, as drafted, goes as far as it really ought to do.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his answer. Even if we shared the same principle, we had quite a different idea about the necessity, for the reasons which I gave, to have an independent adult present when young people are being questioned. The argument that parents would not want to attend is a bad one, which I have heard before. If we create a law which allows parents not to wish to come to support their children, they will be more likely not to come forward to support their children.
I am disappointed that the noble and learned Lord has not been a little bit more positive and enthusiastic about this very important and useful amendment. However, perhaps I will withdraw it at this point and think again before Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Clause 58 [Legal aid for persons in detention]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 120:
Page 57, line 6, leave out ("by solicitors").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this removes a reference to solicitors from the new

507
provisions inserted in the Legal Aid Act 1982. The reason is that Clause 58 provides for the establishment of duty solicitor schemes for police stations. New paragraph (aa) to be inserted into Section 1(1) of the Legal Aid Act 1982 makes it clear that legal advice and assistance may be provided not only by solicitors but also by representatives of solicitors. The two cases are dealt with in new sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) respectively. This being so, it is not appropriate for the paragraph to imply that advice can come only from solicitors. The amendment removes this incorrect implication. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, on behalf of a most generous profession. I am happy to agree with the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.49 p.m.
Lord Mishconmoved Amendment No. 120A:
Page 57. line 7, after ("detention") insert ("or who, for the purpose of assisting with an investigation attends voluntarily at a police station or any other place where a constable is present and is cautioned").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the words written in capital letters in my brief say, "Agree in principle". I shall explain that. I would ask the noble Lord, on my undertaking to bring forward an amendment on Third Reading, to withdraw his amendment. I am told that it does not go wide enough. I am quite prepared to explain why. but if I undertake to bring forward an amendment in slightly wider form on Third Reading, I hope that he will withdraw this one.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with alacrity!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [Tape-recording of interviews]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 57, line 40, after ("State") insert ("on or before the coming into operation of Part IV and V of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 121, I propose at the same time to speak, but in terms of which your Lordships will hear in one moment, to Amendments Nos. 122, 123, 126 and 128.
Amendment No. 122: Page 58, line 44, leave out ("at police stations").
Amendment No. 123: Page 58, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 126: Clause 64, page 63, line 9, after ("questioning") insert ("tape-recording of interviews").
Amendment No. 128: Clause 66, page 63, line 14, leave Out ("Act") and insert ("Part").
This is a most important series of amendments, in which it is advocated—
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am sorry to disturb the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but I should like to make it absolutely clear at this stage that I have no intention of moving Amendments Nos. 123, 126, 128 or 129, but certainly Amendment No. 122; I think it might be of help to know that at this stage.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. What I was going to say was that the series of amendments from our point of view deals with a most important point. It is that Parts 4 and 5 of the Bill, which, as your Lordships know, deal with detention and the questioning and treatment of persons by the police, should not be effective until after the tape-recording system is in vogue throughout the United Kingdom.
I am not going to move a series of amendments as important as that at ten to eleven with an attenuated House, because I believe that that is not worthy of your Lordships' House or of the importance of the subject. Therefore, if we cannot have anything more satisfactory than that at this stage, I suppose the best thing that I can do is to withdraw at this stage, having said that these are important amendments, having indicated the nature of them, and obviously these will be brought forward at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morrishad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 122:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I listened with very great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said. I would remind your Lordships that it is just the luck of the draw and the greatest misfortune that this vitally important issue came up at the Committee stage—would you believe?—at a quarter to three in the morning. It is most unfortunate that it comes up yet again at this very late hour. For the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has stated, I think it would be most unfortunate if we were to handle it at this particular stage and at this particular time. I find this situation most unhappy but I would beseech my noble friend on the Front Bench that. when these points are considered at Third Reading, the Government should consider with very great care undertakings with regard to these points, which are of critical importance to the liberties of the common man.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Clause 61 [Intimate samples]:
10.55 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullingtonmoved Amendment No. 124:
Page 60, line 7. leave out subsection (10).
The noble Lord said: I regret to raise this matter at this late hour but it is a matter of importance. The amendment refers to Clause 61 and it refers to the subject of Clause 10 which was inserted into the Bill at the Committee stage by the noble Lord the Minister. It was reached at the equivalent time of 2 a.m. on 11th July. It was really agreed to without discussion, save for one comment by my noble friend Lord Donaldson, who said that he was sure that if either of his lawyer friends had been present they would have said it was the thin end of the wedge for the removal of the right of silence—to which the noble Minister replied "There is no question here of speech". But I shall submit to your Lordships that he was entirely wrong about that.

509
Clause 61 gives power to take from a person in police detention intimate samples. Intimate samples are defined in Clause 64 as being,
"a sample of blood, semen or any other tissue fluid, urine, saliva or pubic hair, or a swab taken from a person's body orifice".
Power is given to take those intimate samples from someone in a police station. In subsection (10) appear these words:
"Where the appropriate consent to the taking of an intimate sample from a person was refused without good cause …

(a) the court, in determining—

(i) whether to commit that person for trial; or

(ii) whether there is a case to answer; and

(b) the court or jury, in determining whether that person is guilty of the offence charged,

may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper; and the refusal may, on the basis of such inferences, be treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence against the person".
So the result is that if an informant has said, "If you got to X's house, he is the man who is committing these rapes in the locality" and that is good information, the police would be entitled to take the man into detention in a police station and interrogate him in relation to the rapes. On entering the police station, he is cautioned that he need not say anything if he does not wish to. If he says, "I do not wish to say anything at all" the police will say to him, "We wish to take an intimate sample from you, an intimate sample of semen". Or they may say, in some alleged homosexual offence, "We want to take a swab from you". The man says nothing because he is entitled to say nothing. The police will then say, "Right, that we take as a refusal to give that sample. That is sufficient evidence for us to go to the magistrates' court. You will be in the dock and we shall say that you have refused to give a sample. And the magistrates may commit you for trial on that refusal". At the Crown court, it will be possible to say, "This man has refused to give a sample, and there is evidence there on which you can convict him".
Equally, if the evidence against the person is that of an accomplice, say, the person who gave the information, you call the accomplice to give evidence against the defendant. That requires, if it is a child, corroboration because the evidence is so suspect. "Oh," say the police, "this man refused to give a sample. That is corroboration of the accomplice's evidence that he was, in fact, the rapist". That is a term of art corroboration. It will be required before the man can be convicted. The trouble about the situation is that it completely reverses the onus of proof and goes against the person's right to silence. It makes a farce of it.
These words have been lifted word for word from the eleventh report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee when they were used in that report to take away the right of silence. These are the precise words that were used. The words have been lifted. That report, as already noted, was given a very rough ride in this House. As a result, it was buried and forgotten so far as that matter was concerned. Here are these words being resuscitated. I hope I am not being emotional in any shape or form; I am merely stating the facts. In my submission, to allow these words to remain in this Bill in this form is indeed the thin end of the wedge, because they will appear again and they will be used again.
510
In my submission, it is really quite outrageous to enable a court to have positive evidence of guilt because someone takes advantage of his rights and says, "I will say nothing. You prove the case against me". In those great words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, in the Bodkin Adams case, this is a right which is the right of every Englishman—and long be the day before that right is taken away.
This provision gives to those in police stations an enormous power for abuse, because it will be only the word of the police officer, who later, when the statements are served, will say, "This defendant refused to give a sample". By that time it will be far too late to take a sample, if the defendant knows that he never refused. There is the situation. By an officer's simple say-so that a man refused to give a sample when he was in the police station there will be evidence to commit him, there will be evidence of corroboration, there will be evidence on which he could be convicted. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we on these Benches feel that we must be consistent. We said before, on an amendment that we regarded as very important—Amendment No. 121 and all that followed—that both the hour and the state of the House make it quite wrong to debate important issues. I know that it is nobody's fault, but we did in fact lose a great deal of time that nobody anticipated losing this afternoon when the various amendments, which I am sure the Alliance Party felt were most important, were being discussed. And then, of course, we lost some time on the Statement. I feel that I must be consistent and say that we do not intend to participate in a debate on this important subject at this hour and with this attenuated House.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I regret to have to say that I cannot agree with the view that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has taken, because at the moment one has no idea what will happen if the substance of this debate is reserved until the next stage, at Third Reading. Indeed, I think it might be open to objection if on Third Reading there were debates in detail on amendments which had been put down at Report stage—
A Noble Lord: Not if they are withdrawn.
Lord Wigoder:—and then they were simply glossed over on the ground that it happened to be eleven o'clock at night. I find this a difficult proposition. I think the matter should be explored a little further this evening, because it is a matter of very great importance. I want, if I may, to support my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington in drawing attention to what I would regard as a most sweeping extension of the criminal law, which is tucked away, rather innocuously, in subsection (10) of Clause 61. I say that it is a sweeping extension of the criminal law because I believe I am right in saying—the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will correct me at once if I am wrong—that if any judge today directed a jury in those terms as set out in subsection (10) and there were a conviction, it would at once be quashed in the Court of Criminal Appeal, without any argument; because under the law as it stands today there can be

511
no possible suggestion that if somebody is silent or if somebody declines to give a sample, or whatever it may be, that evidence can be treated in any way at all as corroboration. This is a very remarkable extension of the criminal law.
I support everything that my noble friend has said about the matter. I add only this, if I may. The effect of subsection (10) is to say that the refusal—in other words, if a person says, "No, you may not have a sample"—is capable of amounting to corroboration. Corroboration ought to mean some independent evidence which tends to implicate the accused in the commission of the offence. That is the classical definition—if I recall it correctly—of what is meant by corroboration.
It follows from that that what the subsection is saying in terms is that a refusal by a man, for whatever reason—good, bad or indifferent—to give a sample, is in itself evidence of guilt. That must be so if the subsection means what it says. It follows that it may be that the only evidence in front of the magistrate is, "I arrested this defendant. I have no evidence against him, your Honour"—which is the way in which the police normally refer to the magistrate—"except that I asked him for a sample and he said, 'No' and told me to take a running jump. On that evidence your Honour, I ask for a committal for trial". If this subsection were in force the magistrate would be entitled to commit for trial on no other evidence at all except the fact that the man had said to the police officer. "No. I will not give you a sample".
This is a very, very dangerous extension. I am sure it was not realised just how far it went. As my noble friend has said. it was something which was included in the eleventh report of the Committee, many years ago. My noble friend and I, before we ever came to your Lordships' House, sat together and listened to the debate on that occasion on that report. There was almost unanimous condemnation of this proposal and of many of the other proposals in that Committee's report. I regard this as a very serious matter and I hope that the Government will think again about the proposal contained in this subsection.
11.7 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, first I should like to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that the custom of this House is to agree its business, and if the early business takes long, then the later business falls late. That certainly imposes a strain upon your Lordships but it is a strain to which we have been accustomed—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I must ask the noble Lord the Minister to give way. If I had merely said—and my noble friends had agreed with me—that we should not pursue the matter in view of the lateness of the hour, I should not have been content with my submission at all. It is not a question of the lateness of the hour—we are prepared to stay until goodness knows what time! It is a question of the state of the House on an important matter of this kind and on an important Bill. It is absolutely wrong for an attenuated House like this to be deciding matters of such great import on a Bill which is so important.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with respect, it seems to me that the one follows from the other. I therefore think that it is right that I should deploy the arguments of Her Majesty's Government in answer to what the Liberal and the Social Democratic parties have put forward as an amendment which they both support.
Let me start by perhaps superflously reminding your Lordships that in all trials for sexual offences the judge is obliged to warn the jury that it is unsafe to convict solely on the evidence of the complainant. We are—are we not?—dealing with sexual offences and with the taking of intimate body samples which are most often linked to sexual offences. Therefore we are looking at cases where corroborative material is of critical importance. If the complainant's evidence is not corroborated, a charge of rape, for example, will probably fail. In these circumstances, it seems to us—as it seemed to the Committee in another place—important that it should be open to the jury, if they think fit, to attach virtually the same weight to the refusal as they would to evidence of an intimate sample which directly implicated the defendant.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, that the clause only refers to:
"a person in police detention,"
which Clause 115(2) specifies, as having followed arrest. Thus the suspect must have been arrested. When the case comes to trial, there must therefore be some evidence not just a generalised denunciation, which the refusal of a sample can be taken or not taken to corroborate. It is entirely open to the jury and the court as much as the police to decide whether it shall corroborate or not. There must be something for them to corroborate. When I thought I heard the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, say that it would be possible for a court to convict on the sole evidence of a refusal to provide an intimate sample, then in that matter he must, because of the structure of the Bill, be a little mistaken.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, if the noble Lord the Minister will forgive me, surely he is wrong in saying that there must be some evidence. What he means is that there should be some evidence. There is a world of difference between the two words.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think I am right, and I think it would be for the court to decide whether or not the evidence was valid. But a person cannot be brought to court for trial on mere suspicion. There must be evidence to support that suspicion. Corroboration cannot exist in vacuo; it must corroborate something. Therefore, there must be evidence besides this corroborative evidence, if that is how it is to be treated before the court.
I understand the concern which noble Lords moving the amendment have shown for the "right to silence," but I do not accept that this provision in any way impinges upon that right. I do not wish to go at length over ground that we covered earlier, but I think that I ought to outline the present position and the considerations which led us to propose that refusal to provide an intimate sample should be capable of amounting to corroboration of the evidence against the defendant.

513
At present there is no way of compelling a suspect to provide an intimate sample. He must consent before it can be taken. Consent can be given informally. Refusal to provide an intimate sample may prevent the bringing of any proceedings, for lack of corroborative evidence. But if the case can be brought, refusal may be referred to as part of the prosecution evidence. If the defendant exercises his right not to give evidence at the trial, that is all that can be said. Even if he does give evidence and is cross-examined on why he refused, the prosecution have to recognise that he is entitled to refuse. The Bill continues to require consent, but alters the present position by providing that such consent must be in writing. This we believe to be right in principle and in accordance with one of the main objectives of the Bill, which is to move towards carefully recorded investigations, and more formal opportunity for the accused person to exercise his rights. But the requirement for written consent could well serve to encourage the guilty to refuse it, secure in the knowledge that, even if they are eventually brought to trial, they will be at no disadvantage for having refused to co-operate. This means that there is a greater need to address the question whether it is right that it should always be in the interests of a guilty suspect to frustrate an investigation by refusing a sample, and if it is not, how this problem is to be solved.
When this was discussed in Committe in another place, there was general and wide support for the suggestion by the honourable Member for Montgomery that refusal to give a sample (without good cause for the refusal) should be capable of corroborating the prosection case, and that is what subsection (10) provides. This means that it would be for the jury to determine the weight to attach to a refusal, which is surely the best way of providing for the wide variety of motives which might be behind a refusal to provide a intimate sample. The person asked for an intimate sample might simply be drunk and belligerent, or he might simply be afraid of the process. If this were explained at any subsequent trial, the jury might attach little significance to the refusal. On the other hand, where it was thought that the suspect refused because he had something to hide, the jury would be allowed to take the refusal into account as evidence of the offence charged. It is important to bear in mind that, as I have said it is often in relation to offences of the greatest gravity—of which rape or a sexual assault on a child are obvious examples—that the evidence obtained from an intimate sample is most likely to be relevant.
However, it has been argued that the provision of an intimate sample is too closely akin to the making of a statement for it to be proper for any pressure to be applied to the suspect to achieve his co-operation with the police. But there are significant differences between the provision of an intimate sample and of making a statement, even a self-incriminatory statement. Provision of an intimate sample is, I suggest, much more akin to the searching of premises or provision of a non-intimate sample, both of which are seen as such vital tools for the police that, subject to certain safeguards and procedures, they can take place without the consent of the suspect. The common thread linking that provision of intimate and non-
514
intimate samples, with the searching of pemises is that, if successful, they all lead directly to real evidence being obtained and further the investigation by narrowing the range of suspects. We should not forget that the provisions of a sample of blood or saliva produces forensic facts which may be vital to exclude innocent suspects, as well as strengthening evidence of guilt. These facts will often be important in relation to the most serious offences of violence or sexual assaults so we must keep clearly in our minds the interest of the murderer or rapist in refusing a sample, and decide if this is what we want from this Bill.
I recognise that the need to protect the privacy and dignity of the individual, given the nature of the process, puts the taking of intimate samples in a slightly different category from other procedures, and the provisions of this subsection recognise that also. A suspect still has the right to refuse the taking of an intimate sample. If he so decides no sample will be taken: there is no question at all of a sample being taken by force. That is clearly right and any other course would be unacceptable, but the right to refuse is the right not to be, as it were, physically forced to provide a sample. It should not in our view be an unlimited right to withhold material facts from an investigation without any consequences whatsoever. If subsection (10) were deleted, that is what the clause would provide. It would always then be in the guilty party's interest to refuse to provide a sample. I do not think anyone in this House or elsewhere would regard that as satisfactory: in many cases it could amount to enabling the guilty party to frustrate the investigation of a serious offence because there was no further evidence available to the police to test, compare or evaluate.
I think I have put enough of the Government's case to show your Lordships why we do not think that this is an amendment that we ought to put into the Bill.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I should like to say this—
Lord Denham: My Lords, "Before the noble Lord sits down".
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: No, my Lords, not, "Before the noble Lord sits down", before my noble friend replies—
Lord Denham: My Lords, "Before the noble Lord sits down".
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: All right, my Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, we are in a difficulty here. We think this is very important. We did not ask to have it discussed at this hour. The Government have arranged it and I do not blame them. It is very difficult. Are we able, having had a discussion on this, to put it down on Third Reading to be discussed again? I am not clear what our rights are, and before my noble friend replies I want to be clear about this.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think the position is that it is improper, or considered inappropriate in this House, to put down a matter at Third Reading on which the House has given its opinion in the Division

515
Lobbies or, indeed, on Question. Whether it is right in fact to have a debate at this stage on Report stage and then repeat that full debate at Third Reading is a matter which I do not think the Companion mentions. That is a matter for the custom of the House.
Lord Morris: My Lords, if I remember rightly, the words that are used in the rulings in the Companion to Standing Orders—I am speaking from memory—is that any issue that has been fully debated critically and decided upon cannot be properly moved at Third Reading. Bearing in mind that this has not been fully debated, in my view, and certainly not decided upon, I would suggest that it should most properly be moved again at Third Reading.
Lord Denham: I think the "decided upon" is the relevant factor. If the House is not asked to give an expression of its opinion tonight, either on Question or in the Division Lobby, I think that the Companion would be comparatively silent on this point.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not know whether I am allowed to say anything.
Noble Lords: With leave, my Lords.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think I require leave if I am to say anything at all. I do not want to intrude on this private discussion, but if the noble Lord withdraws his amendment he probably is at liberty to raise it on Third Reading. If he divides on it and is beaten, I think he is not. I speak with great humility in front of my own colleagues, but I think that that is probably the position.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I am grateful for the advice from the noble and learned Lord, who, as we all know, always speaks with the greatest humility. All I would say in reply are two or three things. First of all, the noble Lord the Minister referred to this subsection on the basis of it affording corroboration, and said that, of course, there must be some evidence before you can have corroboration. But the essence of this subsection is in paragraph (b), where the court or jury, in determining whether the person is guilty of the offence charged, can take into account his refusal. So it goes much further than corroboration. I say that because I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will bear that in mind in due course.
Having regard to the advice that I have received, not only on my right but on my left and behind me, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 [Part V-supplementary]:
Lord Eltonmoved Amendment No. 125:
Page 62, line 35, at end insert—
""parent or guardian" means—

(a) in the case of a child or young person in the case of a local authority, that authority; and

(b) in the case of a child or young person in the care of a voluntary organisation in which parental rights and duties with respect to him are vested by virtue of a resolution under section 64(1) of the Child Care Act 1980, that organisation;").

516
The noble Lord said: My Lords, certain provisions of the Bill require the giving of consent before the police may act. Clause 64 defines the expression "appropriate consent" in terms of parents and guardians. The definition fails to make clear that, where a juvenile is in care, parental rights are exercisable by the local care authority or organisation. This amendment remedies this omission. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Codes of practice]:
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
Lord Eltonmoved Amendment No. 127:
Page 63, line 12, leave out ("in searches of") and insert ("on").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Codes of practice-supplementary]:
[Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 not moved.]
Clause 67 [Evidence from documentary records]:
Lord Eltonmoved Amendment No. 130:
Page 64, line 12, leave out ("contained").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome the arrival of the final drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Cornwall County Council Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons earlier this day, agreed to with amendments: the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past eleven o'clock.

  PRISON DESIGN STANDARDS
  PRISON DESIGN STANDARDS
  PROPERTY SERVICES AGENCY: MALPRACTICES
  PROPERTY SERVICES AGENCY: MALPRACTICES
  ORDNANCE SURVEY: COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES
  ORDNANCE SURVEY: COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
  COPYRIGHT ACT: EXTENSION OVERSEAS
  COPYRIGHT ACT: EXTENSION OVERSEAS
  RECIPROCAL TRADING ARRANGEMENTS
  RECIPROCAL TRADING ARRANGEMENTS
  MULTILATERAL TRADE: NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
  MULTILATERAL TRADE: NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
  TEXTILE IMPORTS
  TEXTILE IMPORTS
  EC: TRADE STATISTICS
  EC: TRADE STATISTICS
  COCOA: NEGOTIATIONS ON NEW AGREEMENT
  COCOA: NEGOTIATIONS ON NEW AGREEMENT
  STRAW AND STUBBLE BURNING
  STRAW AND STUBBLE BURNING
  HOME SERVICE FORCE
  HOME SERVICE FORCE
  TERRITORIAL ARMY: COMMAND
  TERRITORIAL ARMY: COMMAND
  BRITISH TELECOM: FINAL DEMANDS
  BRITISH TELECOM: FINAL DEMANDS
  BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC: SHARES ALLOCATION
  BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC: SHARES ALLOCATION
  WATER: REPRESENTATION ON CONSUMER COMMITTEES
  WATER: REPRESENTATION ON CONSUMER COMMITTEES
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL MEETING
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL MEETING