Sitting of 11 June 1984

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

    British Gas
    Mr. Rowlandsasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he hopes to meet the chairman of British Gas to discuss the sale of its assets.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I have regular meetings with the chairman of British Gas on a wide range of subjects.
    Mr. Rowlands: Will the Secretary of State now confirm that the British Gas Corporation would not have accepted the terms of the Wytch farm sale had the right hon. Gentleman not virtually exonerated all members of the corporation from any responsibility by his letter on the day of the sale? Will the right hon. Gentleman also take the opportunity to make a full statement to the House, rather than one in a hole-and-corner way in the form of a written answer on the eve of the spring bank holiday, on the detailed terms of the arrangements, the safeguards and, especially, the way in which the first tranche of money £80 million or £85 million—is to be paid, not to the corporation, but to the Government?
    Mr. Walker: The House has already had the details of the manner in which it will be paid. That has been given in a full answer to a parliamentary question.
    Mr. Rowlands: No.
    Mr. Walker: It has. I know of nothing in the letter which exonerated anyone. All that I said in the letter was that I thought that the sale was in the national interest, and the corporation accepted that view.
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: When my right hon. Friend has the next of his regular meetings on a variety of subjects with the chairman, will he be able to shed any further light on the Government's attitude towards the importation of gas? Does he agree that if we as a nation followed a path aimed at self-sufficiency, prices would inevitably rise?
    Mr. Walker: It is important to ensure that we have sufficient supplies to guarantee the continuance of the activities of the gas industry. This has demanded substantial imports, and it will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Hardy: Before there is any further persecution of the British Gas Corporation, and before the Secretary of State's next meeting with the chairman, will he accept that in his loudly proclaimed desire to restrain energy price
    622
    inflation he has had far more assistance from the British Gas Corporation than from the private oil interests which he seeks to assist?
    Mr. Walker: We had to increase gas prices this year at the request of the corporation. That is the result of the increased cost of imports and of the cheap fuels running out. I have no criticism of the way in which the corporation has acted.
    Mr. Dalyell: In the light of the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) by the Secretary of State on Friday, can the right hon. Gentleman honestly say that in the new circumstances the British Gas Corporation would have accepted the deal if it had known then what it knows now?
    Mr. Walker: I have had no protests and no representations from the corporation to the opposite effect.

    Coal Stocks
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of coal stocks held by (a) the National Coal Board and (b) power stations on the latest date for which such information is available.
    Mr. Yeoasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the current level of coal stocks.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The most recently published figures are for the end of March. These show pithead stocks at 21·7 million tonnes and stocks at power stations at 23 million tonnes.
    Mr. Dubs: The Secretary of State said that the most recently published figures were those for the end of March. Why will he not give us the latest figures? Is it not an act of deception on the British public that consistently the right hon. Gentleman hides information to which we are entitled?
    Mr. Walker: Not at all. It has been the practice when dealing with such questions to give the latest published figures. If it is of any help to the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that at present power station stocks, which are probably the most important ones, are being reduced at about 1 million tonnes every three to four weeks.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of coal stocks is a source of great satisfaction and reflects credit on the management of the National Coal Board? Will he convey the appreciation of the House to those miners who have continued to work, after three months of industrial action by their colleagues, in the face of appalling and vicious intimidation of a sort which, happily, is unusual in this country?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. With more than 50 pits working at present in numerous parts of the country, substantial quantities of coal continue to be produced.
    Mr. Mason: Why should Parliament believe that the Secretary of State's figures are accurate? How do we know that the Secretary of State is telling the truth? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Does he recall that on 14 May he was asked by six Opposition Members to intervene in the miners' dispute, and that he refused? He knew at that time that the Prime Minister was manipulating behind the scenes to isolate the National Union of Mineworkers with

    623
    a vew to smashing it. He was a partner in that intrigue and conspiracy. He misled the House. How does he answer that charge?
    Mr. Walker: We understand the re-selection problems of the right hon. Gentleman and the manner in which he speaks on these occasions. We prefer him, however, when he does not have to put on such an act. As he knows, the figures are in no way prepared by me. They are official statistics, and I have nothing to do with the figures that are published.
    Mr. Adley: Can my right hon. Friend confirm—because this does not appear to be widely realised—that the stocks at the Orgreave works, which are the subject of this outrageous behaviour, do not belong to the National Coal Board, but are fuel stocks which have been bought and paid for by, and are in the possession of, the British Steel Corporation? Is there not something quite outrageous about the way in which the NUM is behaving outside a plant the stocks in which do not even belong to the NCB?
    Mr. Walker: It is staggering to think that, although the TUC has recommended in its guidance on picketing that there should be six people, it was decided to have a mob of 6,000 people. Thanks to the police and those working at Orgreave, however, every lorry load has got through.
    Mr. Skinner: Why will the Secretary of State not do what all Ministers have done on previous occasions and give the up-to-date figures of coal stocks, instead of going back to the March figures? For many years the Minister of the day, irrespective of party, when asked this question, has given the figure relating to the situation up to about a fortnight previously. The right hon. Gentleman knows that a straight answer would show that stocks are very much depleted. They will be depleted even more now that the railwaymen in the Nottinghamshire area have decided not to carry any more coal. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the stocks at Orgreave are down to about a fortnight?
    Mr. Walker: That is right. Orgreave's stocks are down to about a fortnight, because the object is to clear all the stocks, and I am delighted to say that they will all be cleared. As for people predicting stocks, I remind the House that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is the sort of person who believes somebody else, for in February he said that there were only eight weeks' stocks left.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Is not the recent call by the NUM to the railway unions to make it more difficult for power stations to operate an illegitimate use of industrial power to try to bring down an elected Government? Does he agree that the time has come when somebody somewhere must have the courage to use the law to protect the people against these outrages?
    Mr. Walker: I am glad to say that the one railway depot which heard the leaders of the two railway unions—there was also an attempt by Mr. Scargill to speak there last week—had a vote on Saturday, and only 36 out of 250 railwaymen at the yard voted to support the action of the NUM.
    Mr. Allen Mckay: Bearing in mind the time involved in moving stocks from the NCB depot to the power station, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in view of what the Transport and General Workers Union has decided, he expects to use Her Majesty's forces to do it?
    Mr. Walker: No, I do not expect to use Her Majesty's forces. I remind the hon. Gentleman that six or seven weeks ago a similar announcement was made by the Transport and General Workers Union and the railway unions, and they have announced it several times since then, but throughout that time a great deal of coal has been moving.

    Acid Rain
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Energy what level of research into the causes of acid rain his Department is supporting.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): Within the Government, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for research into the causes and effects of acid rain, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the House details of the Government's research programme on 6 March. My Department has responsibility for ensuring that energy technologies which promise lower levels of atmospheric pollution are explored. The energy nationalised industries also have substantial programmes of research relating to environmental matters, including acid rain.
    Mr. Carlisle: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that research within the Government must be at a sufficient level to learn the true causes of acid rain as a firm basis for action? Does he accept that acid rain is a growing problem in Europe and that the British Government, in seeking a solution, should be a leader rather than a laggard?
    Mr. Shaw: I accept my hon. Friend's point about this problem. He is right to point out that it is complicated. It is not just a matter of wet deposition through rainfall, but also of dry deposition. He should know that the two major energy industries, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the National Coal Board, have committed £5 million for a research project conducted by the Royal Society of London in co-operation with the Swedish Academy of Sciences into the causes of acid rain.
    Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister press his Department to accelerate the programme of research, especially as it now seems that nuclear power stations contribute far more substantially to the incidence of acid rain than coal-powered stations, as had been thought previously?
    Mr. Shaw: I confess that the hon. Gentleman's observation is somewhat novel, but I accept that we need to obtain much more information about the causation of acid rain, and that is what the Government are determined to secure.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my hon. Friend tell me what steps his Department's scientists have taken to evaluate research in Sweden and Norway into this problem? Can he confirm that their scientists have found that nuclear power, far from contributing to acid rain, is the cleanest fuel?
    Mr. Shaw: I am sure that there will always be substantial disagreement between scientists and politicians on these issues, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the Swedes are changing their minds on many aspects in connection with acid rain, particularly forestry.

    Coal Mines (Closures)
    Mr. Tom Coxasked the Secretary of State for Energy how many persons were employed in coal mines which have closed since June 1979.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Since June 1979, 46 collieries have closed which, at the time of closure, employed 17,265 men on books. Of these, 12,557 transferred to other employment in the NCB, and 1,196 are still employed at the closed collieries on salvage and other activities.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that those figures will support the case that the NUM is making in the present dispute? Does he have any idea of the effects on mining communities when pits are closed and there is no other work in the area? When will he and the Government face their responsibility of creating, not destroying, jobs in that industry?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman, when he reflects on the answer that I have given, will know that 12,557 out of the 17,000 were kept within the industry. The National Coal Board has made it clear that the policy of transfer to other work within the industry of all those who seek to remain in it remains its policy.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: With regard to future prospects and jobs in the mining industry, and, indeed, elsewhere in the country, and bearing in mind that four out of five people, according to a recent opinion poll, feel that Mr. Scargill is making a right mess of leading the NUM, does my hon. Friend agree that the sooner the leaders of the NUM go for a national ballot, and the sooner this strike comes to an end, the better it will be for industry, and for the coal mining industry in particular?
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right to say that the sooner the dispute is resolved, the better. However, in the light of the events of last Thursday and the full discussion of them, he will know that, as an additional change, the NCB is to set up an enterprise company to help to develop new sources of employment in the areas concerned.

    Mr. Ian MacGregor
    Mr. Cohenasked the Secretary of State for Energy when Mr. MacGregor's term of office as chairman of the National Coal Board expires.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Mr. MacGregor was appointed as chairman for a term of three years commencing on 1 September 1983.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Secretary of State give the House the full cost to the British taxpayer of Mr. MacGregor's chairmanship and explain whether he is meeting the criteria for productivity in his agreement with the Government? Is not the taxpayer having to make the biggest redundancy payment ever for someone whom this dispute has shown to be, in effect, redundant, and should he not be closed down as an expensive economic failure? His going will not solve the dispute, as he is only the Government's front man, but it will surely go a long way towards it.
    Mr. Walker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman finds a new scriptwriter, because if the actions of Mr. MacGregor in endeavouring to encourage greater conversion to coal in British industry and looking at the
    626
    possibilities of world markets on a substantial scale are allowed to apply, they will prove very important to the future of the industry.
    Mr. Soames: Will my right hon. Friend extend the commiserations of the House to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whose brother suffered a humiliating defeat in the NUM elections at the weekend? Was not that result a sign that many men want to get back to work, and quickly!
    Mr. Walker: I can only hope that other brothers in that family will suffer similar electoral defeats.
    Mr. Welsh: Before Mr. MacGregor finishes his job as chairman of the NCB, he will wish to close uneconomic pits. Will the Secretary of State inform me of the definition of an uneconomic pit?
    Mr. Walker: I would describe as uneconomic those pits that produce coal at two or three times the average price of production in this country. I would add that Mr. MacGregor is the person who applied successfully to the Government to invest £450 million in the pit at Asfordby.
    Mr. Holt: While discussing Mr. MacGregor, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the excellent record that he achieved in the British Steel Corporation, which: is streamlined, efficient and competing for world markets? Investment is continuing apace and we are strong enough to compete with the rest of the world. Mr. MacGregor generated that when he was chairman of the BSC.
    Mr. Walker: There is no doubt that, in the light of the rapid decline of coal industries throughout Europe, Mr. MacGregor's plan for a massive investment programme in our coal industry gives it potentially a very good future.
    Mr. Douglas: With reference to scriptwriters and the current dispute, may we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that he is writing his own script for the proceedings and is not being jogged by the Prime Minister or the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who is also the chairman of the Conservative party?
    Mr. Walker: Both are very close friends and I shall listen to anything that they have to say. As yet, they have not offered scriptwriting facilities.
    Mr. Marlow: Will it be possible, before. Mr. MacGregor's term of office expires, for the Government to make it a criminal offence to raise paid private armies, fuelled on beer, for the purpose of confronting the police and intimidating people going about their lawful pursuits?
    Mr. Walker: I hope that many unions will note the advice given by the TUC on this topic.
    Mr. Nellist: While Mr. MacGregor is still employed by the NCB, can he or the Secretary of State explain this? If there were 58 million tonnes of coal in November before the overtime ban, and 8 million tonnes disappeared during the overtime ban, and 26 million tonnes have disappeared during the strike—leaving just over 20 million tonnes—and the Secretary of State for Energy in 1974 introduced a three-day week when coal stocks were 14·7 million tonnes, how can Mr. MacGregor still maintain that coal stocks are high enough to beat the miners' strike for many months to come? The figures do not add up.
    Mr. Walker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman studies the difference between temperatures in the winter and in the summer.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Orme, question No. 10.
    Mr. Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you going to call question No. 8?
    Mr. Speaker: Question No. 8 was taken with question No. 2.

    Oil Supplies
    Mr. Ormeasked the Secretary of State for Energy what contingency plans the Government have for the supply of oil within the United Kingdom should the Gulf war escalate further.
    Mr. Peter Walker: We have plans to deal with any severe shortage of oil within the United Kingdom. In any disruption likely to arise from the present conflict, supplies of oil, including stocks, should be sufficient to meet our requirements.
    Mr. Orme: Is the Secretary of State aware that, like the rest of the summit statements, that on Gulf oil supplies reflects utter complacency? Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government have made specific contingency plans for petrol supplies so that we shall not face the same worries as we faced in 1979? Has the right hon. Gentleman had discussions with the British National Oil Corporation about safeguarding our position?
    Mr. Walker: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that careful steps have been taken in relation to any potential crisis. We are aware of the importance of taking steps internationally through the International Energy Agency. I have had talks with the IEA and visited Washington. The international arrangements will meet any crisis with which we are likely to be confronted.
    Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that much the best contingency plan for the nation is the emergency allocation system worked out by the International Energy Agency in 1980? Does he agree that the Government's support for that arrangement is much the best guarantee against an oil price explosion in the event of supplies from the Gulf being cut off?
    Mr. Walker: I agree, but the arrangements need reviewing and updating, depending upon the situation. That has been done. It is in the interests of the whole world that crisis does not result in an enormous upturn in oil prices.

    Coal Mining Dispute
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the miners' dispute.
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the effects of the present dispute in the coal mining industry.
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the industrial dispute in the coal mining industry.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current situation in the mining industry.
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the miners' dispute.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement about the miners' strike.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the miners' industrial dispute.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Each day more men return to work in the coalfields and over 50 pits are still producing coal. Nevertheless, the present dispute is continuing to damage the coal industry's prospects and weaken the confidence of its customers. The board is also increasingly concerned at the physical condition of individual collieries. To date, employees have lost over £270 million in wages as a result of the industrial action.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that several ASLEF members in my constituency are risking their future by refusing to pay an ASLEF-imposed levy for the miners' strike because they object to Mr. Scargill's failure to hold a democratic ballot on the strike and to the failure of their union to hold a ballot on the levy? Is it not a fact that no mining jobs are at risk? Is it not outrageous that the jobs of some of my constituents are at risk because they demand democratic procedures from unions?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. A considerable movement of coal by rail has taken place during the strike, because railwaymen have accepted a pay offer less than that offered to the miners. Railwaymen have suffered in the past because of redundancies, whereas no miners face compulsory redundancy.
    Mr. Knox: Can my right hon. Friend think of anybody who is benefiting or is likely to benefit from the dispute?
    Mr. Walker: Yes—those who compete with coal as a form of energy supplied to industry.
    Mr. Eadie: The Secretary of State told us earlier about scripts. Will he tell some of his hon. Friends that they should rewrite their scripts because the party and the propaganda warfare are over? The miners' strike is extremely damaging, not just to the miners, but to the nation. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to bring this damaging dispute to an end? Does he agree that we need a settlement so that the nation and the miners can get back to work?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman knows better than most that talks have taken place between the NUM and the NCB. Further talks took place last Friday. As a result, both sides considered it important to continue the talks this week. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his considerable influence in that sphere to ensure that the realities of the scene are recognised by miners so that the talks this week will succeed.
    Mr. Parry: Will the Secretary of State ask the Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and explain why she deliberately misled the House on the intervention by the Government—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. No right hon. or hon. Member deliberately misleads.
    Mr. Parry: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to make a statement tomorrow on the Government's intervention? Will he confirm the claim by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on Thursday about armed forces' facilities being put at the disposal of the police during the dispute?
    Mr. Walker: To suggest that the armed forces are involved in the dispute is nonsense. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will, of course, be answering questions tomorrow and on Thursday, as always. Nothing would delight her more than for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) to be called to ask a supplementary question.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he personally was aware of the contents of the secret messages between Downing street, the Department of Transport and the chairman of British Rail? Is it not about time that Ministers told the truth about how they have conspired to manipulate the strike for their own political ends in a senseless vendetta against the miners, instead of doing what they should be doing — intervening constructively to stop unnecessary pit closures and thereby helping to bring about a peaceful end to the strike?
    Mr. Walker: I am glad to say that the Government conspired to ensure that there was enough money with the NCB to make a decent pay offer and a massive investment programme, and that not one miner was made redundant.
    Mr. Chapman: In order to put the employment aspects of the dispute into a proper context, will my right hon. Friend say how many miners will be made compulsorily redundant if the NCB is allowed to implement its present plans, and how many have forcibly been made redundant in, say, the past two or three years?
    Mr. Walker: None.
    Mr. Lofthouse: The Secretary of State will be aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), in last Thursday's debate, said that two pits in the west Yorkshire coalfield, Ledston Luck and Saville, would be closed in the very short term, and that the Alderton Bywater colliery, as a direct result of the dispute, was on the list for closure? Will he confirm or deny that information given by his hon. Friend?
    Mr. Walker: I do not know the answer. If I may, I shall let the hon. Gentleman know the answer later this afternoon.
    Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come to recognise the efforts of nearly 50,000 miners who have been at work throughout the dispute? Does he realise that a large number of my constituents are now owed up to £400 each, as are many miners in neighbouring constituencies, such as Bolsover? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the men who have beem working will be paid on account, and preferably before the holiday?
    Mr. Walker: I understand the views of my hon. Friend on the subject. Certainly one has admired the manner—in spite of intimidation on a considerable scale — in which people have gone to work. I hope for their sakes that there will very quickly be an agreement so that they, together with many other miners throughout the country, can enjoy the substantial back pay that is available to them.
    Mr. Dormand: Is the Secretary of State aware that five weeks ago the Under-Secretary of State told me, in answer to a parliamentary question, that there were not only sufficient coal stocks to carry us through to the autumn but enough to carry us into next year? Does the Secretary of
    630
    State agree that that is the present position? Will he also say whether he thinks that the lack of stocks, or the diminution in them, is now affecting the economy?
    Mr. Walker: I repeat that the stocks are running down at the rate of about 1 million tonnes every three or four weeks. On that basis, the stocks would carry us through into next year. The position depends on the future flow of coal stocks, the amount of production, and a range of other matters. But certainly on the present trends that would be the possition.
    Mr. Dormand: What about the effect on the economy?
    Mr. Walker: Of course the miners' strike is bad for the economy. I hope that those who are on strike, without having had the opportunity to ballot, will recognise that.
    Mr. Favell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Government's landslide victory in June 1983 demonstrated widespread understanding of the Government's intent to make British industry more competitive, despite a great deal of sacrifice by a great many people? If the NCB now caves in to Arthur Scargill, there will be widespread anger.
    Mr. Walker: What the NCB is endeavouring to do is very much in the interests of the future of the mining industry and the future prosperity of miners. Those miners who have had the opportunity of a ballot have shown that that is also their view.
    Mr. Orme: Did the Secretary of State see the correspondence with the chairman of British Rail, and the correspondence between the hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and other Departments, or was he completely excluded from those exchanges? It seems extraordinary.
    Mr. Walker: I have a large amount of correspondence flowing through my office. [Interruption.] I am sure that, as a member of various economic committees of the Cabinet, I have seen a great deal of correspondence concerning the railway wage claim.

    Electricity Consumption
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's projection for the total consumption of electricity within the United Kingdom for the next 10 years.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: My Department's long-term energy projections explore a wide range of possible developments for the United Kingdom's energy demand to the year 2010, and were included in its proof of evidence to the Sizewell B inquiry. By 1990, electricity demand is projected to be in the range of 229 to 274 terrawatt hours and by the year 2000 to be 240 to 372 terrawatt hours. Figures are not available for individual years.
    Mr. Pike: I thank the Minister for his answer. As it takes about 10 years from the date on which work is started to bring a new power station into operation, and as we have massive coal reserves beneath this country, will the Government make the maximum use of coal in the next generation of power stations? In the interim, will he ensure that existing power stations, such as Padiham in my constituency, are converted to put the second generator on to coal rather than oil?
    Mr. Shaw: As the hon. Gentleman recognises, more than 80 per cent. of our electricity is generated from coal. On the projections made so far, coal will retain its dominant role, whatever other power station orders follow the Sizewell B inquiry.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend make sure that we do not convert all our power stations to coal until at least 10 years have passed in which the NUM has not tried to come out on strike during at least half of those years?
    Mr. Shaw: I accept from my hon. Friend that a balanced generation policy seems to be the most efficient, both economically and politically.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Do the Government recognise the important contribution that can be made to the United Kingdom's electricity consumption by small and local hydro-electric schemes, especially in parts of the kingdom like Northern Ireland? Will Ministers ensure that the possibility of these schemes is studied and encouraged?
    Mr. Shaw: Hydro-electricity is a major source of energy in parts of the United Kingdom, especially in Scotland. The energy requirements of the Province are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

    Electricity Generation (Costs)
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the increased cost of using oil instead of coal by the Central Electricity Generating Board in the 10 weeks to 21 May.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: The Central Electricity Generating Board is responsible for the operation of the integrated electricity supply system. The board is absorbing for the present the extra costs involved.
    Mr. Powell: Having accepted that there is increased cost to the electricity board, the NCB and British Rail, as well as to industry in general as a result of the miners' strike, is it not time that the Government gave serious consideration to an early redundancy payment for Mr. Ian MacGregor, or to his deportation to America, so that we can save this country the millions of pounds that have been taken from the trading balance since the miners' strike started?
    Mr. Shaw: I accept that the hon. Gentleman has a strong point of view on the matter. He should recognise that the CEGB has maintained an effective supply of electricity despite all the disruption.
    Mr. Nellist: Is it not a fact that the CEGB has spent more than £200 million on the Amsterdam spot market to buy oil in the past 10 or 11 weeks? When making fatuous remarks about it being warmer in the summer than in the winter—it takes a Cabinet Minister to discover that—does the Minister not realise that the total requirements for power generation drop by less than a third in the summer months? Does he not realise that he is costing taxpayers and working people hundreds of millions of pounds in trying to break the NUM by buying oil abroad?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman has his own unique way of drawing attention to some of the problems that are involved in energy supply and demand. He should be
    632
    grateful that we have an electricity generating system that is capable of withstanding the worst that the hon. Gentleman can do to it.

    Collieries (Picketing)
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairman of the National Coal Board relating to the mass picketing of collieries.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I deeply regret the scenes of violence and intimidation that have occurred on the picket lines as a result of the activities of a minority of extremists. The Government remain determined to prevent the advent of mob rule and to maintain the rule of the law.
    Mr. Wallace: Given that it is now clear that the Government are directly intervening in the dispute, and given the Secretary of State's determination that the rule of law should prevail, has he given advice to the chairman of the National Coal Board to make use of the civil procedure along the lines of the legislation introduced by his Government, which they boasted would be so efficient for dealing with such situations?
    Mr. Walker: I can give no specific advice on that matter, but I repeat that the scenes that we have seen on picket lines are not a matter for civil law but are matters for the type of actions already being taken by the police.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some days ago I visited my constituents serving with the Cambridgeshire police force in Derbyshire? Does he accept that I was very impressed by their restraint, common sense and professionalism in doing their job, and that that is the view of the vast majority of my constituents, except some Labour district councillors?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. It is also the view of the steel workers, the power workers, and many miners throughout the country that if it had not been for the proper and courageous action of the police they would have been prevented from exercising their basic right and freedom to go to work.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Whit Monday
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Lord Privy Seal if, in the light of the experience of the recent spring bank holiday and accompanying adjournment, he will ask the Select Committee on Procedure to examine the possibility of the House not sitting on Whit Monday in future years.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The Select Committee on Procedure was set up with general terms of reference and can choose for itself what subjects it should inquire into. No doubt the members of the Committee will take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Has not the weather served us right? Will the Government move to reverse the paganisation of the people's festivals, and will they give an assurance that they have no designs on Easter Monday?
    Mr. Biffen: I note all that my hon. Friend says, but it does not in any sense alter the general thrust of my original reply.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Select Committee to the fact that for centuries the House has been in recess during the great religious festivals of Easter, Christmas and Whitsun? Will he urge the Select Committee to restore the Whitsun recess on Whit Monday, at the expense, if necessary, of the first Monday in May?
    Mr. Biffen: I am not sure whether it is appropriate for me to make any representations to the Select Committee, but it is undoubtedly true that it will take note of this exchange.
    Mr. Favell: May I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said about the May day bank holiday, which, after all, is on May day only one year in seven? The only thing that appears to be noteworthy is the series of soldiers and tanks marching through Red square. Is it not far better that we celebrate Whit Monday rather than the May day holiday?
    Mr. Biffen: All those arguments were ventilated not long ago. I return to my original observation, that it is entirely within the competence of the Select Committee on Procedure to take account of those representations.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Leader of the House aware that May day was instituted 96 years ago to celebrate the first international strike for the eight-hour day? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it ironic that, 96 years after that first real May day, the average number of working hours in industry in Britain is still 42·6? Will he transmit that to the Select Committee?
    Mr. Biffen: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having translated from being a militant to an experienced parliamentarian in so short a period and on using this question for such an ingenious supplementary question. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's Chief Whip will agree with me.
    Mrs. Currie: In view of the considerable disruption to our national life caused by the repeated disappearance of Mondays during the late spring and early summer, may I ask my right hon. Friend to exercise the power of the House, which was recently demonstrated by the complete disappearance of one day, by ensuring that at least one Monday is transformed into a Tuesday so that we can have a long weekend? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is scandalous that a Conservative Government should continue to celebrate the Socialist May day holiday? Could he exercise his power to make it disappear altogether?
    Mr. Biffen: I have absolutely no power to make May day disappear altogether. Although it is encouraging that my brief appearance on such Mondays as are permitted by our procedures makes my hon. Friends believe that I have such power, I must state that, if this question is relevant, it should be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure.
    Mr. Skinner: What is all this nonsense? Why are people getting so worked up about one particular Monday, when on the approximately 35 Mondays per year that the House sits attendance when we kick off at 2.30 pm is under 10 per cent?
    Mr. Biffen: I think that that goes a little wide of the question, but I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Marlow: As Her Majesty The Queen has an official birthday, could not the May day bank holiday be
    634
    renamed the official St. George's day bank holiday, especially in view of the comments of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) about the origins of May day?
    Mr. Biffen: As with all the fascinating propositions that have been put to me, I must again give the lack-lustre answer that these are matters for the Select Committee.

  ENERGY

    Power Stations (Coal Stocks)
    Sir William van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current level of coal stocks at the power stations to the nearest convenient date.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Coal stocks at power stations are sufficient to meet electricity demand for many months ahead.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: Are not this afternoon's proceedings a terrible lesson to my right hon. Friend for failing to group my question with Nos. 2 and 8, in the hope, no doubt, that it would not be reached? Will he note that the old codgers in the House can be persistent and that a large number of my constituents have willingly contributed through taxation to the investment in the mines to which he referred and now expect the line taken by the NCB to be firmly held?
    Mr. Walker: Had I known that my hon. Friend would ask such a helpful supplementary question I should not have conspired against him in the intolerable way that I did. The substantial investments in the coal industry will provide a very good future for it. That is why I hope that there will be a speedy settlement, because if ever there was a major industrial dispute without any reason it is the current situation in the mining industry.
    Mr. Rogers: Before Question Time ends, will the Secretary of State congratulate the NUM and its leaders on its valiant fight against the NCB to protect the jobs of its members and their children? Will he disabuse those of his colleagues who constantly trot out claptrap about "no compulsory redundancies" and admit that any rundown in a mining area means a real job loss and that, with 30 per cent. unemployment in some areas, there is nowhere for anyone to go? The people involved will be without jobs for the rest of their lives.
    Mr. Walker: That is why I congratulate the NCB on creating a situation in which not one miner will be compulsorily made redundant. It is also why I support the many miners working today who realise that by so doing they are likely to gain rather than lose future markets for coal.

    Coal Mining Dispute
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the industrial dispute in the coal industry.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to question No. 11 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).
    Mr. Adley: Referring back to that answer, and comparing the position with that in previous years. will my

    635
    right hon. Friend confirm that between 1964 and 1970, under the Labour Government, more than 250 pits were closed and more than 200,000 men left the coal mining industry as a result? If those figures are accurate, is it not clear that Mr. Scargill, with his Marxist friends such as Bruce Kent and some Opposition Members, is indulging merely in party politically motivated hypocrisy?
    Mr. Walker: Throughout the whole post-war period there have been substantial numbers of pit closures. In the last three years of the Labour Government there were 17,000 voluntary redundancies. I am pleased to say that terms and conditions for such people are now better than ever before.
    Mr. Orme: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer my earlier question? Did he see the correspondence referred to in the Daily Mirror with the chairman of British Rail and the chairman of the Conservative party, or did he not?
    Mr. Walker: Having read Mr. Paul Foot's piece in the Daily Mirror, and noted the correspondence, I can only say that if I did not see it I do not regret not having seen it, and if I did see it it was so unimportant that I do not remember it.
    Later—
    Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the exchanges during Question Time, and we accept your ruling that no hon. Member deliberately misleads the House. However, there is a very narrow distinction between deliberately misleading the House and not giving the House information that is in the possession of the Minister.
    Through your good offices, Mr. Speaker, can we prevail on the Secretary of State for Energy to search his memory and, indeed, his files to see whether the correspondence to which we referred is in the possession of his office and whether he has seen it? Given the posture that he is adopting, or is likely to adopt, during this dispute it is important that accurate, detailed, honest and truthful information be given to the House.
    Mr. Speaker: Clearly that is not a matter for me. I simply remind the House that we are all honourable Ladies and Gentlemen and that no one deliberately misleads in this place.

    Energy Conservation
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the progress made by the Government on their energy conservation policy.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Whilst never satisfied, we are pleased with the considerable progress being made.
    Mr. Forman: How much of the progress that has been made under the present Government in energy conservation is attributable to the effects of the international economic recession? Is my right hon. Friend confident that we are matching the best conservation policies of our EEC partners?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am not totally satisfied with progress. However, it is significant that, particularly as a result of the campaign launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the meetings that he and others
    636
    of my right hon. and hon. Friends have had, we have taken the energy conservation message to a far wider audience in industry than ever before. The follow-up to those meetings, and the action being taken in industry, shows that our initiative is being watched very closely.

    Onshore Oilfields
    Mr. Coombsasked the Secretary of State for Energy how many onshore oilfields are currently in production.
    Mr. Buchanan-SmithThere are 10 onshore oilfields in production.
    Mr. Coombs: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. At this stage can he give any forecasts of growth, either in the number of fields or the level of production? Can he also assure my constituents who may travel in the north Wiltshire area that, in the likely event of explorations continuing in that area, those explorations will be subject to the most rigorous environmental control, so that they will be able to continue to enjoy the beautiful countryside surrounding Swindon?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is no doubt that there is considerable scope for the development of this resource, but I am concerned that we carry forward that development in a sensible way which takes proper account of the environmental interests as well. I am sensitive to those interests, which is why I hope that the review of onshore licensing arrangements which I recently announced, and which has been generally welcomed by the interests concerned, will help towards a better procedure and understanding of what is involved.
    Mr. Rowlands: Will the right hon. Gentleman also make available to the House the details of the sale of Wytch farm—a major onshore oilfield—in which there seems to be an inbuilt disincentive to production in as much as the Dorset Bidding G roup would have to pay a large sum of money once it reached a certain level of production?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend has already answered the hon. Gentleman's question.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Civil Service Unions
    Mr. Parryasked the Minister for the Civil Service what matters were discussed at his last meeting with the Civil Service unions.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I had a meeting last Tuesday with representatives of the Council of Civil Service Unions about the pay of higher civil servants.
    Mr. Parry: When will the Minister for the Civil Service involve himself in the strike at the Department of Health and Social Security in Newcastle? Is it not disgraceful that civil servants are to lose £42 a month in take-home pay and that night-shift working is to be imposed on them against their will? Are not the workers to be congratulated on the fact that their action is not interfering with the payment of benefits to pensioners and others?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The action being taken by members of the Society of Civil and Public Servants and the Civil and

    637
    Public Servants Association at the DHSS in Newcastle is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I strongly deprecate the action and the damage that it is doing to those who rely upon the prompt and efficient payment of benefit.
    Mr. Janner: Has the Minister discussed with the Civil Service unions the Government's total failure to introduce ethnic monitoring into any of their Departments or organisations, in accordance with the code of the Commission for Racial Equality which came into force on 1 April this year? If not, will he now do so, in the interests of good race relations?
    Mr. Hayhoe: If the Council of Civil Service Unions wishes to discuss this matter with me or my noble Friend, I am sure that the necessary arrangements can be made.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why should civil servants accept a pay settlement that is less than that paid, on average, to others within the public sector?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I believe that the offer made to the non-industrial civil servants is fair and reasonable, and I hope that, on reflection, they will decide that that is so, and accept it.
    Mr. Dormand: Most members of the Civil Service unions can hardly wait to be transferred to the northern region, because of the obvious attractions of that area. However, not a single Civil Service job has been transferred there since May 1979 when the Government took office. Why does not the Minister discuss this matter with the Civil Service unions and give them something for which they are asking?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The matters that I discuss with the Civil Service unions are largely those that are suggested by them. That matter is not one that the unions have asked to raise with me.
    Mr. Dalyell: How seriously do the Government take the recent ruling by the International Labour Organisation at Geneva that they have mistreated their own employees at Government Communications Headquarters at Cheltenham? Do the Government propose simply to flout that decision? If not, what do they propose to do? Do they take the decision seriously, or not?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The decision and opinion expressed by the ILO is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
    Dr. McDonald: Since the Government's action has been ruled by the ILO to be in clear breach of convention 87 on freedom of association, will the Minister undertake that the Government will reopen negotiations, in order to secure both continuity of service and the restoration of basic trade union rights to employees at GCHQ?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am not sure that there is much point in reopening negotiations, as two of the major Civil Service unions concerned — the Society of Civil and Public Servants and the Civil and Public Servants Association —censured their executives at their annual conferences for the action that the executives took. The unions also asked for a withdrawal from the obligations into which their unions were prepared to enter.
    Mr. Soames: When my hon. Friend next meets the Civil Service unions, will he tell them that the Government will pursue with the utmost rigour of the law anyone who is found leaking Government security documents?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The Civil Service unions and the Civil Service generally are well aware of that situation.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Open Structure
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a further statement on the progress towards an open structure in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Following my statement of 23 November last year I am pleased to confirm that the open structure was extended on 1 January to include nearly 6,000 senior managerial staff who were previously in approximately 100 separate grades down to senior principal level. We are currently examining the case for a further extension of unified grading to include grades at principal level. The study should be completed shortly.
    Mr. Sheldon: Although I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman's action, which has been a major advance, might I remind him that the Prime Minister has not shown sufficient regard to the advantage we get from our Civil Service in terms of its incorruptibility, dedication and loyalty? If she were to make such a statement—it is conventional— would that not facilitate a much more easy move towards the open structure which the hon. Gentleman is ardently pursuing?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the extension of unified grading. I strongly support the move and I welcome his encouragement of it. It is worth bearing in mind that the Fulton report was made at the end of the 1960s and that the only steps to implement unified grading have been taken by a Conservative Government in 1972 and another Conservative Government in 1983. Moreover, the next step will also be taken by a Conservative Government.
    Mr. Forman: Although I welcome the progress towards unified grading that has been made during the Government's term of office, especially as a means of removing some of the discrimination against scientific and technical staff, can my hon. Friend say whether it might also lead to fewer grades at higher levels of the Civil Service?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, it will. Although I do not accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that there has been discrimination against scientific and tecnical staff, I believe that such staff especially welcome the move to unified grading. If it can be extended down to the principal level, a further 12,000 civil servants who are spread over about 100 grades will be included. That would be a considerable advance.
    Mr. Skinner: The Minister has allied himself with the rest of the Government in setting up costly inquiries into leaks, as with the Daily Mirror last week. Would it not be a better idea, in view of that and other leaks from the Government, to set up some form of incentive scheme so that leaks can be made properly when they are in the national interest?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I would not have expected the hon. Gentleman to support civil servants abiding by their terms and conditions of employment. It would have been better

    639
    if he had remained silent and given no encouragement to the small minority who misuse their position by leaking such documents.
    Mr. Rowe: As many people who are now coming into the Civil Service have qualifications befitting a grade well above that at which they now enter, when my hon. Friend
    640
    examines structures will he bear in mind that it should be made easier for people who show that they are qualified to move up the structure than has been the case so far?
    Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend has identified a real and important problem. I assure him that the matter is being given attention.

Clock Tower (Intruders)
Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a short statement on the presence of intruders on the Clock Tower. I am informed by the police that at about 5 o'clock this morning three men gained access to the scaffolding at present surrounding the Clock Tower by means of a ladder from the roof of a double-decker bus and proceeded to climb the Tower. The security authorities were immediately alerted. One of the three men delayed the police in pursuit by chaining himself to the scaffolding by the lift. The other two were able to reach the level of the clock and from there to suspend themselves on climbing hammocks from the scaffolding and to display banners across the east clock face. I am informed that the two men are likely to come down from the tower within the next half hour.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you care to make a statement about the extent to which these high-rise antics cost the public purse money?
Mr. Speaker: I have nothing further to add until I have a full report on exactly what happened.

Pensions (Early Leavers)
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, I should like to make a statement about occupational pensions and early leavers.
At present just under 12 million people—about half the national work force—are building up occupational pension rights. That pension provision is of vital importance in retirement, yet in many cases people who change their jobs suffer a loss of pension rights as a result. In the words of the Occupational Pensions Board:
"it remains a fact that at the moment many early leavers lose, and they often lose substantially".
The Government believe that this position should be reformed and that those who leave their employment before pension age are as much entitled to the complete package of rewards for their years of service as those who stay. It was for that reason that I convened a special conference on this problem Last September and at the end of last year issued a consultative document on the question. The responses to that document showed wide support for change and certainly no new arguments against. Accordingly, the Government have decided to bring forward legislation at the first possible opportunity to correct the present injustice.
At present, many people who change their jobs leave behind a pension, which is basically frozen in cash terms and, therefore, loses value up to the age of retirement. That provides the most fundamental complaint about the present arrangements. I shall therefore introduce legislation to require occupational pension schemes to revalue deferred benefits for future early leavers at 5 per cent. a year compound or in line with the rise in prices, whichever is less, over the whole period from leaving to pension age.
That will have a beneficial effect not only for the person who leaves his pension with his old employer but for the person who transfers it. The transfer value of those rights will be increased by this change. The House will know that I am currently consulting on proposals to give every early leaver a legal right to transfer.
In money purchase and average salary schemes we shall require comparable treatment for leavers and stayers. We shall also remove the age limit of 26 for entitlement to preservation so that anyone with 5 years' service in a scheme will be entitled to a preserved pension.
Although it is not practicable to legislate for improvements for those who have already left, I want these changes to come into effect as soon as possible. It is with this in mind that I am proposing legislation which will override scheme rules, so that the service which is to count for improvements shall start to build up as soon as possible. However, I am willing to explore any alternative to overriding legislation, which the occupational pensions schemes joint working group might suggest, provided that such a proposal is effective and can be implemented quickly.
These proposals are an important part of our plans to improve the position of members of occupational pension schemes. We have already introduced legislation to end franking. The improvements I have just announced will provide a fair deal for all members of schemes and ensure that no artificial barriers are created to job mobility.
However, more action is still needed. I am at present considering the comments that I have received on the

643
consultative document on disclosure of information, and will announce my conclusions shortly. The consultative document on transfer rights was published last month and my inquiry into provision for retirement has been considering the arguments for personal portable pensions. These steps represent a substantial programme of reform. It is central to that programme that action should be taken to improve the position of early leavers.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition support in principle the ending of present pensions discrimination against people who change jobs, when, given for example, the current annual rate of earnings growth of 7·5 per cent., an early leaver with only three job changes involving final salary schemes may achieve less than 50 per cent. of the pension awarded to a long-serving member of a comparable scheme? We also accept that voluntary persuasion of the occupational schemes has not worked, as no effective action has been taken by them to safeguard early leavers since the Occupational Pensions Board report on the problem in June 1981.
However, is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition do not accept that his formula properly protects early leavers? Is he aware that his formula continues to cheat early leavers of their clear rights? Is he further aware that, during the past 15 years, earnings have not once risen by as little as 5 per cent. a year? This formula is therefore a shift from revaluation in line with earnings to revaluation in line with prices.
The Government did that in 1980 in respect of basic retirement pensions, and today married pensioners are consequently £5 a week worse off than they would have been if the Labour Government's formula had continued. The same treatment is now being meted out to occupational pensions—that is the Secretary of State's message today. The previous Labour Government from 1978 required full indexing — I emphasise the word "full" —of the guaranteed minimum pension without a price ceiling.
Is the Secretary of State aware that he has rejected the partial OPB recommendation of 8·5 per cent. a year revaluation, which is much nearer to the likely movement of future earnings, and has not even provided price protection without a ceiling? Is he aware that the best solution would be to require frozen pensions to be fully index-linked, although I accept that that would force a renegotiation of the benefit scales? Is he aware that that would not be so burdensome to the corporate sector as many funds are accumulating substantial surpluses?
Has the Secretary of State considered the retrospective application of his proposals, since millions of young people have been cheated of their basic rights by the tardiness with which the Government have acted— [Interruption.] It is three and a half years since the publication of the Occupational Pensions Board's report in 1981.
Finally, and above all, will the right hon. Gentleman take on board the fact that a 5 per cent. revaluation for occupational pensioners is grossly unacceptable, since the Datastream survey showed recently, for example, that between 1981 and 1983 the top 100 directors of public companies awarded themselves pay increases of no less than 61 per cent?
Mr. Fowler: It is becoming increasingly difficult to take the hon. Gentleman's comments seriously. The Labour Government did nothing for early leavers except to set up a committee to consider the position. We are implementing the proposals made by the Occupational Pensions Board almost without exception. When the hon. Gentleman talks about 8·5 per cent., he is talking not about the majority report of the Occupational Pensions Board but about a minority report. The obvious reason for not having 8·5 per cent. is that it would destabilise pension schemes and would be too expensive.
Mr. Meacher: Ah.
Mr. Fowler: Of course that is right. The hon. Gentleman should understand that the laws of arithmetic cannot be suspended, even for his peculiar policies.
The reason why we can implement the scheme is that we can now plan ahead because we have achieved low inflation. The hon. Gentleman talks about the rights of the elderly, but I remind him that between 1974 and 1979 inflation increased by 110 per cent., which was devastatingly bad for the elderly.
As to the formula of 5 per cent. and price indexing, I should tell the hon. Gentleman that most public or private firms revalue on the basis of prices, which is why we have adopted that formula. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the advantages. What we are doing—we are doing it, not just talking about it—is providing a better deal for early leavers. There is no reason why they should lose, and we are ending barriers to job mobility. That series of proposals should be welcomed by anyone with common sense on both sides of the House.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on announcing these long-awaited and wholly beneficial changes. In drafting the legislation, will he take into account the fact that, although the trend towards early leaving and job changes may be circular, the increase in entitlement to such occupational pensions can be afforded only at the expense of those who stay in their companies, unless the Government inject money? An allowance should be retained for companies to allow a premium for those who display loyalty and stay with a company for a long time, while at the same time rightly enhancing the pension entitlement of those who decide to leave early.
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's constructive point. We estimate that the change will add about 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. to pension costs, and clearly we shall leave it to the pension schemes to decide how that will be afforded. It can be afforded by increased contributions, or companies can take advantage of the good returns which pension schemes have enjoyed in the past, they can reduce the fraction, or they can move to integration.
It is better to have good scheme for everyone than a scheme that is good for a few and bad for many. In this legislation we seek to provide a fair return for the person who stays and for the person who leaves.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is the Secretary of State aware that we on these Benches are willing to give the announcement a cautious welcome but will reserve final judgment until we see the fine print in the Bill? The statement is better than nothing, but I press the right hon. Gentleman on the timing of the schemes

645
both for early leavers and for portability. Is the House to assume that he will bring forward legislation on both subjects for the next Session?
Mr. Fowler: No, the House should not assume that. We shall bring forward the legislation on early leavers at the first possible opportunity. As to portable pensions, my inquiry looking into this has not yet formulated its proposals. It is unlikely that we shall be able to bring that forward this October.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement today will be welcomed not only for its contribution to labour mobility but because it is a way to reduce some of the discrimination that there has been in the system as between the private and public sectors, and that this will be much welcomed by the private sector?
Mr. Fowler: Yes, the position has changed on that and there is now a wide consensus in favour of such action as this. There is not total agreement, but the atmosphere and the attitude in the private pensions industry has changed radically over the past 12 months.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Secretary of State aware that, however belated and with whatever shortcomings in the legislation, the step that has been taken today is a significant advance for thousands of people who have been tied to unsuitable jobs simply because they have been unable to transfer their pension rights, and that it will be welcomed on those grounds?
Mr. Fowler: I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I think that on reflection most hon. Members on the Opposition Benches will share that wise view.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: If my right hon. Friend is right in saying that this is a widespread problem, will he explain why his proposals will add only 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. to pension costs?
Mr. Fowler: That is the estimate of the Government Actuary's department—1 per cent. is the cost for male pensions and the 2 per cent. is the cost for female pensions.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I was the late Dick Crossman's PPS when a similar scheme was put forward in the late 1960s and the objections from the Government Actuary then were on the grounds of the sheer difficulty of making calculations. Is it true that, because of modern computer techniques, it is now easier to do what 15 years ago—or even 10 or five years ago—would have been difficult to calculate? Can the Secretary of State confirm that the costs are no more than 1 per cent. or 2 per cent., because my recollection is that the Government Actuary, a decade or more ago, was talking in terms of 10 per cent. or 15 per cent? That is quite a change.
Mr. Fowler: The advice that I was given is the advice that I have given to the House. There must always be some uncertainties in projections. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman may realise that his recollections of the figures is too high.
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is good that the Government have decided to take action in this difficult matter? The statement recognises the reality that people change their jobs regularly. As I understand it, he said that he only
646
hoped to give people the right to transfer pension rights. It is important that they have this right. Will he do everything possible to make certain that ways are found for them to have this right.
Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. I have issued a consultation document on that, of which the aim, as it is the Government's aim, is to give people the choice between leaving the pension rights where they are; transferring to a new scheme on a basic agreement with the new employer, purchasing an annuity from an insurance company, or, if we so decide, transferring the money to their own personal portable pension. We want to see the right to have a transfer.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I welcome the proposed change, but is there not a danger that, if the legislation is delayed, people who are planning to change their employment may defer that change so as not to miss out? Could not some retrospectivity be introduced to cover that position?
Mr. Fowler: I do not think that it can be retrospective in the sense of going back to past rights and past service. It is clear that pension schemes have not been able to plan on that basis. That would simply add a cost to them for which they had no means of planning. However sympathetic I might be to what the hon. Gentleman proposes, I do not think that it is practicable.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people believe that some change is needed for people leaving their jobs early, but is he really confident that the 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. is right? Most schemes are not fully funded. The nationalised industries especially are nowhere near being fully funded. Does not that mean that quite a heavy burden could fall upon the taxpayer to fund these schemes properly, or it would mean either a reduced amount of pension for those in a scheme or a very much increased contribution payment? If these actuaries are such great experts, does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be an excellent idea to have a few models, possibly based upon one or two of the nationalised industries, so that we could see into what uncharted waters we were heading?
Mr. Fowler: Of course, what is being proposed now is already the case in the public sector. That is the answer to my hon. Friend's fundamental question. But perhaps I ought to make clear what I said in reply to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). It means that schemes will have the option of increasing contributions, of taking advantage perhaps of the good returns that they have had over the past few years—there is no question about that—of reducing the fraction from one sixtieth to one seventieth, or of integration. I claim that these proposals give justice both to those who leave and to those who stay. It seems to me that there is no justification for those who stay behind being subsidised by those who leave.
Mr. Michael Stern: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the latest of a series of moves towards full portability of pensions, which so many people on all sides of industry desire. Is the five-year limit on entitlement to the rights that my right hon. Friend proposes intended to be an absolute limit, or will he allow

647
it not to override those forward-looking schemes which already give rights to pensions before the five years are up?
Mr. Fowler: I shall consider that, but in principle I have some sympathy with the point.
Mr. Timothy Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these proposals will be especially welcomed by women, particularly those who have interrupted their careers to have children and who for a long time have been effectively the victims of quite severe discrimination in respect of occupational pensions? I suggest to my right hon. Friend that one reason why the cost of these proposals is lower than might have been estimated some years ago is the Government's success in reducing the rate of inflation.
Mr. Fowler: It is entirely right that we are now able to plan forward in a period of low inflation, where previously plans of this kind would almost have been laughed out of court. I agree that one of the groups who will benefit most is women.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most people seriously underestimate the cost of their pensions? In a report in The Observer on 3 June it was suggested that if my right hon. Friend wished to provide for himself and his family a pension of two thirds of his final annual salary plus indexation, he should be forking out 38 per cent. of his annual earnings. Does he accept that there will continue to be a role for the state in setting minimum standards to protect the rights of future survivors, especially widows?
Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend. I also agree that there is a range of policy considerations concerned with pensions. It is precisely because of that, the cost of pensions and the rest, that we have set up the inquiry into pensions which will look not just at occupational pensions but also at state pensions.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Where a person transfers from one scheme to another, the first scheme having involved a lump sum payment upon
648
retirement, will the lump sum be safeguarded under the arrangements which my right hon. Friend has just announced?
Mr. Fowler: I shall have to look at the details of what my hon. Friend is saying, but my understanding is that it will be safeguarded. Nothing that I am saying now will take away rights. It will add to the rights of the person transferring.
Mr. Meacher: I return to two questions which the right hon. Gentleman did not answer. First, is not the overall cost of these proposals so small partly because for so many years the occupational schemes have cheated early leavers of their basic rights? Should there not be some element of restrospection, as least backdating to the statement today? Will he reconsider that?
Secondly, the Secretary of State said that he wished to be fair as between early leavers and stayers. Apart from the principle, exactly how does he intend to do that? Is he in favour of cost neutrality — in other words, that if early leavers' benefits are improved, others' benefits must be cut? Could not improvements be met from the large surpluses currently being earned by pension funds, instead of those large surpluses being used to reduce employers' contributions.
Mr. Fowler: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that I shall certainly give consideration to some backdating, but the period will not be long; 12 months will be about the limit. The basic point that I am making on retrospection is that, regrettable though this may be, there is no way in which we can create rights for people's service 10 or 20 years ago.
On the second question, about affording it, I cannot usefully add to what I said. It is a matter for schemes—we are leaving it to them—and, clearly, they have a range of possibilities. One is the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, which is to take advantage of the good returns that they have had in recent years. However, they may have to increase contributions or take some other action, and we should not run away from that possibility, either. The basic point that I am making is that we are trying to get justice between those who stay in a pension scheme and those who leave it for another job. That is what these proposals are about.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)
3.57 pm
Mr. Speaker: It may be helpful if I make it clear that the debate on this order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 9th May, be approved.
The order is being made under schedule 1(1) to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Its purpose is to authorise the issue of £1,605 million out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland and to appropriate this sum for the purposes shown in the schedule. This represents the balance of the 1984–85 main Estimates for Northern Ireland Departments and brings the total main Estimates provision for the year to £2,831 million.
This debate is taking place somewhat earlier than in recent years. This is possible because we were able to lay the draft order and publish the main Estimates for Northern Ireland Departments on 9 May—about a month earlier than previously. We believe it right that the Estimates should be published as early as possible in the year to which they relate, and a refinement of procedures has enabled us to bring publication forward. I hope that hon. Members will find this helpful.
The main Estimates represent the detailed spending plans of Northern Ireland Departments for this financial year. These plans were set out in broad outline in the Northern Ireland chapter of the Government's public expenditure White Paper, which was published in February, and in the statements of 13 December 1983 and 16 February this year by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Detailed information can be found in the Estimates volumes themselves, copies of which were placed in the Vote Office, along with the draft order, on 9 May.
Before I outline some of the main features of the draft order, I will comment on developments on the broader economic front, where the picture is encouraging. The national economy grew by 3 per cent. last year and recovery at the same rate is expected to continue throughout 1984. Inflation is down to 5 per cent. With it have come improved trading conditions and, despite last month's increase, an overall reduction in interest rates has been achieved. There are signs that Northern Ireland is sharing in this recovery. Manufacturing production in Northern Ireland in 1983 was 3 per cent. above the level of 1982, with most sectors now displaying stability or some improvement. In particular, the electrical and instrument engineering industry has shown a welcome rise of 22 per cent. in 1983 and the textile industry has increased its production for the first time since 1979.
A number of recent surveys are in general agreement, at least on the short-term prospects for the Northern Ireland economy. All report signs of improvement. The latest CBI report is particularly encouraging. It confirms that the upturn in the United Kingdom economy is also being experienced locally. Home and export demand continue to rise, with general business confidence also improving.
650
Employment in Northern Ireland is demonstrating greater stability with a fall over the year since March 1983 of 2,600, contrasting with 13,500 in the previous 12 months. The position in manufacturing employment is also much more encouraging, with a net loss of only 1,800 jobs in the 12 months up to March this year, compared with 10,600 in the previous 12-month period.
Despite these various improvements, unemployment remains at a level which, by any standard, is unacceptably high. Comparison with the United Kingdom is alarming. The latest figure for average unemployment is 21·6 per cent. in Northern Ireland, compared with the United Kingdom average of 12·9 per cent. Indeed, if one compares Northern Ireland with the worst in Great Britain — northern England—one ands a figure of 17·4 per cent. compared with 21·6 per cent. average in the Province.
The Government fully recognise the severity of the economic and other problems facing Northern Ireland. Accordingly, the size and balance of our public expenditure programme has been formulated to reflect Northern Ireland's particular needs. Total expenditure in the current financial year will be £4,032 million, which represents an increase of £13 million on the amount originally planned for this year, and a small increase in real terms over 1983–84. Within this amount, we are continuing to accord priority to law and order, industrial support and development, and, in the social sphere, housing.
I now turn to the provision that is being sought for specific services. The provision for agriculture presently sought in Class I of the main Estimates totals £61 million. The major constituents of this provision are £14 million for education, research and development; £24 million for administration and miscellaneous services, including Government support to industry by way of advisory and veterinary services; £12 million for drainage; £5 million for forestry; and £5 million for direct support to the agriculture industry. In addition, I am pleased to remind the House that special aid to agriculture will continue in the current year. That figure is not reflected in the Estimates before us today, which were formulated before the £12 million package was announced. Detailed supplementary estimates for this aid will be presented later in the year. Considerable support for the Northern Ireland agriculture industry is, of course, also borne on Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Votes. In 1984–85, it is estimated that £75 million will be provided from this source.
I wish to refer now to the dairy sector in Northern Ireland. We are well aware of the concern among Northern Ireland dairy producers about the present situation, following the imposition of quotas. I know that hon. Members have been energetic inside and outside the House in representing the concern and views of those whom they represent. I was sorry that my absence in North America coincided with the Adjournment debate last Thursday, which was on a motion by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson). I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for taking my place, and for making the points that I would have made.
I do not wish to go over all the old arguments on the matter. However, one or two points need repetition. It cost £3,000 million in 1983 alone to dispose of dairy surpluses in the Community. The British taxpayers' share of that

651
amounted to approximately £600 million. That meant that action had to be taken. On the other side of the equation, there can be no doubt about the importance of agriculture and its related industries in Northern Ireland. We particularly understand that the quota cuts in milk production present special difficulties for small producers, of whom there is a higher proportion in Northern Ireland than is general in Great Britain. For that reason, and because of the expected greater proportion of special cases, Ministers agreed that the outgoers' scheme should allow up to 5 per cent. of quota to be bought up in the Province, compared with only 2·25 per cent. in Great Britain. The interests concerned are now being consulted about the detailed arrangements, and the progress of the dairy, beef and other sectors will be closely monitored by the Department of Agriculture.
Trade, industry and employment services are covered by Class II of the Estimates. The draft order provides resources for the Industrial Development Board to achieve its three broad objectives this year. First, it aims to diversify and widen Northern Ireland's industrial base by attracting overseas companies to invest in the Province. Prospects for the current year are enhanced by the continuing expansion of overseas economies, particularly the American, and by the recent higher levels of interest being shown in Northern Ireland as a potential location for investment. Secondly, the board will continue to stimulate the expansion, modernisation and improved efficiency of indigenous industry, and, as necessary, will give support to companies which, while experiencing difficulties, are judged to have a viable future. The IDB' s third objective is to counter the adverse image of Northern Ireland through a vigorous public relations programme, including work by the Northern Ireland Partnership in the United States of America, Canada, Great Britain, Europe and the far east.
As hon. Members representing the Province will know, Northern Ireland's small business agency, the Local Enterprise Development Unit, has just announced yet another record performance for the year ended March 1984, when it promoted 3,658 jobs in small businesses in the Province. Not only does this represent a significant improvement on the previous year's record performance of 2,550 jobs, but it considerably exceeds the unit's own target of 3,100 jobs. This performance must be viewed as even more remarkable when one considers the extremely difficult economic and political circumstances obtaining in the Province in which the unit has to operate.
The LEDU's success has been achieved by a combination of hard work and the implementation of imaginative policies, which have established the unit as an efficient and highly effective support agency for Northern Ireland's small business community. The Government will continue to support the unit fully, and still further funds have been made available this year. I look forward to another record performance from LEDU.
I mention next two recent decisions in industrial development that I think are of importance. It has already been announced that the Government will formally confer free trade zone status on six sites in the United Kingdom, including one at Aldergrove airport, Belfast. I believe that that has the potential to attract high added-value international manufacturing and service activities and to stimulate new job opportunities for the benefit of the Province as a whole.
652
Another step to promote employment in Northern Ireland is the establishment by the IDB of a science park at Muckamore near Antrim. The science park concept has proved successful elsewhere, and I believe that it is right to create such a park in the Province. The site at Muckamore is highly suitable for that type of activity. It will provide an excellent facility for high technology research projects from established companies within and outside the Province. It will also provide a facility for those involved in research work who wish to translate a high technology idea into a manufacturing reality.
Those two developments are signs of the steady advance in making Northern Ireland fully equipped to benefit from national and international economic activity.
Class II, Vote 3, includes £37·6 million for the support of Harland and Wolff. That is a reduction of about £2·4 million on last year's figure and reflects the company's drive to cut overheads and become more cost competitive. The company has had some notable success in recent months, winning a number of small orders and the more substantial £30 million Ministry of Defence order to convert an aviation training ship. Those orders have obviously helped Harland and Wolff, but, despite some recent improvement in shipping activity and freight rates, market conditions are still weak and the company continues to face considerable difficulties. The provision sought in these Estimates is designed to help the company to meet that challenge.
Class II, Vote 3, also provides £6·5 million assistance to enable Short Brothers to continue its activities in the manufacture of aircraft, aerostructures and missiles. Short's is the largest manufacturing employer in Northern Ireland and, therefore, has an important part to play in the Province's economic structure. In addition to providing more than 6,100 jobs, it is a major exporter. The company's success was recognised again this year with its eleventh Queen's award for export achievement.
In the past, Short's has also won Queen's awards for technological achievement, and its contribution to the development of technological skills in Northern Ireland has been highly important. The success of the company's SD 360 commuter aircraft and the recent winning of the United States air force's EDSA contract, against intense competition, are evidence of the high standard of technical and engineering skills which have been developed by the company over the years. It has shown that it can make products, and it is now beginning to show that it can also make money. Short's achieved an operating profit of £7·1 million in the accounting period to March 1983, and the provision made in the Estimates assumes that the company will reach overall profitability in the current year.
The vocational preparation needs of 16 and 17-year-olds in Northern Ireland are catered for through a comprehensive new training programme, which was launched in September 1982 and was devised to meet local needs in Northern Ireland. It is a large commitment. For 1984–85, there is provision in the Estimates for more than 6,000 young people who are already in training, for about 9,000 new entrants to begin training and for the training of another 11,000 young people in employment. About £49 million is provided for training programmes of the Departments of Economic Development and of Education.
Through the programme, every 16-year-old school leaver is guaranteed a full year of balanced training, further education and work experience, provided by

653
employers, Government training centres, community-based workshops and further education colleges. In the last financial year, almost three quarters of eligible 16-year-olds took up those opportunities.
I recently launched a new scheme, called the YTP work scheme, to encourage employers to recruit and train 17-year-olds, making use of off-the-job further education and training facilities. For the 17-year-olds who do not gain that type of employment, there are opportunities further to develop their skills in full-time training places with a number of organisations that provide goods and services of benefit to the community.
Young people in the YTP age groups also have available to them apprentice training within industry, which is supported through a skill training scheme operated by local industry. It encourages the progression of apprentices to fully trained status through the provision of cash incentives to employers.
I hope that the youth training programme, which is built on close collaboration between local education and training services, industry and commerce, will assist all those 16 and 17-year-olds who are making the transition from school to adult life. I also hope that it will contribute to the development of the Northern Ireland economy by laying a sound foundation for a skilled, flexible work force capable of adapting to rapid changes in modern technology.
My next topic is Northern Ireland's energy industries. The policy of pegging Northern Ireland electricity tariffs so that they do not exceed the highest levels in England and Wales could cost over £80 million in 1984–85. Sums of that magnitude obviously represent a substantial commitment to the Northern Ireland electricity consumer, both domestic and industrial, and provide much social and economic relief to Northern Ireland's severely depressed manufacturing-based economy. Equally, they represent a substantial demand on the Northern Ireland block.
Looking to the future, the Government, in consultation with the Northern Ireland Electricity Service and independent experts, are continuing their examination of how to reduce Northern Ireland's high electricity generating costs. The role that coal or lignite might play in the generation of electricity is of crucial importance. Work on the complex technical and economic issues involved in our examination has not yet been completed, but it seems likely that the proper use of a solid fuel in electricity generation, whether it be coal or lignite—or both—offers a prospect of generating costs ultimately reducing to a point where electricity prices would need to carry little or even no subsidy.
Class III, Vote 1, relates to expenditure on the restructuring of the retail gas industry and on the natural gas project. Following the Government's announcement in October, the Northern Ireland Gas Company has been in detailed negotiation with its counterpart in the Republic on the terms of a 22-year contract. In the meantime, work is proceeding on the planning and commissioning of a pipeline between the border and Belfast.
In parallel with those developments, detailed technical and marketing assessments of individual undertakings and their areas of supply have taken place, and I am considering their findings. Those studies have reported on the condition of the plant in each undertaking and the engineering modifications required to handle natural gas.
I shall start my remarks on the programmes of the Department of the Environment by examining the roads
654
programme. The total net provision being sought under Class IV, Vote 1, is about £90 million, of which about £47 million is required to finance the operation and maintenance of the Province's road system.
The capital element of nearly £18 million is lower than in previous years when provision was made for two large projects—the M1-M2 westlink in Belfast and the Foyle bridge at Londonderry. The westlink has been operational for a while and the Foyle bridge is nearing completion, with single lanes now in operation. It is hoped to have the bridge fully opened to traffic by the late summer of this year.
The road system in Northern Ireland is generally of a high standard, but it is essential that it is maintained. That is where the emphasis is now being placed.
As I have said, the housing programme has been given top priority among Northern Ireland's social and environmental programmes since 1981. Total gross expenditure on housing services in Northern Ireland has grown from £325 million in 1980–81 to £526 million in 1984–85.
That increase in expenditure has resulted in significant improvements in Northern Ireland's housing conditions. The Housing Executive's waiting lists fell significantly in the period up to 1983. It is estimated that unfitness levels have already been reduced to about 9 per cent. Private sector house building has increased to record levels and more individuals have tackled their own housing problems with the aid of house renovation grants. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), deserves commendation for his work following the excellent work by his predecessor.
Housing continues to retain its priority. However, some switches in emphasis have been made in the housing strategy to increase our efforts on the improvement and maintenance of the existing housing stock. This is reflected in the provision which has been made for housing services in the current year. The Housing Executive's capital and revenue budgets make provision for expenditure of £73 million on the rehabilitation and improvement of the existing housing stock, and £51 million on the maintenance of the executive's stock. The provision of £51 million for house renovation grants, which will be almost £6 million higher than expenditure last year, acknowledges the continuing importance that the Government place on grants as a means of enabling individuals to modernise their homes.
A corollary of the switch in emphasis towards maintenance and improvement programmes is that the Housing Executive's planned new house building programme has borne some reduction. But this is offset by increased provision of new small "starter" homes by the private sector and the impact of house renovation grants in improving unfit houses which might otherwise have had to be replaced. However, despite that reduction, the executive still plans to let contracts for 3,000 new dwellings during the financial year, thereby maintaining a significant new building programme.
Finally, the Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association plays an important part in pump-priming the present very welcome increase in private sector new building. We now expect the allocation for 1984–85, including anticipated receipts of £2·5 million from sales of equity to existing participants, to be about £15 million, which will clearly maintain momentum in this important

655
area. The total gross resources available to the voluntary housing movement will therefore approach £43 million in 1984–85.
I believe that the strategy reflected in the total provision for housing takes realistic account of the housing problems of Northern Ireland, and the steps necessary to alleviate them. I think it is fair to claim that the priorities that have been set are in accord the views of many hon. Members from Northern Ireland and other public representatives in the Province.
In Class VI, Vote 1—water and sewerage services—£75 million is sought to provide and maintain water and sewerage facilities throughout the Province. Nearly £25 million is required for capital works and the balance of the Estimate is to meet operational and administrative costs.
On Class VI, Vote 2 — improvement of the environment—I take this opportunity to mention some of the steps being taken to deal with the urban problems which still very much exist in the city of Belfast. The impetus given to the housing programme over the last few years, to which I have already referred, has contributed greatly towards regeneration of the city. The non-housing elements in urban renewal are to be found in Class VI, Vote 2, and include environmental improvements schemes, comprehensive development, the enterprise zone and urban development grants. These provide the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland with a good range of tools with which to tackle the city's problems. As many hon. Members will already be aware, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is involving the city council and private sector interests in the formulation of measures needed to deal with Belfast's problems, particularly those of the inner city.
I should also like to pay tribute to the important contribution to urban regeneration made by the European Commission through the urban renewal regulation. Assistance provided by this regulation has provided welcome extra help to the city and I am sure that the House will be interested to learn that the Commission has recently confirmed that the additionality requirements of the regulation have been satisfied in respect of the first tranche of aid.
Class VIII of the Estimates makes a total provision of over £570 million for education, libraries and arts. The Government continue to attach importance to the maintenance of classroom standards. The provision for teachers' salaries in Vote 1 allows the continuation of the existing pupil-teacher ratios. However, in a rapidly changing world the maintenance of traditional standards alone is not enough to meet the needs of today's generation of schoolchildren.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Are the pupil-teacher ratios broadly in line with those on the mainland? I accept that there is a wide variation on this side of the water as well.
Mr. Butler: I do not want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) the wrong answer. My impression is that they are slightly lower than those on the mainland, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will confirm that later.
The provisions sought in Votes 1 and 4 provide for the start of a major initiative in secondary schools. This is
656
envisaged as a five to seven-year programme of curriculum review and development. It will build upon the valuable work already under way, in a limited number of schools, for the less able fourth and fifth year pupils. It will extend to all secondary intermediate and grammar schools in Northern Ireland. The aim is to broaden the curricular experience of pupils of all levels of ability and to ensure that what is taught is both personally challenging and relevant to the employment and social conditions that pupils will meet after leaving school.
Hon. Members will also note that in Class VIII, Vote 2, provision is made for the first time for grants to the University of Ulster. Preparations for the merger of the polytechnic and the New University of Ulster are now well advanced, and it has been especially gratifying and encouraging to see the high degree of commitment and co-operation displayed by the staff of both institutions in this complex task. Without pre-empting assent to the granting of a charter, I hope that the new institution will be formally in existence by 1 October 1984. I hope that I shall not be thought too presumptuous if, at this very early stage, I convey the Government's best wishes to the new institution for its future success in the key role that it will have to play in the educational and economic life of the Province.
In Class VIII, Vote 3, it has been possible, despite the other calls on the education budget, to sustain support from public funds for cultural, recreational and community provision at broadly the same levels as in 1983–84 and to reintroduce on a modest scale the purchase grants-in-aid to the two main Northern Ireland museums.
I have already alluded to the provision for curriculum development in Vote 4 of this Class. Northern Ireland Members will be aware that on the capital side, in addition to maintaining the real level of provision for minor works and equipment, my right hon. Friend has been able to give approval to the education and library boards to proceed with a substantial list of 19 major new capital projects which are estimated to cost some £9 million to complete.
Class IX provides for health and personal social services. A net total of £608 million is being sought to maintain the existing level of provision and to allow for some development of services.
Under Vote 1, £526 million is sought for the hospital, community health and personal social services, and some centrally funded services, of which £489 million is being provided to meet the revenue expenditure of the health and social services boards. This figure includes, over and above allowances for pay and price rises, an increase of £3·5 million to enable the services to keep pace with demographic change, and particularly the increasing number of very elderly people in the community. The boards are also committed to making efficiency savings of some £2·4 million, which will be ploughed back into new service developments in accordance with the priorities set out in the regional strategic plan for the services. The provision for capital expenditure of £25·6 million will sustain the programme for the construction of new hospital and community facilities, details of which are included in the Estimates.
Under Class IX, Vote 2, we are seeking provision for gross expenditure of £121 million, partly offset by receipts of some £39 million, mainly from national insurance contributions towards the cost of the Health Service. Most of the expenditure in this Vote is for the family practitioner services provided by family doctors, dentists, chemists

657
and opticians. The cost of the family practitioner services has been rising steadily in recent years, and we are seeking in several ways to contain the costs to the public purse, without affecting the excellence of the work which family doctors and other practitioners do in Northern Ireland.
Finally, under Class X, provision has been made in Votes 2 and 3 for almost £595 million to cover non-contributory housing and family benefits. That comprises about 53 per cent. of total estimated expenditure on social security benefits of £1,133 million in the current year. The remainder is paid from the national insurance fund, and vote 1 provides for the payment under statutory arrangements of £53·6 million from the Consolidated Fund to support the national insurance fund.
In my opening remarks I have tried to outline briefly the main features of the draft order before the House and to expand upon some of the main policy issues underlying the provision sought. I look forward to the ensuing debate, but I should like to add one final word about the Government's economic policy in Northern Ireland.
It is a matter of fact that public expenditure per head in the Province is higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but that reflects social needs, such as the high level of unemployment and the quality of the housing stock, despite recent improvements. It is also undeniably a factor of the security situation.
The salvation does not and cannot lie in the public sector. It was the deliberate act of the first Conservative Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend's immediate predecessor, to give industrial development the priority which it has since held and to which I have referred—that is, first priority after law and order. Only by strengthening and expanding the industrial and commercial base in Northern Ireland can we hope to deal with its economic problems.
We have to encourage and support those who understand, from their own experience, industrial and commercial life. We have to back those who follow their own commercial judgment and who would invest their own money in Northern Ireland. That is what regional policy under this Government is about.
I do not need to describe the difficulties that we face: a growing population of working age, which means that we have to run to stand still in the fight against unemployment; the consequences of the past few years of world recession; and, above all, the image which those of us who spend much of our time encouraging inward investment know to be still our biggest obstacle. But progress is being made. The failures, despite the attention that the media focus upon them, are not the norm.
I have just returned from a visit to America. I was greatly encouraged, in the various cities that I visited, by the record that various companies were able to give and the testimony that they were able to bear to their experiences in Northern Ireland.
In Detroit, both Ford and General Motors continue to invest in the Province. In Cleveland, TRW was very complimentary about its experience with us. In St. Louis, the chairman and managing director of the Harbour group, which has an investment in Newry, waxed eloquent, as he always does, about the success of his operation. He paid tribute, as did all the others, to the quality of the Northern Ireland work force. All were impressed by the fact that the AVX Corporation—now Europe's largest producer of multilayer ceramic capacitors—had more than doubled its investment in Northern Ireland as a result of its
658
experience with us. All the companies to which I talked were interested in the fact that now it may be possible to produce in Northern Ireland at costs which compare favourably even with the far east.
I was even pleased, at the airports to which I went, to see evidence of Short's success in selling its commuter aircraft—there were nearly always one or more of its aircraft on the ground.
The companies to which I have referred come to Northern Ireland not just because of the public money that is available. They value the many non-financial benefits that they find in Northern Ireland. Although they appreciate a Government who are sympathetic to industry, as our Government are, they do not want to be nannied by the state. If they were, I have no doubt that they would not come, or that they would leave us. It is on such companies, and those who follow their example, on our established companies and on our budding entrepreneurs in the small business sector that the economic future of Northern Ireland depends. It is up to all those in any way concerned to create the right environment of economic encouragement and opportunity, and of political and social stability, in which those companies can flourish and provide jobs.
With that thought very much in mind, I commend the draft order to the House.
4.35 pm
Mr. Peter Archer: It would be churlish of rile were I to refrain from welcoming the Minister, who is now back with us after his journeys. We are grateful to him for his exposition of the order. It was necessarily devoted to detail, although towards the end of his peroration he made one or two comments which almost prompted me to embark upon a reply, but I understand that this is not usually an occasion for debating general principles. As I ventured to suggest in the last Appropriation debate, it is an application of the rule that redress of grievances should precede Supply, and it is an opportunity for hon. Members to present to the House the specific grievances of their constituents.
It follows that this is not a debate in which an inordinate amount of the time should be pre-empted by the Front Benches. But for that very reason, perhaps I should express, on behalf of hon. Members who are not with us and who are usually with us, a protest that the debate is being held in the very week of the European elections, when a number of hon. Members are necessarily involved elsewhere in the campaign. The timing effectively excludes them from taking part in this debate. It is a problem for hon. Members from all political parties, and I should not be surprised to hear other hon. Members later expressing that complaint on behalf of colleagues in their own parties who have to be in Northern Ireland today. Perhaps it would not be inappropriate that I should express it with the objectivity of one who may have disagreed with what some of them would have said had they been here. They were nevertheless entitled to attend and say it.
When the Minister commented that the debate was taking place earlier in the year than is usual, some of us ventured to suggest that there might be a reason additional to the one he gave. It is arguable that the House might with profit have recessed for this week so that hon. Members would not be faced with an impossible multiplicity of other calls on them. If the House is sitting, it is inevitable that the Leader of the House should choose subjects for discussion which he anticipates will not in any event be

659
widely attended, but perhaps we should point out that that criterion tends to be self-fulfilling. If Northern Ireland debates are denied convenient times because they probably will not be well attended, it is inevitable that when they are held they will not be well attended. Having registered that protest, I hope that the House will understand and acquit me of discourtesy if I leave the debate at an early stage to attend a commitment which I undertook before I knew that this debate would take place, leaving the Opposition Front Bench in the care of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). I hope that it will be the first of many appearances by him on this Bench.
Those saints who were said to have practised the miracle of bi-location failed to leave us the secret. [Interruption.] Some may be campaigning in Ballymena; I make no further comment.
It follows from what I have said that I am anxious not to appropriate to myself an undue proportion of the time available today. I intend to devote the time available principally to two matters which are very much present in the minds of the people in Northern Ireland. The first on which I should like to put some questions to the Minister falls under Class II, Votes 1 and 2. I invite him to tell the House something about the terms on which aid is granted for industrial developments. My curiosity arises from the announcement on 31 May by the chairman of Lear Fan. The hon. Gentleman commented, when he opened the debate, that unemployment in the Province is 21 per cent. He fairly said that that compares unfavourably with levels of unemployment in the rest of the United Kingdom. It compares especially unfavourably when one recollects that male unemployment in the Province is 27 per cent.
The House will remember that, in March 1980, a project was established as a partnership between the Government and the Lear Avin corporation with a view to creating what were then 1,250 jobs by 1985. In September 1982, the old agreement was replaced by a new one. The total Government commitment was increased to £52 million, on the understanding that employment would be found by 1987 for more than 2,800 people. The company has built up a work force of 380, representing a wide range of skills. It appeared to have ready a very effective production team.
On 31 May the chairman, Mr. Burch, announced that a problem had arisen with the development programme in Nevada. The United States certificate of airworthiness would not be obtained by September, as had been hoped. It is not expected before next February. In consequence, he said, the entire work force, with the exception of some 20 or 30 people who are concerned mainly with security and maintenance, would be laid off on 1 July. That is a serious blow to those concerned, who believed that they had before them many years of remunerative and satisfying work. They are now back in the dole queue, at least for some months.
Clearlythe matter goes beyond that. It raises questions about the future of the enterprise and all the jobs that were hoped for. We hope that the Minister will give us some indication that the certificate of airworthiness will be forthcoming next February. Will resources be available then to proceed with production or, as some have ventured to comment, is this another Elysian dream in the tradition of De Lorean?
660
Had the matter rested there, it would have given rise to serious anxiety, but, according to the reports, the chairman seized the opportunity to comment further. He said that the company was not committed to assembling the completed aircraft in Northern Ireland and that its commitment was only to produce certain components. That was a clear signal that the vast investment of public money may not have purchased 2,800 jobs in Northern Ireland but may have been used to finance jobs in Nevada. The House would like to know what the company's commitment is in return for that public money.
When the chairman delivered his bombshell, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland inquiring about the position. He replied helpfully and courteously, setting out the Government's position. His reply included the following:
"I should like to make it clear that the refinancing agreement of September 1982 provides that, except in the most extreme commercial circumstances beyond the control of the company, the Northern Ireland facility should be developed with a view to it becoming the principal facility for the production of the Lear Fan aircraft and that manufacture and assembly of the aircraft in Northern Ireland will commence not later than 31 December 1985."
I hope that the Minister will understand if I seek further clarification. It is almost a fortnight since the chairman's announcement. Presumably the Government have asked him what he meant by what he said. Is there a dispute between the Government and the company as to the proper construction of that undertaking? If there is a dispute, and legal proceedings or arbitration are imminent, the House will understand the constraint under which the Government are operating while setting out their case in the debate. But is there a dispute, and is there a reason why the text of the agreement should not be made public so that the House can judge the matter for itself?
The Secretary of State has written a further letter to me setting out the sources of finance at various stages of the project. His purpose, as I understand it, was to show that money used to finance the Reno operations since February 1984 has come from sources outside the Government. I am sure that the Minister will not rely on that argument today to establish that the Government have not been in the business of financing jobs in Nevada. No one is concerned to establish which part of the operation has been financed by each pound contributed by the Government, but we are concerned to know the total outlay. If 2,800 jobs are created ultimately in the Province, that will be money well spent. What the work force as well as those who hope for future employment and those concerned with the economy in the Province are asking is whether the conditions on which public money was made available are as understood by the Secretary of State in his letter to me, or whether there are doubts about it. Will the company be in a position to fulfil those conditions, and does it intend to do so?
I shall deal with Class I—
Mr. Butler: I hope that the House will allow me to intervene for a few moments, because it would be fairer to my hon. Friends to answer the points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am well aware of the anxiety about the future of the Lear Fan project, and I have been kept closely in touch with developments during my absence.
What matters first and foremost is that there should be an aeroplane to produce. It is essential that all financial, management and other resources should be concentrated

661
on achieving certification. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether we were certain that certification could be achieved by next February. There is no such certainty but, despite the fact that significant breakdowns have occurred in the testing procedure, other tests have been completed successfully. Real progress has been made on certification. Management is confident of achieving certification by that date and within the available funding.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's second point is equally important and I am glad to have the opportunity to reply now. The Government's position on the degree of commitment to Northern Ireland is straightforward. We entered into an agreement in September 1982, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, with the Zoysia corporation. The commitment to Northern Ireland was very carefully worded. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has received some outline from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of what was in that agreement. There is specific reference to manufacture and assembly of the aeroplane. There is no doubt in the Government's mind, or from exchanges between the Secretary of State and myself and the principals of the Zoysia corporation, that it means what it says. Northern Ireland will be the principal production unit for Lear Fan and aeroplanes will be manufactured and assembled there.
There has been more than one business plan but there was general provision in the plans that we have seen for final assembly of early aircraft in Reno. There has been reference to customising aircraft in Reno when they are intended for the American market. However, the main production unit through to finalisation will be in Northern Ireland. That is written in the agreement and it is the Government's firm position.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to financing jobs in Nevada. Very little Government money has gone to Reno since the 1982 agreement because of the nature of that agreement and of its financial structuring. On the other hand, there is no commitment in the agreement that United Kingdom taxpayers' money should not go to Reno. The agreement is simply that money shall be provided to develop and produce an aircraft up to certain sums and that the development work is being carried out in Reno. Therefore, the final tranche of Government money is likely to go partly to Reno. However, I do not find that surprising, as it is part of the understanding.
Mr. Archer: The House will be grateful to the Minister for that exposition and, so far as it went, that message of hope. He will understand that I was not concerned with which specific part went to Reno and which went to finance something else. The real question was whether the investment would produce jobs.
As I understand what the Minister said on the second point, there is no dispute between the Government and the company as to the construction of the agreement in September 1982, and the House can be given a firm commitment to that effect. If that is so, perhaps we should be given an explanation of why the chairman appeared to say what he did. The obvious construction on what he said casts doubts in people's minds and gave rise to some anxieties. However, subject to that I am grateful for what the Minister told us. His intervention was welcome, but
662
I hope that when the time that I take to make my speech is computed in various circles the length of it will be borne in mind.
In Class I, Votes 1 and 2, it appears that the Department of Agriculture proposes to spend further sums on research and development, presumably with a view to improving yields. It proposes to make sums available for assistance in production, processing and marketing, including a consumer subsidy. All those proposals would be admirable if the Government were not committed simultaneously to contracting the industry.
The most obvious example of the problem is one to which the Minister understandably referred — milk production and dairy products. The difficulties related to that were set out with great clarity and force as recently as 7 June by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson). We understand that, inevitably, the Minister had to be absent. No doubt some of us will wish to pursue the matter a little further today.
In the 1970s, it was the accepted wisdom that the more milk we could produce in the United Kingdom, the better it was for our balance of payments, particularly because the United Kingdom did not produce the whole of its own dairy requirements. The problem arose from the absurd structure of the common agricultural policy, which encouraged massive surpluses in Europe, to which the Minister referred. There is no dispute between us about that.
We all know of the butter mountain, produced with the encouragement of an open-ended commitment to subsidies, stored at vast expense and much of it sold to Russia at 54p a pound. We all agreed that unless the EEC' budget was to run out of control, some agreement was necessary. We all recollect how the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food came to the House on 2 April and announced with great pride that the Agriculture Council had agreed on a package of measures that, among other things, would save the Community 6 million tonnes of unwanted milk. Our joy was tempered when the right hon. Gentleman immediately went on to explain that m the coming year the taxpayers of Europe would nevertheless subsidise a surplus of about 10 million tonnes, and that United Kingdom farmers would be required to reduce their production, notwithstanding the fact that the United Kingdom was not contributing to that surplus.
The Republic has secured a substantial addition to its quota. Northern Ireland did not share in that good fortune —perhaps an example of the penalty which arises from Ireland having two agricultural policies and a divided seat in the EEC — but the United Kingdom has been accorded an additional quota of 65,000 tonnes for the benefit of Northern Ireland. That was a modest enough achievement which hardly merited the rejoicing that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food appeared to expect, but in the arrangements within the United Kingdom the dairy farmers in. Northern Ireland are far from persuaded that they have received the full benefit of the extra allocation.
The figure has been divided by giving dairy farmers an allocation equal to their 1983 output, less 5·82 per cent. However, that fails to take into account a number of factors. The first is the pattern of fanning in Northern Ireland, mentioned by the Minister. On average, herds are much smaller and in many cases only just large enough to be viable, even without the reduction. The second is the pattern of investment in 1983. Between December 1982

663
and December 1983, the number of dairy cows increased in England by 1·8 per cent., in Scotland by 1 per cent. and in Northern Ireland by 7 per cent. Throughout 1983, milk production in Northern Ireland was increasing, while for much of that time it was falling in England.
Therefore, to base production on the year as a whole entails a much more savage cut from the level achieved by the end of 1983 for farmers in Northern Ireland than for farmers in England, and, by way of recent investment, the former had laid out substantially greater sums on which they were looking for a return in the years ahead. If one adds to that the specific problem in Northern Ireland, that the land is not normally suitable for a switch to cereals, the farmers understandably take the view that an arithmetical sharing does not mean an equal sharing of the hardship. That will be exacerbated by the probable introduction of the quota system before the administrative arrangements are complete. For understandable reasons, there will be arguments and consequent delays in allocating the 3 per cent. reserve for hardship cases.
Therefore, some farmers may embark on the first quota period without knowing what their quota will be. To the tragedy of having to slaughter stock which previously they had been building up is added the uncertainty about how much they will have to slaughter. I hope that when he replies the Minister will offer some advice to the farmers about how they should deal with that, or, better still, some encouragement about the way that the Government will deal with it.
I refer briefly to two other matters. The first concerns Class VIII on education, to which the Minister referred. During our previous Appropriation debate on 1 March, I ventured to mention the disturbing report by the Department of Education inspectorate, published last December. It referred to a number of inadequacies in the provision for education.
Since that debate, the Assembly has considered those matters and there has been a comprehensive report on the subject—an example of how, on a specific subject, Members from different parties can have a constructive discussion.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) asked the Minister a question about pupil-teacher ratios in Northern Ireland. In an intervention in the speech that I made on 1 March, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. W. McCrea) quoted some figures. The overall pupil-teacher ratio for Northern Ireland is 18·6. That figure is confirmed in the Assembly's report. The hon. Gentleman said that the figures for Scotland were 16·9 to 17· 6, and for England they were 17·9 to 17·7. So the figure for Northern Ireland is appreciably higher. Six days after our debate the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) —gave evidence to the Assembly's Committee, and said that he did not see any scope in the the foreseeable future
"for employing large numbers of extra teachers."
I understand that he was saying that there was no early prospect of the PTR in Northern Ireland falling to the levels in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Minister referred to a more disturbing matter in his speech—the fact that curriculum development has been retarded because staffing is related to pupil numbers rather
664
than to curriculum needs. That is at a time when large numbers of trained teachers in Northern Ireland are eating their hearts out because they cannot find jobs.
I should like to mention capital expenditure and the condition of the buildings in which teachers work and pupils are expected to learn. One of the most telling aspects of the Assembly's report was the submission by the Association of Head Teachers in Secondary Schools, which referred to the effect on morale for
"those who sit for prolonged periods in draughty, wet rooms with no glass, or boarded-up windows without natural light or use tattered text books again."
I do not propose to repeat the arguments, as I drew attention to them in the previous debate and they are clearly very much in the minds of those who discussed them in the Assembly. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some hope today to the teaching profession and the children in the Province.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: In giving those figures, the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to some of the depressing features of the scene in the schools of Northern Ireland. Does he agree, however, that despite those difficulties the pupils and teachers achieve remarkable results, at least as good as those on this side of the water?
Mr. Archer: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I should certainly have pointed that out if I had expanded my comments further. But doing a good job in difficult circumstances may sometimes be almost counter-productive, in that if one is not just coping but producing good results despite the difficulties, it is tempting for those who decide these matters to give lower priority to one's problems. If the schools were visibly disintegrating, they might receive higher priority, although I am not recommending that they should. I am simply saying that in paying tribute to the work of the teaching profession in Northern Ireland we should not make that an excuse for not giving high priority to its needs.
Finally, I draw attention to a matter that has caused concern in the past and has now been emphasised in a report by the National Consumer Council's joint committee on social security, to which the Northern Ireland Consumer Council made a substantial contribution. The matter arises under Class X, Vote 2. Tragically, social security now accounts for about 20 per cent. of total household income in Northern Ireland. My calculations may not be absolutely accurate, but it seems that about 30 per cent. of total public expenditure is taken up by the social security programme.
Those who depend on supplementary benefit for long periods receive a higher rate because, it is argued, those on supplementary benefit for short periods can defer expenditure on clothing and on household goods and durables until times improve. They can therefore get by on an allowance that makes no provision for such expenditure but merely provides enough for weekly necessities, whereas for those who depend on social security for longer periods provision must be made for those longer-term needs.
The unemployed do not qualify for the longer-term rate, however long they have to depend on supplementary benefit. It is not clear why there should be such a distinction between the needs of the unemployed and those of anyone else. The reason is certainly not that there are no long-term unemployed. In 1982, more than 47 per cent.

665
of unemployed claimants had been receiving supplementary benefit continuously for more than a year. Yet they do not receive a long-term rate. The report refers to
"mounting concern among health visitors and social workers about diet and its implications for health, particularly among children."
The Housing Executive has found that unemployment accounts for the difficulties of 47 per cent. of tenants who owe more than £100 in rent.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us today what justification there is for that distinction between the unemployed and those whose misfortunes arise from other causes. The report states:
"the government accepts the case for extending the rate in principle but argues that the cost is prohibitive."
Is that an accurate statement of the Government's position? According to the report, the cost of extending long-term benefit to all those who have been on supplementary benefit for more than a year would be £16·5 million a year or £8·3 million per year if it were restricted to families with children. That is in the context of a social security programme running at more than £1,000 million for the current year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that we should make that change in Northern Ireland alone, or throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr. Archer: There are factors which justify making the change in Northern Ireland due to the scale of hardship and unemployment, but I should certainly not complain if the hon. Gentleman put the arguments more widely to his colleagues in the Government.
If such a change were made, there would be a corresponding saving as fewer families would have to resort to the degrading process of applying for an exceptional needs grant every time the last blanket disintegrated. At one time it was customary in some circles to dismiss the unemployed as feckless and lazy. If there was ever any truth in that, there is certainly none now. The spectre of unemployment now hangs over virtually everyone. Unemployment is not a crime but a misfortune to be recognised and alleviated, not exacerbated.
I hope that in the near future the House will have the opportunity to discuss the future of constitutional government in Northern Ireland and the measures required for the enforcement of law and order. Today we are debating matters which significantly influence people's confidence in constitutional government and consequently their respect for law and order. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer them some hope in his reply.
5.5 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There is at any rate one unusual feature about today's Northern Ireland Appropriation order debate—it takes place very much earlier than hitherto. By that, I do not mean that it takes place in a week during which there happens to be a European election, a subject on which I found the comments of the Opposition spokesman singularly inappropriate. I mean that it takes place approximately six weeks earlier than usual. In introducing the order, the Minister made the curious comment that that was possibly because the Estimates had been produced six weeks earlier and so the draft order could be laid six weeks earlier, which is certainly the case.
666
In ruminating on possible causes for that, I must confess that it crossed the minds of some of my hon. Friends and myself that the preoccupation of the Secretary of State with the termination of his appointment might have prompted a notion that the financial arrangements for the coming year should be got rid of before his departure. The only explanation vouchsafed to us by the Minister was that what he described as a "refinement of procedure" had resulted in the documents being laid so startlingly earlier than in the past. We should be most interested to know more about those refinements of procedure. Certainly it will inure greatly to the credit of the Administration if they can show that procedures which eluded their predecessors have enabled them to bring these matters before Parliament so much earlier than hitherto.
A consequence, however, is that we have only the minutes of evidence taken by the Committee of Public Accounts on "Matters relating to Northern Ireland" as we debate this order, whereas we usually have its actual report —but I shall return to that shortly.
The Estimates for services under the Government of Northern Ireland which underlie the Appropriation order are certainly greatly improved in presentation compared with a few years ago. The introduction and guide provide everything that a serious student of the finances of Northern Ireland and their relationship with the finances of the rest of the United Kingdom could desire. It is instructive to look at these Estimates for the government of Northern Ireland services in conjunction with the Supply Estimates for Class XVII, Northern Ireland; for that enables us to put into its true perspective the relationship between the financing of the rest of the kingdom and the financing of Northern Ireland.
It is sometimes supposed—ignorantly—on this side of the Irish sea that the whole, or almost the whole, of public expenditure in Northern Ireland represents in some way a contribution made to the Province by the rest of the kingdom. The brief analysis prefaced to Class XVII corrects that notion. We are dealing in this order with sums payable out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland. There are two sources from which money flows into that Consolidated Fund. One source is the attributable element of tax paid by people in Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom taxation system, plus the revenues which accrue direct to the Government of Northern Ireland. The other element is a "Transfer" from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom "to the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland".
Faced, as we are, with Estimates underlying this Appropriation order for £2,831 million, we notice that the transfer to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund from the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund amounts only to £815 million. Thus, only one third of the services provided by the Northern Ireland Office are funded by that transfer: two thirds, straightaway, are met from sums which originate in Northern Ireland.
But even to say that one third is met from sums which originate elsewhere in the United Kingdom would be misleading; for we are always, by these procedures, placing Northern Ireland and its financing in a quite different light from that shed upon any other part of the kingdom, because it is in the nature of the United Kingdom that huge internal transfers of resources take place between some parts of the kingdom and the rest. So on the face of

667
these documents we are able at any rate to some extent to correct the impression that Northern Ireland is a kind of dead weight, or pensioner, upon the rest of the country.
This is the point at which, without undue apology for repetition, I always address myself primarily to the Government Whip, and ask him to convey to the Patronage Secretary, and even more to that invisible army of Government supporters who wait in the wings to ensure that Government business goes through, the fact that the devotion to Northern Ireland business of this day of parliamentary time does not arise from any desire to give Northern Ireland Members a special opportunity—as it were, an Adjournment debate of their very own—for debating matters which arise from these Estimates and this order, but is due simply to the obsession of successive Governments with preserving the artificial existence of the Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland.
If there were no separate Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland, between two and three additional parliamentary days would be available for transacting business of the rest of the United Kingdom—including no doubt Northern Ireland. I may add that Northern Ireland Estimates would be dealt with by a Select Committee in the same way as other Estimates, so that there would be no question of a less thorough examination of public expenditure related to Northern Ireland than of that related to any other part of the United Kingdom. I hope that the lesson will be rubbed in again, that this burden upon the time of the House, the patience of a very small number of Members and the attendance of a much larger number of Members arises from perversity on the part of the Government themselves. If it ever had any justification, 10 or 12 years ago at the beginning of direct rule, that justification has long since disappeared. The practice remains as the fossil record of an earlier period when it was fondly imagined by one Government after another that they would one day discover a means of floating Northern Ireland off into some different constitutional setting.
Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to his frequent repetition of this argument. I do not want to pursue him down this path. However, I have never yet been clear, although I have indeed heard this argument many times, whether or not the right hon. Gentleman is complaining that too much time is given on the Floor of the House to debating Northern Ireland matters.
Mr. Powell: What I and my right hon. and hon. Friends complain of is that the Province is deliberately placed in a different and separate position from that of any other part of the United Kingdom. So suspicious is our temper that we do not believe it is done out of any special affection for Northern Ireland or any desire that the House of Commons should devote additional trouble or time to the purposes of our constituents. We do not believe that we are ever net gainers from anything which separates and distinguishes Northern Ireland in this way from the rest of the kingdom.
I have a number of specific matters to raise in connection with the draft order. To the first I have already referred in passing, when I mentioned the minutes of evidence taken by the Committee of Public Accounts. Throughout its sitting on 9 April, the Select Committee was concerned with the arrears, the accrued and accruing total arrears owed to different services in the Province. In
668
the first place, I would like to draw attention —particularly the attention of the Opposition Front Bench —to question 29.21, which brought out, statistically and completely cogently, an important fact, namely that there is no perceptible relationship between any difference in the level of unemployment in the Province from levels in the rest of the kingdom on the one hand, and the existence of these arrears owed to public authorities in the Province on the other. That is a view which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have long held. We simply do not believe that these arrears represent an inability to pay attributable directly or indirectly to the differential level of unemployment in the Province — and there in the minutes the evidence will be found.
These arrears owed by the public to the public services —the quantities are large and impressive—represent in large part problems which are not basically financial. It would be an exaggeration to say that in every case, but it would be true to say that in most cases the existence of arrears owed by a family is a sign of some malaise or problem other than a purely financial one—other than mere deficiency of income. I am sure it is the experience of all hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies that the accrual of arrears in a family is a sign that something is amiss, and has long been amiss, which only comes to attention when arrears reach a crucial point — for example, the point at which a housing application from that family is refused entertainment, quite properly, by the Housing Executive.
The moral I draw from this is that attention should be paid to the emergence and accumulation of arrears in a family much sooner than I believe normally happens. It is one's constant experience to come across a case where very large arrears have accrued without any agency of Government, any social service agency, having apparently been called to consider what problem exists in that family; and one frequently discovers that, when attention has been concentrated on the family, once invoked by the existence of the arrears, means are found of resolving it. Very often an agreement to pay off arrears, arrived at between a family and the Housing Executive is a sign of better times ahead for that family, and not merely in the financial aspect.
I believe that there is a failure of co-ordination—a failure of co-operation between the housing service provided by the Housing Executive and the personal social services. I have the good fortune to be served in south Down by several excellent district managers of the Housing Executive and by several excellent directors of personal social services. However, I must say that it constantly strikes me how little interchange and communication there is between them and those who work in the field under the aegis of each of them.
I want to put this thought into the Minister's mind; and I am glad that it is the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for health and social services, who is attending the debate on behalf of the Government. We ought to think what arrangements could be made to bring the personal social services into action earlier on in the accrual of arrears owed by a family to the public services. If we could do that we should not merely reduce the dead weight of those arrears — I am sure that we should do that and experience shows it to be the case; we should also often succeed in preventing the break-up of a family or a deterioration in a family's circumstances which, in years

669
to come, will produce its own poisoned fruit. I hope that the Minister will take that suggestion not at all in a critical spirit but in the constructive sense in which I offer it to him.
There are two other matters with which I wish to deal. Of one I gave notice to the Minister in charge of the debate and I hope that the notice was timely. I refer to the catchment areas for the purposes of psychiatric treatment in Northern Ireland, and I know that the Minister has for months been concerned with the working out of the Donaldson report on this subject of some years ago.
As so often happens, there is a history to it. The services for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped were historically created, both on this side of the water and in Northern Ireland, by the counties. Consequently, hospital provision, and, above all, the provision of the principal mental hospitals, was a county provision. Consequently, in turn, the catchment areas for those services were the counties. The county boundary was the catchment boundary, and for generations — I am not exaggerating in using that word—those resident within a county area looked to one or more centres of treatment located at the heart of their county — in the case of County Down, the county town of Downpatrick. That is why Downpatrick has a mental hospital whose fame and reputation extend well beyond the county, indeed beyond the Province. It was as a result of the creation and development of those services for the mentally ill and handicapped and subsequently of the domiciliary services ancillary to them by the counties that the catchment areas are county catchment areas.
In 1972 the old system and pattern of local government in Northern Ireland was deliberately destroyed. I shall not spend time inquiring into the motives with which that was done or into the happy or unhappy consequences. I do not think that anyone today seriously supposes that even when —I say "when" rather than "if—representative local government is restored to Northern Ireland, we shall see the old county boundaries and the old counties revived as administrative units. Instead we shall have the health boards and—subject to minor modifications, no doubt, as time goes on—the areas which are served by those health boards. It is those health boards that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I hope it will be possible before too long to democratise by making them responsible through elected persons to those whom they serve, like health authorities in other parts of the United Kingdom.
That being so, we have to move from the historic pattern founded upon the county to the existing pattern founded on the health board areas. It was with that changeover that the Donaldson report was concerned, and I do not think that in principle there could possibly be criticism of that object. It would be unreasonable to say, "Here are the lines of travel, the lines of patient attachment and of family connections, that were created by a system that has gone — we must preserve those lines and attachments into the future." The problem, as so often, is how we achieve the changeover. The fear entertained by many in the hospitals and health services of Northern Ireland is not that the changeover will take place but that it will take place prematurely, before there is the necessary hospital and domiciliary equipment to meet the reallocated demand.
Relating the argument specificially to my constituency, the reallocation would involve the re-routing of a very large number of patients, hospital and domiciliary cases,
670
from Downpatrick towards Armagh. Before that can take place, before any such administrative change can be justified, it must be possible for the Government to prove to the satisfaction of all concerned—parents, relatives, patients and all those in the service—that the services to which new patients are directed are in place at an equal standard to those which are serving those patients at present. It is one thing to say to those who have long had connections with a particular hospital and with the sort of constellation of domiciliary services that surround and support it, "In future you must look to another centre" and quite another to say, "You must look to that other centre when a great deal of work, improvement and development has taken place to ensure that the services there are equal to those which you are enjoying now."
I seek a specific assurance from the Government today. It is that the reallocation of catchment areas will not take place until the Government can guarantee and demonstrate that there is adequate provision—I mean human as well as physical provision — in the new areas to which demand is to be redirected. If they can satisfy that criterion, they can bid defiance to the breach of old habits which inevitably has to take place. If they cannot give that undertaking, those of us who represent the parents and the patients cannot be expected to support administrative rearrangement. I hope that in those terms the Government will find it possible to give the assurance for which I ask.
My last subject might appear to be of purely local concern, but I believe that it has wider implications and parallels. I did not give specific notice of it to the Minister of State because I know that he—I am indebted to him for this fact—has given it great personal attention. I refer to the Strand Lough drainage scheme and the relationship between the input of the Department of Agriculture and the input of the Department of the Environment.
The problem I bring before the House is, I believe, a classic instance of failure of co-ordination between Departments. I will outline it in only a few sentences. There is a large area, roughly extending from Downpatrick to the sea, which, in order to yield its full agricultural output, requires a reform of the drainage system, a reform so extensive that, after seriously considering whether it could be achieved by the co-operative action of those farming in the area, the Department of Agriculture came to the conclusion that that was not reasonable but that a Government scheme was absolutely indispensable, however much might subsequently be added to its benefits by independent action on the part of individual farmers.
In order to secure the improved drainage of this whole basin, it is necessary to control the outflow into a tidal estuary by means of a major and expensive pondage and sluice operation. It so happens that the crucial point for those engineering works lies on the main road between Killough and Ardglass. The Department of the Environment has been spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on the development of Killough, which is well on the way to becoming a tourist attraction as a model 18th century port and town, but at an advanced stage, when it appeared that the scheme might proceed with all the benefits that would flow from it, the devastating news was received that the Department of the Environment (Road Service) was not prepared to play and would not therefore make the contribution, related to the road aspect of the works, which had been taken into account to secure a viable and financially defensible scheme. I was almost

671
incredulous that at so late a stage the Department of the Environment could have pulled out, considering the obvious necessity for improvement of a difficult point on the main road in view of the increasing popularity of Killough and the increasing traffic which is bound to use that coastal road of the peninsula of Lecale.
I wonder whether I ought to say this, but it makes my point: it became obvious to me — and there are few enough circumstances in which a Member of Parliament can claim to do what others cannot do—that there was perhaps more chance of the local Member of Parliament for the constituency bringing the two Departments back into accord than of their achieving it across the table in direct interdepartmental communications.
I deliberately take the opportunity this afternoon of putting the present situation upon public record—and I know that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bath, will not think ill of me for doing so—for I am determined to persuade him as Minister in charge of the environment that it makes no sense whatever to withhold his expected contribution to the improvement of the road that would be combined with a major improvement in the farming potential of the area.
In short, I would like to take the Minister for a walk. With or without our respective families, I should like him and myself to walk the course and see for ourselves. As so often happens in Northern Ireland—it is one of the many rewards of representing a Northern Ireland constituency—if one goes and sees, the thing comes right. I am sure that if I can persuade the hon. Member for Bath—I hope that I can—to come and see, we can restore that co-operation between Departments, the loss of which threatens the progress of a scheme that is sorely needed by agriculturists in a large and important area.
Mr. Chris Patten: I have to admit that I walked the course 10 days ago, not aware at the time of the wickednesses of which I was guilty. I walked it with my family. Indeed, during the walk—I do not think that it was the fault of the Department of the Environment— one of my family fell over, received a cut in her head and satisfactorily tested the health service in Downpatrick as a result.
I would not want to think that that is the only time that I shall be able to walk the course in Killough, and I would be delighted to do so again in the right hon. Gentleman's company. It is a very fine course indeed.
Mr. Powell: I am grateful to the Minister. I take it as a happy augury for heightened co-operation between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture, not only here but in the many circumstances where agricultural drainage and road maintenance and improvement can conflict but ought to concur.
5.37 pm
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Sometimes when I listen to him I wonder how many other statesmen in this century have contrived to combine so much of the poetry, prophesy and eloquence of politics with the minutiae of administration and the command of detail. But it is detail and the minutiae of
672
administration which affect those whom we have the honour to represent, whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere.
I am not quite sure of the reason for discusing this Appropriation order earlier than usual, but this is not a tumultuously attended debate. Indeed, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I should not be here at all—none of us should be— as it is Whit Monday. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) cited the elections for the European Assembly as the reason why so many right hon. and hon. Members are not with us, but, in the light of the eternal, the demolition of the people's holiday on Whit Monday by the former Government is a more important factor. The early Church in its wisdom took over and consecrated pagan festivals, but the modern state replaced a great Christian holiday with a Spring Bank holiday, and the bad weather that day served us right. However, I intend to be cheerful and raise subjects comprehended by the order about Ulster's brighter side in the industrial and economic spheres.
First, however, I am prompted to say a word about education, because of exchanges with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West about the teacher-pupil ratio. I appreciate his relaying the information provided earlier by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. W. McCrea). I examined the figures for the whole of Great Britain and it is my impression that Northern Ireland is somewhere in the bottom half of education authorities in the kingdom as a whole. Although I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's desire to improve conditions in schools and teachers' conditions of work, he portrayed a slightly gloomy picture. During the past decade I visited many schools in Northern Ireland from an interest in education and sometimes because schools were polling stations when I was observing elections on the border poll. The buildings, about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman complained, are not all good, but nor are they all bad. Compared to local education authorities' buildings on this side of the water, they would come about halfway up the list. They are about average and not as depressingly bad as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested.
Mr. Archer: My picture was drawn from the report of the Department's inspectorate and my quotation was taken from the Secondary Heads Association.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am encouraged by that to read the report, as a whole, which I have not yet done, and then I shall confirm or otherwise my impression drawn from my experiences of visiting schools in the Province.
In this educational connection I shall mention the expenditure on sport, especially in support of the Gaelic Athletic Association. The Minister may have noticed on the Order Paper an amendment in my name to an early-day motion congratulating—as I also do—the association on its 100th anniversary. Gaelic sports as well as British sports should be encouraged in Northern Ireland, but the association's political discrimination against United Kingdom service men and policemen continues. My suggestion—this will not be provocative to the right hon. and learned Gentleman or to the Minister who replies —is that reasonable time should be given to the Gaelic Athletic Association to withdraw this offensive, discriminatory provision from its rules, at least in so far as it applies to Northern Ireland. If it is not withdrawn, the question should be raised whether public support for the

673
league should not be brought to an end. The present position reflects no credit on public authority in Northern Ireland and is insulting to those who serve Her Majesty in the armed forces and the police.
I turn now to my two main topics. Class 2(3) deals with aircraft and shipping interests. Some Conservative Members were recently visited by trade union representatives from Harland and Wolff. They were interested to hear of the extent of Conservative trade unionism in Great Britain. We were primarily interested to learn from them about the present position at Harland and Wolff. They had anxieties about the future. The Minister referred to the company's considerable difficulties. My impression, however, is that there is greater confidence and more hope for the future.
The company made a magnificent contribution to survival and victory in the world war, but for an interval of 40 years the Ministry of Defence did not place orders with it. I recall visiting the yard more than once with Airey Neave. I remember how he pressed for defence orders to be given to the company and how he exerted his influence in that direction. Those orders were forthcoming, which is testimony to the improved performance of Harland and Wolff and its greater ability to meet completion dates.
Harland and Wolff made parts for the new floating harbour in the Falklands; it was given the formidable task of doing that within four months, and it succeeded. Probably as a result of that, it now has a £13 million contract to convert a merchant vessel into a helicopter landing ship for the fleet. It is working on the conversion of the training ship for the Ministry of Defence. Hon. Members will hope that the company will have a chance of winning its tender for the replacement of the Sir Galahad, which was brought back from the Falklands.
Since Mr. J. Parker returned to Ulster as chairman of Harland and Wolff from British Shipbuilders a number of stringent economies have been made at the shipyard. Savings of £6 million are estimated and the Minister today commended what he called the drive to cut overheads. In the Financial Times of 6 June Alan Watson paid a special tribute:
"Harland and Wolff is in a better position than nearly all other British shipyards. This makes it easier for the Government to underwrite losses."
If that is so, a remarkable change has taken place. Only a few years ago Harland and Wolff was a poor relation compared with the companies in British Shipbuilders. I pay tribute to the renewed success and realistic streamlining of the company, which has meant so much to Belfast and Ulster.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that the Government were spending £80 million to prevent tariff increases, but Northern Ireland is still handicapped by energy costs and charges that exceed those on the mainland. My view, which is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, is that it would have been better for Northern Ireland to be on the mainland grid. I favoured, as did hon. Members from Ulster constituencies, the laying of a gas pipeline from Scotland, but the Government decided otherwise. Instead, we shall have a natural gas pipeline from the Kinsale field in the Republic, which will cost £120 million and which has been finally approved. What increase is there likely to be in the sale of gas in Northern Ireland as a result of laying that pipeline, and when will there be an increase?
674
The exploitation of lignite is much more significant. Last month the Government authorised Northern Strip Mining Ltd. to extract up to 1·25 million tonnes of lignite. Total reserves on land and under Lough Neagh—I was surprised to hear that there were reserves under the lough, because I was taught that it was bottomless—are about 450 million tonnes. That is the largest coal discovery in the United Kingdom in modern times. The discovery is important and is something about which Northern Ireland can be cheerful. The Province's dependence on oil will be reduced, energy costs will be reduced, and Northern Ireland will become more competitive and more attractive to investors. Can the Minister give an idea of the time scale in which those developments can be expected?
While talking about making industry more attractive to investors, may I echo the welcome of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West to the Minister of State on his return from the United States? We are all grateful for the efforts that he and the Secretary of State have made to attract investment from America. All Northern Ireland Ministers bear heavy burdens and travel a great deal, and in what they do that benefits the people of our matchless Province they will have the support of the Conservative and Unionist party and of the House.
I conclude with a word of support for what the right hon. Member for Down, South said about the handling of Northern Ireland business. Our business will be better attended and discussed if it is treated like the business of any other part of the United. Kingdom. Then loyalist suspicions in the Province will be allayed, bigotry cut down to size, terrorists convinced that we mean business, and the minority in Northern Ireland, which was disadvantaged by devolution to the old Stormont, will rest secure.
5.53 pm
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Since I last spoke in a debate on the Northern Ireland Appropriation order, there have been some changes in the pattern of events in the Province. Some have been good and some not so good. The Government have made a concentrated effort to improve trade, housing, social services and the environment, all of which affect our day-to-day existence. I pay a sincere tribute to the Minister concerned—the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) —for his dedication to his portfolio, his tireless energy and his attitude when dealing with the varied problems of the Province. If he were guilty of an error of judgment in taking the "London" out of Londonderry in the local government context, I prefer to think that on that occasion he was given the wrong advice.
Although Belfast, North is a largely urban area, it contains a rural community called Ballyutoag, which I inherited from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). It has a small but efficient dairy farming industry with beautiful Friesian cattle. My constituents there are naturally worried about the impact of recent decisions. They tell me that the dairy farmers have not obtained the full benefit of the 65,000-tonne special allocation of milk proposed by the Agriculture Council because of the method used to distribute the United Kingdom quota among the board areas. They say that they have little prospect of knowing how hardship cases will be dealt with before they are faced with a major

675
bill for the super levy in the autumn, and they have asked me to ask the Government to consider waiving the super levy, at least for six months.
On Class II, Votes 1 and 2, I congratulate the Government and the Minister of State on setting up the Industrial Development Board. I also congratulate the board on its work in promoting the Province. The advantages that it offers to potential investors must be appreciated. Since it was set up in 1982, the board has been successful, although it has had to work in extremely difficult circumstances. I am especially pleased that a large proportion of its time and budget is being used to sustain and strengthen local industry, and the fact that it has succeeded in helping to create and maintain 14,271 jobs during the past 12 months is just cause for its support. I am pleased that that fact was recognised by the Government in the Appropriation order.
I echo the compliments of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) to our Belfast shipyard, of which we are very proud. In this context, I bitterly condemn the enemies of Northern Ireland who are trying to spike a prospective order for two ships worth about £60 million which is presently being negotiated by a New Orleans company. I hope that Ministers will take the steps necessary to combat the lies and deceit emanating from the Irish national caucus in its efforts to undermine and discredit the Province.
I am pleased that the Minister, as chairman of the body, is making progress in the revitalisation of Belfast city centre. But one serious matter that has not been given the consideration that it deserves is the inconvenience of having no conveniences. Many of my constituents enjoy the atmosphere of the new-look city centre and many of them are fond of the beverages which some may say have national connotations, but it is disconcerting to hear pleas for relieving stations, which have almost disappeared from the city centre. What are known as portaloos used to be placed at strategic points, but they, too, have disappeared, and in some instances over-zealous policemen are pursuing the law to the letter in cases where the recipient has lost control.
On Vote 5, I endorse the efforts of the Government to provide training facilities for our young people, but care will have to be exercised in the selection of training centres, particularly in the inner city of Belfast, where there have been a number of sectarian incidents involving trainees from different work preparation units. There have been incidents in which students have been physically and verbally abused to such an extent that classes have been suspended. The Minister is aware of the problem in Belfast, North, and I can tell him that there has not yet been an acceptable solution.
In Class III, Vote 1, I draw me Government's attention to the part played by the Belfast city council in the provision of gas to the consumers in Belfast and surrounding areas. I acknowledge the financial help that the Government have given in maintaining services until such time as natural gas comes on stream. It is important that the Government encourage authorities and other bodies to plan for gas as a fuel, and also to recognise the part that the resources and expertise of the Belfast city council gas undertaking can play in the future.
In Class IV, Vote 1, progress is being made in the provision of new lighting in Belfast, but in many areas
676
there is a lack of maintenance, with just too many lights not working. Belfast, North has a high proportion of elderly people in its population, and winter brings many problems to these senior citizens. The lack of street lighting is serious, for it causes difficulties of movement. It should be remembered that the dark nights also encourage the parasites who prey on these unfortunate people who can do little to defend themselves.
I hope that the Minister will take into account also the problems of people who live in the higher regions of Belfast city, who have to contend with more than their share of ice and snow in a severe winter. It is not good enough to maintain only the main roads in a passable condition. In years past, Belfast city council mobilised armies of the unemployed to clear footpaths and roads, and this was a successful solution to the problem. The city's ratepayers should be provided with a service that allows them to go about their business with as little inconvenience as possible.
As to Class V, I have already referred to the efforts of the Minister in all aspects of housing. During the debate on the last Appropriation order, I referred to the cowboy builders who have invaded Belfast and taken vast amounts of Housing Executive work. I am pleased that the Minister has recognised this and is investigating such incidents. I have written to him, in response to his letter to me, and given him some information on the subject, which I am sure that he will fully consider.
Another point of criticism is the housing density figure pertaining to different areas of the city. In general, the population of inner Belfast requests brick-built terraced type housing, similar to that which they have at the moment, but with modern updates. They do not want the so-called courtyard developments, with acres of space to encourage hooligans and vandals. People feel isolated in such an environment, particularly the elderly who are vulnerable to the break-ins and muggings that are common practice in such developments.
There are also the so-called environmental works that are being introduced in such areas in spite of protests by the residents. Such works must cost thousands of pounds. As soon as they are completed, they are vandalised. Indeed, in some cases, they are vandalised during construction. It would be more appropriate if new housing were provided, instead of these mammoth, brick-built monstrosities filled with shrubs and trees blocking the view of residents. We have sitting-out areas, which no one wants, and which are quickly destroyed, leaving the area worse than before.
In one part of Belfast, North a main street has been divided by a cobblestone area, much to the dismay of the residents, who were not consulted. As a result, they now have to take a circuitous route to park their cars. Hooligans in the area are digging up the cobblestones to throw at each other, with resultant damage to property and innocent bystanders. The seats in the sitting-out parts have been consigned to the annual bonfire, together with the young trees and vegetation in the planted areas.
On a lighter note, I commend the new "How to find a home" pack just launched by the Housing Executive. This will be particularly appreciated by people on low incomes. It is nice to know that impartial expert advice will be given to help such people make the housing choice best suited to their needs and pocket.
I also welcome the change in house sales rules, that tenants can now apply to purchase their homes

677
immediately on taking up a tenancy. The new rules have removed an anomaly, and, more importantly, put tenants on an equal footing with those in Great Britain who have been able to buy their homes at discounted prices from the first day of tenancy. I fully support all efforts to encourage home ownership, because that makes for a better and more stable society.
I am glad that the building societies are also contributing to the upgrading of housing in the Province. The Government are to be commended for their encouragement. The people in housing action and private investment priority areas will also appreciate this contribution, as such people have felt neglected in the past.
I am still concerned about the plight of the owners of Orlit houses in the private sector, who have no idea of the structural condition of their homes. As we know, the Housing Executive has developed techniques for the testing of such houses. I understand that no houses are in danger of collapsing. It is expected, however, that major work will have to be undertaken in some instances to provide a 30-year life.
I ask the Minister to instigate an investigation into the small number of Orlit houses in the private sector to ascertain whether they have any structural defects. That will at least give those unfortunate people, many of whom are elderly, some idea about the condition of their homes. One of those elderly residents wishes to sell, but I understand that building societies will not become involved. In such cases, will the Minister instruct the Housing Executive to underwrite the mortgage, bearing in mind that grants will be available for repairs as required?
On Class VI, Vote 2, I do not share the criticism of certain bodies that the enterprise zones are costing too much in job provision. In my constituency, these zones have been highly successful and have been a means of infusing new life into the community. This has had a great psychological effect by introducing a new harmonious spirit in the area, thereby helping the population, which has felt deprived and forgotten.
With regard to Class VIII, I am extremely disappointed at the handling of the school closure issue. Declaring schools for closure only heightened tensions in a tensioned society, causing great consternation in the process. If the Minister had left things alone, schools would have closed themselves, as has happened many times in the past. However, not content with pursuing this disastrous policy, which drastically damaged the morale of principals, teachers, parents and children, the Minister has now rubbed salt in the wound by creating two new schools that are seen as discriminating in favour of one section of the population, especially as they do not meet the criteria laid down in the context of viability. The Minister should have realised that the policy of amalgamation and closures would cause an upheaval that will take ages to settle and will do nothing to improve the educational achievement of the population. The rationalisation plans dealt only with the symptoms of the problem and were neither scientifically nor educationally based. The objective was to save money. The Government's monetarist policies have dictated the future of the schools.
I conclude my comments on the order by referring to Class IX and take this opportunity of condemning utterly the niggardly death grant. I have watched genuine hardship being suffered by responsible senior citizens existing on state benefits who are putting away money
678
every week for their funerals, and it is money that they can ill afford. The present grant does not relate in financial terms to what was given years ago, and the low level of savings to be means tested does not help. I hope that the Government will examine this state of affairs with sympathetic consideration.
I hope that I shall be allowed in my comments on this class to express the concern of more than 75 per cent. of my constituents who depend on coal for all or part of their domestic requirements and of the numbers of workers who depend on coal to fuel the machinery with which they make their living. I hope that the Government will take steps to protect the community from the results of the actions of the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Union of Seamen which have threatened those who try to keep fires in their grates and the wheels of industry turning and which will only put at risk the health and welfare of the population of the Province.
6.11 pm
Mr. Harold McCusker: If anyone has any doubt about the necessity for the additional expenditure which we are discussing he need do no more than read a speech made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), to a recent conference. I read his speech with interest, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is with us today. I hope that he will comment on one aspect of it, to which i wish to draw attention.
The hon. Gentleman quoted from an EEC report pointing out that Northern Ireland had been identified as one of the most deprived regions in Europe. Towards the end of his comments he said that Northern Ireland, together with Calabria, appeared at the bottom of the league table.
Although there is justification for this added expenditure in Northern Ireland because of the poverty existing in the Province, I do not believe that Northern Ireland is one of the most underprivileged regions of the EEC. If any detailed examination were made throughout the Community I do not believe that that view could be sustained. There is evidence already to show that there are even certain regions of Great Britain which, in many respects, are comparable in terms of poverty levels with Northern Ireland. I do not think that the Minister does his own cause any good and he does not do the cause of Northern Ireland any good by repeating such statements.
Mr. Chris Patten: I am grateful for a chance to intervene, and I am even more grateful that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) took the trouble to read my speech to a seminar the other day, although it sounds from what he said as though he read only the rather truncated reports which appeared in one of Northern Ireland's newspapers which, alas, does not have many journalists working for it at the moment. [Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) waving a document headed "Northern Ireland Information Service". It may be that those employed by that service: have not read the whole speech.
I pointed out in that speech what I have pointed out before and occasionally got into trouble for saying, that there were other parts of the United Kingdom which had problems as severe as those in. Northern Ireland and that not everything in Northern Ireland was worse than everywhere else in the United Kingdom but that, by and

679
large, the deprivation in Northern Ireland justified the greater public expenditure there. I suppose that it is a question which has to be addressed by anyone attempting to educate public opinion: people pick up what they want out of such a speech. One group picks up remarks such as those to which the hon. Member for Upper Bann referred. Others pick up the propositions on the other side. But it is right for the hon. Gentleman to say that both points have to be made.
Mr. McCusker: I welcome those comments. I assure the Minister that I did not intend to be highly critical of him. I was simply suggesting that, although he was not making those assertions, when he quoted them he tended to give some credibility to them. There are enough people in Northern Ireland prepared to beggar themselves and the Province to get another few pounds out of the Exchequer as it is, and I do not think that we should encourage them. Our own wit and abilities should be directed towards earning an honest pound rather than at finding excuses for coming here and holding out the begging bowl again.
I simply suggest that the Minister might make his own life a bit easier if he did not quote what in my view are inaccurate conclusions from European reports. But that is not to say that I do not agree with the Minister's assertion that across the board there is a level of poverty in Northern Ireland which is such that we need more public expenditure per head of the population than other regions. We do not need the degree which would be anticipated if we believed the EEC report that Northern Ireland was on a level with regions in southern Italy, because I do not believe that that is the case.
Mr. Chris Patten: The hon. Gentleman is trying to draw a very fine distinction. That EEC report was referred to in terms the other day by one of his hon. Friends for whom I have a great deal of time as an argument for increased health and personal social service expenditure in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman is walking a very thin tightrope.
Mr. McCusker: I hope that my hon. Friends will listen to my comments. I do not believe that Northern Ireland has survived and prospered for 300 years by its people being beggars, and I do not think that we shall go into the future improving our situation by making beggars of ourselves. I say that as one who comes from a background where we were not flush. We had to make good with the resources available.
I welcomed the remarks of the Minister of State about the order. They demonstrated the priority that the Government give to industrial development. In the first item of Class II I draw two cases to the hon. Gentleman's attention to illustrate my point. The first case is that of a meat canning factory in my constituency. Recently it was acquired by a larger organisation in the Province, which has spent substantial sums of money developing new products and new markets. It employs about 80 people and it is based on a raw material indigenous to the Province. That is exactly the sort of industrial development which we hope to see grow. Even today the managing director has made some extremely complimentary remarks to me about the help that he has received from the IDB, and the Northern Ireland Government Departments involved.
At the very time when that company is getting geared up to make progress with the new products that it has
680
developed in the new factory which is being extended, suddenly it finds its market cut from beneath it by cheap subsidised Brazilian imports. We have the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Government Departments being complimented for their assistance in getting the project off the ground, and at the same time the Minister of State for Trade sitting in London allows subsidised Brazilian imports of these same meat products into the United Kingdom. These imports have already caused a similar canning plant in Stratford-on-Avon to close down. Having closed its manufacturing unit there the company is now importing the Brazilian canned meat to supply the markets that it originally supplied from its Stratford-on-Avon cannery.
The Minister for Trade acknowledges that there is a degree of export subsidy for this Brazilian canned meat product. In February he said that if there was any evidence to show that it was continuing, he would review the position. There is no point in the Minister pouring millions of pounds into an industry such as that in Northern Ireland if another Government Department is taking action which has already put 120 British jobs out of existence on the mainland and shortly will put a further 80 jobs in Northern Ireland out of existence.
The second case which I bring to the Minister's attention is of a large British-based company with an international reputation which recently closed down a factory on the mainland to transfer production to Northern Ireland. That organisation may soon be in the process of looking for alternative premises on the mainland to "export" the process back there because we in Northern Ireland have not been able to provide that company with the facilities it requires.
The company is precisely the type of industry we need in Northern Ireland. The local manager of the firm complained to me about a lack of progress in providing facilities. I pointed to an extension adjacent to his factory that was being built and asked, "Why are you complaining? Look at the rate at which that is being built." He replied, "That was planned in 1979. It is hoped to complete it by early 1985. At that rate, if I plan for extra space now, I might get it in four or five years' time. I cannot afford to wait that long." He cannot afford to wait that long because he is occupying bits of premises belonging to the IDB here and there. He needs the space now. We know it can be done because it was done with a greenfield site just outside Belfast some years ago for a much larger building than the one about which I am speaking. I hope that the IDB will stop making excuses and will get that extension built to ensure that those jobs, which have been transferred to Northern Ireland, stay there.
I come to Class III, Votes 1 and 2, the gas and electricity industry. The Minister may recall that six weeks ago I warned him that the gas industry was suffering severely from a loss of customers, including a loss of volume sales. I do not know whether he investigated my claims, although he commented on them afterwards. I spoke to people in the industry today. One manager told me that he had lost 2 per cent. of his customers in the last four months and that he was losing in volume sales of gas, too. He said that his experience was probably common throughout the industry in Northern Ireland.
Here we are on the threshold of great developments in the industry, yet people are leaving it and taking up other forms of fuel. In the past, the Minister has advised a

681
vigorous selling and marketing campaign as the only means for the industry to hold on to its customers until natural gas arrives. That is the equivalent of saying that more Rolls-Royce cars could be sold in Northern Ireland if the salesmen tried harder. In the way that such vehicles are too expensive, gas at present is too expensive, and gas consumers are leaving at a rate which will make it difficult to persuade them to return if and when natural gas arrives.
I hope that the Minister is considering the argument that I adduced on the last occasion that we debated these matters. At a time when we are discussing expenditure of £12,303,000 to assist the restructuring of the gas industry, it might be worth introducing a scheme to allow existing undertakings to reduce the price of gas so that they can hold on to their present customers, and perhaps even attract some new ones, in advance of natural gas arriving.
Is the Minister also firm on the proposal to pipe gas from Belfast to Londonderry? I heard today of a rumour in the industry that that proposal might be in question. If so, it will be of concern to the Ballymena and Coleraine gas undertakings. If that rumour circulates in the industry, it will not be long before the community hears of it, and that will accelerate the drift away from gas, in addition to the natural wastage that is already occurring.
I support what has been said about the need to move quickly on the conversion of one of our generating stations to coal or lignite, or a mixture of both. The Minister said that further reports were being prepared. There have been numerous reports and recommendations in the last few years. It is time for action.
The Minister may recall that when we discussed energy in the Northern Ireland Committee—when he was lecturing us and industrialists in Northern Ireland about the need to get out of oil and into other energy sources—he expressed concern about the overdependence on oil in Northern Ireland. I asked him how many Government advance factories built since the first oil crisis had been equipped with boilers fired with fuel other than oil. He was unable to tell me then. A few weeks later he informed me that during the 12 years after 1972 not one factory built by his Department had been fuelled by anything other than oil. There is no point in telling my constituents, who may have built their own factories and devised systems of energy generation, to change from oil when the Government are not setting an example.
I echo what has been said about Orlit houses in relation to Class V, Vote 1. I have only one relatively small Orlit estate, the Avenue road estate, in my constituency, in Lurgan. It contains about 200 houses. It is one of the older, better-kept estates. The houses were built just after the war and the area has not been upgraded, unlike some of the more recently built estates. But because of the nature of the residents, the property is in good condition.
I attended a meeting at which the residents had a discussion with officials of the Housing Executive. It became clear that the Housing Executive was saying that, while there were no serious structural defects which would render the houses dangerous in the near future, that would occur within perhaps 10 to 20 years. The Housing Executive was saying, in effect, "If we clear these houses from a structural point of view now, we shall have to spend some thousands of pounds to upgrade them. In 10 or 15 years' time we shall have to undertake major structural repairs costing many thousands of pounds." The only
682
interpretation that one could put on the view of the Housing Executive and its experts was that it would be better to knock the estate down and rebuild it.
I thought that the residents would object to that, some of them having lived in the houses since they were built. As I say, they have maintained them in extremely good order. In fact, the bulk of people at the meeting — I asked for a show of hands which revealed this—thought that it would be better for the houses to be demolished and the estate rebuilt. Their only request—I support them—was that it should be done by a leapfrog system to enable the existing community to be rehoused in the same place. It should be possible to do that and, if that is the economic argument, I hope that the Minister will see that the redevelopment is carried out in that way.
I hope, too, that the Minister will ensure that his budget is allocated in such a way that those people are given some priority. I say that because l am surprised to learn that there are to be 3,000 new housing starts in Northern Ireland by the Housing Executive in the coming 12 months. With the possible exception of parts of Belfast, everywhere I look I see more houses in Northern Ireland than we need.
Within a four-mile radius of my house, there are 1,200 derelict houses, some of them not 10 years old, and some barely five years old, which are being vandalised and destroyed. In some instances, millions of pounds are spent on refurbishing them, and they are being vandalised and destroyed again. The lesson is that we should have fewer houses than we need rather than more houses than we need. There would then be a degree of housing management, not only from the managers, but from the community to make something of its resources. Instead of building 3,000 houses, I should prefer to see some effort made to occupy the existing houses. I should like to see some of the money that will be used to build those 3,000 new houses used to refurbish some of the existing houses in our inner towns and in the inner city areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) said, the people of Northern Ireland prefer a standard house built in an environment to which they have grown accustomed, and with which they are happy, without courtyards which become playgrounds for hooligans or football pitches for young people. There may well be some value in these cluster developments in certain areas, but a good modern terraced house clearly meets the needs of many people in Northern Ireland. I need to be convinced that anything is to be gained from some of these developments that encourage vandalism and create other social problems.
Mr. Chris Patten: How does having a garden encourage vandalism? I have listened to what the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) and several of his hon. Friends have said on this point. I do not find that it accords with what people say to me when I ask them where they like living, and whether they like having a garden for the first time in their lives.
Mr. McCusker: We are talking not about gardens but about other environmental amenities, such as shrubs which become nesting places for rats, and attract glue-sniffers and rubbish. They place an even greater degree of expenditure on the local authority and Housing Executive in maintenance costs. By all means give people a front or rear garden, but stop cluttering up the environment with all these other traps which have to be bulldozed down or

683
concreted over. The Minister has already been asked to go on a walk with my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). If he does not believe what I tell him, we can go on a walk, and I will show him some of these places.
I ask the Minister whether he will deal with the excess land at Craigavon. If there is a shortage of funds in Northern Ireland's exchequer, let us recoup some from the land, which I believe was improperly taken from the landowners in that area. I have been dealing with this for three or four years now. One of these days, I will take out all the letters that have been sent to me telling me that something will be done in three months' time or six months' time. Something must be done, in particular for those people who have never left their ancestral home, but are still living in the houses in which they were born, and are still farming the land that their families have always owned. They have never been given compensation, nor sought it, and they should now be given their land back.
I deal next with Class VIII, Vote 3. I ask the Minister to consider the issue of student travel. I know that a decision has been made, and that the Secretary of State may be unable to reconsider it, but this is of such significance to Northern Ireland that I hope that the experience of the next 12 months will be looked at carefully, and a review undertaken. What is the point of trying to develop a new university in Ulster in the next few years, based on the New University and the Ulster polytechnic, to find that they are inhabited wholly by Northern Ireland students because English students can no longer afford to come to the Province? It is of note that at present one third of the student body in the NUU is from the mainland, a proportion that one would like to see maintained. What is the point in educating our young people to a high standard in Northern Ireland and then sending them to the mainland to obtain specialist education that is not available in the Province—which in itself will take them out of our community and encourage them to stay out of the community—but failing to provide them with sufficient funds to maintain contact with their families during their student life? The issue of students' travel grants is especially significant to Northern Ireland. While I accept that the Minister will not change his mind at present, I hope that some review will be made in the next 12 months and that, if the effects are damaging to us, that will be taken into account.
6.35 pm
Mr. Nicholas Baker: This is the first debate on Northern Ireland in which I have intervened. I listened with interest to the speeches of Opposition Members. Indeed, I learnt from the speech of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) something about housing and garden policy that I did not know before. I realise that, as an Englishman having the temerity to take part in the debate, I am infringing the convention that debates about Northern Ireland are left to the Members representing Northern Ireland as their exclusive preserve. I would not seek to break the convention unless I thought that the economy of Northern Ireland and its part in the United Kingdom were such that the convention deserved to be buried, and that the people of Northern Ireland, and their elected Members in particular, needed to be told
684
about the attitudes of an increasing number of their fellow citizens in the United Kingdom towards them and the troubles in the Province.
I found the messages of my hon. Friend the Minister of State about positive developments in the economy encouraging. We must hope that this optimism is fulfilled and justified. The Northern Ireland economy, like a leaky ship, has been buoyed up by the United Kingdom taxpayer for many years, and, as can be seen in the order, demands upon the taxpayer are increasing. I do not shrink from those demands. I detected in the speech of the hon. Member for Upper Bann a dichotomy of approach. I think that he felt some reserve about accepting an increasing share of public expenditure, yet in more or less everything that he said he was arguing the need for an increase in public expenditure.
If one considers the last available public expenditure figures that I have — other hon. Members may have more recent ones—for the years 1981–82, per capita, the amounts are, for England, £1,449, for Wales, £1,704, for Scotland, £1,882, and for Northern Ireland, £2,256. The House is debating yet another order appropriating large sums of taxpayers' money for that purpose. As holes in the Northern Ireland economy are plugged increasingly, as it seems to me, with the concrete of public expenditure, the ship once foundering is, notwithstanding the comments of my hon. Friend, hardly stable. It is unstable partly because of the activities of terrorists, as I am sure all hon. Members will agree, and also because of what I see as the failure of the people of Northern Ireland to live together harmoniously and to sustain and create that degree of civilisation necessary for the survival of any society. This obtains in most other parts of the United Kingdom, however hard-pressed economically some of those parts have been during the recession. Northern Ireland has a future only if its people can live and work together harmoniously, so that it can be regarded as a suitable place for investment for business men from outside and for the staffing of new businesses by those who live within its borders. The people of Northern Ireland are paying for their problems with the extraordinary high unemployment rate of 21 per cent.
I wish to make two points that may appear negative but which I believe are fundamental to the economy of Northern Ireland. First, any political initiative can bring about only a minor part of the changes that are necessary. Secondly, the prime role in achieving those changes must be played by the people who live in Northern Ireland and by their leaders. Without those efforts, the British Government cannot achieve progress and should not be expected to do so.
Class XI includes £1·5 million for the Northern Ireland Assembly. When I look at the political initiatives taken by successive British Governments and the attitude taken to them by Northern Ireland representatives in this House and in the Province, I have to conclude that the people of Northern Ireland have not been given an adequate lead. That has a direct effect on the economy and on the need for subvention from the United Kingdom taxpayer.
Since the introduction of direct rule in 1972, a number of attempts have been made to establish a local administration. Surely such an administration is the outward political framework within which the people of Northern Ireland could be expected, given good leadership, to work out an harmonious way of ordering and governing their communities. Only three parties from

685
Northern Ireland attended the Darlington conference called by Viscount Whitelaw in 1972. Four other parties rejected the invitation, for a number of reasons, and those who attended could not agree on a top tier of government.
Also under Viscount Whitelaw, Northern Ireland was given in 1973 a 78-member Assembly elected by single transferable vote with the object of giving minorities fair electoral representation and, therefore, a greater opportunity for participation. The power-sharing Executive was set up with some agreement and the framework in which the new government would operate was worked out at the Sunningdale conference, but, in the face of a Loyalist strike, the Executive that had taken office collapsed in May 1974 and the Assembly was prorogued.
The constitutional convention of 1975–76 could not even recommend provisions for the government of Northern Ireland. In 1977, the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, put forward a plan for partial devolution, involving a single Assembly, but no agreement could be found between the Northern Ireland parties.
The constitutional conference set up in 1980, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) was Secretary of State, was boycotted by the Official Unionist party. The subsequent paper which included proposals for further discussions, published in May 1980, contained options for devolved government, but that ran into the sand when my right hon. Friend could not achieve agreement between the various parties.
In July 1981, the intention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne to set up an advisory council became a dead letter when the Loyalist parties refused to co-operate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) introduced his 1982 Act and an Assembly was set up with only partial support from the Northern Ireland parties. I supported that initiative, because I could see no harm that would result and because I thought we should provide an opportunity—even half an hour before the 11th hour—for the people and politicians of Northern Ireland to work together, run a form of local government and develop the Assembly within the framework set out in the Act.
What has happened to the Assembly has confirmed the growing suspicion and scepticism of many of us, although it was right to give Northern Ireland parties and people a chance of demonstrating their faith in their own community by making the Assembly work.
I remember having considerable discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), who overcame my scepticism about the Assembly, although it seemed subsequently that his scepticism only grew, because he felt unable to support the establishment of the Assembly. It is a good thing that the Official Unionist party is again playing a part in the Assembly. I welcome that, but the Assembly is still not supported by the SDLP and is not yet working as it should, notwithstanding the efforts of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder).
I should like to discuss the relationship of the Northern Ireland economy and the report of the New Ireland Forum. I am tempted to pass on the report the judgment that was passed on a detailed agreement that I once drafted between a business in London, for which I acted, and a company
686
in Ireland. I was shown the letter that the Dublin lawyer wrote to his company client on the subject. He started by categorising my draft as
"the kind of agreement that is responsible for all the troubles and problems of the world today."
It is perhaps remarkable that any Irish politicians could get together to draft such a report. The report recognises that the Northern Ireland majority has a point of view and that is also a remarkable step forward.
Of course, the report indulges in the historical arguments which carry little weight in Wales or Scotland or elsewhere in Britain. The report argues that the imposed division of Ireland in 1920 created an artificial majority in the North and that that is the cause of the problems of Northern Ireland, the economic difficulties and the violence. That carries no weight and it seems to ignore, apart from anything else, the violence that existed in Ireland before 1920.
I recall finding out that my mother was born in Limerick where her father was stationed with his regiment in 1910 to deal with the troubles at that time. The report ignores the circumstances in which the division of Ireland was, sadly, necessary. At least there is no reference to Cromwell in the document and he is not shown as one of those who made written submissions.
The report sets out interesting ways in which the nationalist goal of a united Ireland might be achieved, but there is no explanation of what effect such proposals would have on the economies of Northern Ireland and the Republic and there is no attempt to show how the proposals would be good for Irish people or how the fears of Loyalist Irishmen in the North might be accommodated, other than by their retaining British passports. It contains no proposals for eliminating IRA violence on either side of the border, nor does it contain proposals for cutting off those responsible from the tacit support of members of the Catholic communities. The Dublin Government's efforts in that direction represent one of the few positive steps that have been taken.
Those who wish to advance the cause of Irish unity —of whom I am not one—should promote economic progress and political development within the Republic of Ireland to make that unity an attractive option to Ulster. That must principally be done economically rather than politically. There is nothing in the report about that. There is nothing in the report about how industries on both sides of the border might benefit from unity if it were brought about in one of the three ways considered in the report. The report contains too much about history and politics and not enough about economics.
Some Irish Americans still do not understand — President Reagan, to his credit, is not one of them—that, far from there being persecution or oppression of the people of Northern Ireland by the people of the United Kingdom, massive support by military help, by blood and by financial support to the entire Northern Ireland community has come from the United Kingdom taxpayer.
Most people in England, Scotland and Wales are aware that it is not within the power of any United Kingdom Government to compel Irish people to live together amicably. There are no solutions to the problems of Northern Ireland. Only one course offers hope for the future. It is for the people themselves and, above all, their elected representatives to work together to defeat terrorism, to civilise their community and to make at prosper.

687
Although the patience and dedication of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues are legendary and laudable, in my judgment, the patience of the people of the United Kingdom generally is running out. Some political leaders of Northern Ireland sometimes give the impression that they think that the long-suffering good nature and purse of the British people are interminable. I warn the political leaders of Northern Ireland on both sides that, while they may not yet have incurred the anger of the British people, they have come perilously close to incurring their indifference.
6.53 pm
Mr. William Ross: Nothing illustrates better the wide-ranging nature of today's debate than the speech by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). The Chair's leniency during Northern Ireland debates is welcome. We have ranged widely, but until the hon. Member for Dorset, North spoke I did not realise that we could wander into the reasonings of the New Ireland Forum on such an order. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention because we are always pleased to hear an English voice when debating Northern Ireland affairs, if only because it gives us the opportunity to correct misunderstandings on this side of the Irish sea.
The hon. Gentleman described the history of various initiatives, from the abolition of the Stormont Parliament in 1972 to the most recent efforts. I listened with interest and happy surprise when he said that the people of Northern Ireland have not been given a good lead. I was convinced that he was one person from the rest of the United Kingdom who understood the failures of the various Secretaries of State, but as he progressed I became aware that he was reading the wrong brief and that he did not fully understand the realities of politics and constitutional argument in Northern Ireland.
The people of Northern Ireland are clear about what has been going on. Scarcely a year ago Northern Ireland, with the rest of the United Kingdom, went to the polls. The policies and views of the various parties were put before the people of the Province. The reward for my party was 11 seats out of 17.
We claim that the House is built upon the democratic will of the people. The democratic will of the Northern Ireland people was clearly demonstrated. If hon. Members listened more carefully to my party's views a resolution of Northern Ireland's problems might be brought immeasurably closer. It cannot be brought closer by making the Assembly work, as the hon. Member for Dorset, North suggested. The Assembly operating as it is will lead to more problems.
Throughout the debates setting up the Assembly we sought a change to meet the reality of the position, and to set up in Northern Ireland a structure that could do something more for the Northern Ireland people than talk about the problems and ask for a continual and steadily increasing input of other people's hard-earned cash. The money involved is not as much as some people tend to believe, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) revealed earlier.
If we are to have responsible political attitudes in Northern Ireland, people must be given responsibility and powers to exercise it. They must be given something to do and take responsibility and accept the brickbats for their
688
decisions. There is no point in saying, "You can talk and the Government will respond." The point at issue is the exercise of power. Only by the exercise of power and the acceptance of the democratic will of the Northern Ireland people will we get anywhere in the Province.
I shall now discuss the nitty gritty of the government of Northern Ireland. Because of the system, responsibility for administration belongs to the various Ministers. First, I shall refer to the responsibilities of Lord Lyell, an Under-Secretary.
Recently my attention was drawn to the difficulties involved in the payment of grants for the construction of farm roads and lanes. I wrote to the noble Lord only a week ago about the matter. The problem is probably widespread and extends beyond Northern Ireland. I welcome the opportunity to try to sort the matter out.
It would appear that last year the standard costs on which grant was payable for farm lane reconstruction were changed. As a considerable number of people were working on farm lanes at that time, and the work had not been completed—and as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has not, apparently, made up its mind whether to pay at the old rate or the new rate, or half of each — the grant has not been paid. It is causing considerable hardship to people who have long since completed their work. I hope that the issue will soon be resolved, because there is no excuse for such a thing.
There would seem to be some sort of friction or problem within the Ministry. That may feed down the line to Dundonald house—I assume that it does—and I hope that the Minister in charge of Northern Ireland agriculture will make contact with the responsible Minister in Whitehall and sort out the problem as soon as is humanly possible. Often people have paid out their own hard-earned cash or, far more likely, the bank's cash in carrying out the work, and naturally the bank is not only looking for its cash but its pound of flesh in the form of interest. Therefore, there is a continuing loss to the farmers concerned.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South drew the attention of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), to the drainage problem concerning the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture. There is another drainage problem which does not concern two different Ministries but rather two different limbs of the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. That is in relation to the advice given to fanners on land drainage and the advice given to the DOE engineers by the drainage engineers of the Department of Agriculture as to the size of drainage pipes which should be installed, usually alongside new road works.
I have at least one such case in my constituency, on the Glenshane pass. I seem to have many problems there but very few supporters. Nevertheless, constituents there come to me for aid, and I have walked over their fields. I have spoken on several occasions to the roads manager about the problem of one of my constituents. I understand that there is a similar problem in north Antrim near Ballycastle.
The farmer in my constituency was advised by the Department of Agriculture to put in a 6 in drainage pipe. A year or two after that, the roads authority, in the form of the DOE, having taken advice also from the Department of Agriculture, came into the area and built a new road. The authority put a new drainage pipe across the road into

689
the 6 in pipe. The problem is that the pipe put in by the DOE, under the instructions of the drainage engineers, was about 2 ft in diameter. How one can get the water coming through a 2 ft pipe into a 6 in pipe is beyond my understanding. Some of my hon. Friends seem to be equally at a loss to understand it. The result is that my unfortunate farmer friend in Glenshane is having to deal with more water, more troubles and more muck than he can possibly handle.
It is all very well for the people in the road service to say, "We are carrying out the instructions of the Department of Agriculture and we are happy." Similarly, it is all very well for the Department of Agriculture to say, "We put in pipes for land drainage, and what the people in the road service do is their worry." My poor farmer is left with an intractable problem, and there is no point in the two limbs of the Department of Agriculture shoving the problem from one side to the other. If it has to go up to the level of the Minister to be sorted out, I hope that after the problems of the past 10 years they will at last get on with it. The farmer would like to get his fields thy, and he cannot do that until the roads authority carries out the drainage work on his land. The roads service is at least morally responsible if it puts such a large amount of water on his land. There is no way in which the unfortunate farmer can afford to do the work, and there is no moral justification for asking him to do it.
The most burning question in Northern Ireland agriculture today is that of milk and milk quotas, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson) last Thursday night. Whenever one speaks to Ministers about the question there is a fairly fierce reaction. They all seem to think that they have done their very best for Northern Ireland. They seem terribly surprised to learn that the farming community in Northern Ireland does not agree with them.
I am concerned with several aspects of the problem. I am particularly curious as to the role of the Ministers of Agriculture when they met and accepted the quota system some weeks ago. It would appear that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food used a broad-brush approach at the meeting, after which everyone started to work out the details. But perhaps I am wrong about that; perhaps the details were already worked out in various permutations. but if they were, there is precious little evidence of it.
I understand that the EC Commission is also involved in the regulations. I should like to be told—and I am sure that the farming community in Northern Ireland would like to be told—whether the EC Commission was prepared to accept that there were 65,000 tonnes of milk extra for Northern Ireland. Did the Commission say, "That is perfectly okay, Mr. Jopling — you can get your 65,000 tonnes and that will help to bring you to within striking distance of the position that will prevail in the Irish Republic"? Or did the Commission say, "No, we cannot accept your proposal. We should like you to put out the 65,000 tonnes on a national quota."?
I understand that it is extremely difficult for the average farmer to understand the permutations that were used by the Commission, especially when most people in Northern Ireland were hoping that the whole matter would be sorted out on the basis of 1983 production, and then found that it was done on a quota based on 1981 production. We are told that the 1981 production figure plus 1 per cent. plus 65,000 tonnes becomes suspiciously like another set of
690
calculations worked out by the Milk Marketing Board in Northern Ireland, and there is intense suspicion and disagreement about the matter.
There is also the question of what role the beef premium and its retention played in the deal that was made. It would appear that there was desperation at the meeting to get some sort of a deal, to get it sewn up, to get it over and done with, and then to worry afterwards what the fallout would be.
I have been concerned for some time as to where the various exports of milk would go, and into whose quota they would fall. I was told by Lord Lyell on 16 May that the exported milk would be included in the quota of the exporting country. That brings one immediately to the problems in the western half of Northern Ireland, where we have at least one milk processing plant importing milk from the Irish Republic.
We have to remember that the Irish Republic has a land frontier with Northern Ireland and that it has been given a considerable increase in the amount of milk that it can produce. Therefore, it is able to put milk straight into the milk processing plant to which I have referred. But at the same time the milk producers supplying that plant in Northern Ireland are being told to cut their production. Those are the economics of "Alice in Wonderland", and I cannot understand how we ever got into this position. If there is a necessity in Northern Ireland to import milk from the Irish Republic, there must be a shortfall in the milk production below the amount that the plant can sell. That is a tribute to the efficiency of the milk plants in Northern Ireland, but it is not much use to tell dairy farmers, "There is a plant down the road to which you have been selling milk for the past 40 or 50 years. You are not allowed to sell your extra milk to it unless you pay a super levy, but the milk plant is welcome to send out lorries to nip 10 miles down the road and bring back a few tankers full of milk for processing, to sell within the United Kingdom." That is utterly daft. I cannot understand how we allowed that position to come about.
The system used to share out the quota seems to have been introduced before anyone could sit down and take a long, hard look at the results of the policy and how it would be put into practice. The farmers may well be told by Ministers, MAFF or by the Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland, "We told you in 1981 that there would be quotas and that something would have to be done about them." Actions always speak louder than words. If such remarks were made—we all recall the warnings that were sounded in the House and elsewhere, including those made by Commissioners from Brussels—they were lost in a torrent of advice. Dairy farmers were told to increase, increase, increase. They were not simply told to increase. They were given grant to do so. That puts the problem back in the Government's lap.
Had farmers been told to be careful and warned that the Government's policy demanded care, and that the Government were worried about what might happen, and had the Government said in 1981 or early 1982 that no more grants would be given to increase milk production or for milking parlours or back grants for milking equipment, farmers would have learned quickly. They would not have gone to their bank managers and asked for loans of £50,000 to £100,000. The Government's failure to project the reality of their decisions or to put their views into action has led to dissatisfaction and problems for all dairy farmers.

691
As an aside, perhaps at the end of the debate the Minister will say something about next year's quota. Farmers need to know what will happen. They must be given some idea of events in, say, 12 months' time. If they do not know now what is likely to happen next year, they will suffer a shortfall after a couple of years. Farmers are all different, and each of them has different requirements.
I shall quote some hard cases that have been brought to my attention, not all of them concerning my constituents. The first concerns a constituent of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who is busy at the moment trying to gain re-election to the European Parliament—the Common Market that has done us so much damage. The constituent is a small farmer. His son has grown up. The farmer bought in 12 cows, and now has 40 cows. He found to his horror that nobody wanted to buy the milk. Another case concerned a constituent of mine who met building and equipment costs of £30,000. He discovered that he had been given a quota of 21,000 litres a year, which is the produce of four cows. He has managed to get a bank overdraft of approximately £50,000.
A fanner living in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South featured on the front page of Farming News in its issue of 1 June, with the headline "No quota and no hope". The farmer bought 190 cows. He had suffered a heart attack in 1978, which forced him to go out of production as his children were too young to help him. When the children had grown up the farmer decided to return to production. Now he is pouring milk down the drain. There seems to be no hope for him.
Another constituent of mine is a farmer with three sons, one of whom has a degree in agriculture and knows what he is doing. A young man who has been trained in agriculture to that level should have understood what was happening. If not, that is the clearest possible proof of the failure of the Government to publish their fears. That farmer formed a partnership with his sons in 1981, when he had 70 cows. In 1982 he had 94 cows, in 1983 there were 120 cows. This year he has 140, and his projection is for 200 cows. He has a very big unit in the Londonderry area. The partnership was intended to provide a livelihood for at least three households. A lot of money and effort was involved. The son with a degree in agriculture wrote to me suggesting that further use of grass and forage to reduce costs is very difficult because UME/hectare is 110 G/J. The national average is 77 G/J, and the optimum figure from research stations is 123 G/J. Those figures, although they may be meaningless to most of the House, mean an awful lot to the experts. They show that that farm is reaching a very high level of efficiency. Other financial commitments have been undertaken on as a result of the family expertise.
Farmers in Northern Ireland will be unable to make any progress unless something serious is done and until we seriously consider how quotas should be distributed or redistributed.
Agriculture is based on living creatures. A farmer can decide to reduce the amount of cereal to be planted in the following year. But unless he has brought many cows or started to rear calves, which will require fodder for two or three years until they start to produce milk, he simply cannot get into milk quickly. Farmers were not given the
692
information on which to base any such long-term projections and plans. They were unable to make essential preparations for the quota system.
A further point, which has not been raised before in the House, unless I missed it, is that the Government, especially the Treasury, should advise dairy farmers about their tax position when they are forced to cut back their operations. That is especially important for those with large farms, which have increased cow numbers rapidly. Two aspects of taxation are involved: first, capital gains tax and its relevance to farmers and, secondly, the latitude that will be given by the tax authorities as to the election made by farmers for the cows that they will sell. It is possible for farmers to have the value of some of their cows treated as income if they do not make an election early enough in the tax year. If farmers are forced to sell cows, and the proceeds are treated as income, they could be heavily taxed on them. If, however, it is possible for fanners to make the right sort of election, the value of the cows can be treated as capital. There could be substantial tax advantages or losses, depending on how the matter is treated. Therefore, not only in Northern Ireland but in the United Kingdom, the Minister could make available publicity in respect of the tax implications on the cutback that so many farmers are bound to face in relation to the quota system.
Mr. Butler: As always, the hon. Gentleman is making an extremely worthwhile speech from his own experience. I do not mean to be rude, but he is also going into some intricate detail, as always. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who will wind up—my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) —did a first-class job in answering the Adjournment debate the other night. I think that he will agree with me that he is not sufficiently well-informed to answer the points that the hon. Gentleman is now making; nor do I feel capable of doing so.
I rose principally to say that the hon. Gentleman's points are genuinely of considerable validity, and are questions that are being asked by all farmers, whether in Great Britain as a whole or in Northern Ireland. His question about taxation is a genuine point that raises issues that, at the moment, I regret to say we cannot say much about. All that I can do is give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking, on behalf of my noble Friend who is responsible for these matters in Northern Ireland, that he will do his best to keep farmers informed as fully as possible as such matters are decided either by the Commission or domestically.
Mr. Ross: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. I listened to them with care. I shall read them with greater care because I believe that there is a lot in them that might enable me to raise the subject on an Adjournment debate. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh will do so.
Mr. James Nicholson: Perhaps not another one.
Mr. Ross: There might be grounds for another one.
I welcome the £50 million, recently announced, to help people with problems about the milk quotas. I note that the Minister of State, Scottish Office, responsible for agriculture, said that Scotland would be allowed to write its own rules for its part of the £50 million. I understand

693
that Northern Ireland will benefit from the scheme to the tune of about £8·5 million. Under what sort of rules and regulations will Northern Ireland operate? Will the Northern Ireland Minister be allowed to write his own rules? If Scotland has some latitude, we expect the same, because it would be useful to us.
I refer to the Under-Secretary's direct responsibilities in relation to the Department of the Environment. Recently, in my village of Dungiven I noticed a caravan sitting on a vacant site. I did not pay much attention to it. One is used to seeing caravans in all sorts of places in Northern Ireland. A few days later I passed the site again and had another look. Someone had put concrete blocks round the caravan and the draw-bar. I asked one of my neighbours who was in the caravan, and he told me that it was the Sinn Fein. Then I began to take an interest in it. The caravan is now plastered with Sinn Fein posters. I had a look at it this morining. It is a solid construction, and it looks as if Sinn Fein intends to stay there for the duration of the election. I am curious about whether Sinn Fein has applied for planning permission. I would be surprised if it had. I am curious about whether the people have installed a water or sewerage system.
I wonder what the present position is. If Sinn Fein has not applied for planning permission, the caravan should be removed, concrete blocks and all. If those people are allowed to break the law with impunity in one place, they will go on doing so on a wider scale. That is not acceptable to the 999 people out of 1,000 who try to comply with the planning regulations. I understand a mistake being made. We all sympathise with citizens who make a mistake. The planning authorities deal with those people fairly, gently and reasonably. However, these folk have deliberately set out to break the law and to cause friction and trouble. We cannot let them get away with it.
Two of my hon. Friends have already referred to the problems of Orlit houses. Like my hon. Friends, I have a few of them in my constituency—thank God, not too many. I visited a few at Fallahogey in Kilrea recently. Those houses will be improved time and again. As the residents say, every time the contractors are due on site, they discover that something has happened to hold up the work. The people who live in that little group of houses say that the wind blows through the attics, holes are appearing in the walls, the slates are coming off, the roof is broken, and there are all sorts of problems, but no repairs are being carried out. There might be an excuse for a year or two, but there is no excuse when that goes on year after year. Is it not time that people in the Housing Executive got their finger out and started to do something about those problems?
My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) referred to this matter. Some of the houses can be fixed up and given a few more years of life, but only at considerable expense. When one is confronted with such a problem, it might be better to cut one's losses, bring in the bulldozers and rebuild. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) whispered to me earlier that it would be possible to use the existing foundations. If that is not done, I fear that there will be a steadily increasing repair bill, with what will still be a ramshackle structure at the end of the day.
Mr. Chris Patten: I trust that the hon. Gentleman would not apply that argument to all houses that may be unfit. Some of his hon. Friends make the reasonable point
694
from time to time about the importance of keeping communities together, even where there is a large amount of unfit housing. How would the hon. Gentleman apply that rule in cases other than Orlit homes?
Mr. Ross: The answer is simple. When we talk about maintaining communities, we are usually talking about traditional constructions. I have seen all sorts of houses of fancy construction in my constituency—prefabs. Orlits and so on—but every one of them has a certain number of inbuilt defects. They mean that inevitably the house will deteriorate and more money will have to be spent on it to such an extent that the expense is negated. With traditional houses, the framework of the house might be sound, so that it is possible to reconstruct the interior, put on a new roof and end up with an excellent building. However, that is extremely difficult and costly to achieve in Orlit houses and perhaps other such houses.
Some Orlit houses might have a long life ahead of them, and it might be worth making improvements, but other places are not worth improving. I am not asking for a blanket, bulldozer sweep. However, in some cases bulldozers are necessary. The group of houses that I am describing might fall into that category. If they do not, what is the Housing Executive waiting for and why has it not done the repairs and brought the houses up to a proper standard?
One lady drew my attention to the fact that there were broken tiles on her fireplace. The Housing Executive complained because she would not let the workmen replace the broken tiles with different coloured tiles. This lady is a good, sensible housewife and has been in the house for 25 years. Her home is spotless. She said, "If the Housing Executive accepts and pays for a substandard fireplace, why should I be expected to put up with it for another 20 years? Let them go back to the fellow who put in the fireplace and make him put in a fireplace of the proper standard, for which the Housing Executive undoubtedly paid."
Housing Executive repairs and their inspection continue to be a problem. The service is nowhere near adequate and many believe that it is getting steadily worse. Cannot that desperate problem be sorted out once and for all? The continuing problem of flat roofs should also be dealt with.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North expressed concern about courtyard developments. The Minister seemed to think that they were a perfectly good idea. They may seem a good idea to those who design and build them, but they do not seem such a good idea to those who have to live in them. In suggesting that we did not want folk to have gardens, the Minister missed the point. Of course we want people to have gardens, but what they really want is some privacy in their own homes. They do not want to look out of their front room window into somebody else's kitchen. When I see estates with the wonderful planning layout produced by the so-called architectural experts I wonder whether those who design them would be prepared to live in them.
At the end of the day, it is hard to beat a nice straight street of houses with wee gardens front and rear, perhaps with a passageway along the back. It may not look nice to the planners' eye, but I bet that a lot of people would like to live there. They want to be able to put small kids out in the back yard and keep them there. They like to see what is happening in the street. They do not want a great open space in front of their homes with vandals coming

695
into it at night, as so often happens. There is a great deal to be said for the old system which allows people some privacy and a bit of ground of their own.
I know that the planners' idea is that a group of houses will form a protected area, a little village group or whatever within a vast estate, but in practice it does not work. In practice, people want something to which they can relate. All too often they cannot relate to the modern developments, even those constructed since the war.
Mr. Chris Patten: What account does the hon. Gentleman think should be taken of present and future car ownership in the planning of estates? Should space be set aside for that?
Mr. Ross: One of the great drawbacks of estates built 30 years ago is that the regulations then provided for very narrow roads without any parking facilities, so people now have to park on grass verges and so on. That should have been foreseen even at that time, but no account seems to have been taken of it in Northern Ireland or anywhere else. My proposition does not prevent provision being made for parking. Indeed, it would probably be easier than it is with current designs.
Why can we not try out a nice straight street of houses somewhere to see how people like it? We seem to have tried almost everything else. If we went back to the village street pattern, even if it took a little more land, we might produce houses that people were happy not just to live in but to buy. I have noted that the houses in the front row of an estate always go quickly, whereas those in the middle are slowest to sell. There must be a reason for that, and the only possible reason is that folk want to face on to a street and relate to the circumstances that they enjoyed as children. Old people, especially, feel lost in the modern type of housing estate.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that in most estates built 25 years ago in Northern Ireland the proportion of roads to grass was completely out of balance so that there is ample space at the sides of the narrow roads comfortably to accommodate all the cars that now need to be parked? Does he also agree that the Housing Executive and the Department of the Environment have so far failed to make a proper, concerted effort to get cars and lorries off the roads on our estates?
Mr. Ross: I entirely agree. Anyone who visits one of the older estates will realise that my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Under Class VIII, I note that the Department of Education spends £133 million in the first instance, then £54 million on higher education and £112 million on advances to education and library boards. I have often wondered what Rathgael does in terms of primary and secondary education, as the education and library boards carry out most of the work in the controlled sector of primary and secondary education. Perhaps the Minister can tell me, either today or in writing, what proportion of the time and staff of Rathgael is spent on the maintained sector. I believe that it must be fairly high. There is doubtless a section dealing with higher education. There is then a group of people looking after primary and secondary education. As the education and library boards
696
carry out most of that work for the controlled sector, a fair number of the group must be concerned with the maintained sector. I hope that the Minister will tell us the proportions.
I hope that the Government will also pay more attention to the maintenance of the small rural schools. Such schools are needed in the countryside and are often the centre of the community. I hope that there will be no further attempts at closure and that the Government will in future seek to maintain and extend them as so many people in the Province wish.
As regards the name change of the Londonderry council area, the Minister will recall that the Irish Independence party, under the leadership of a certain Mr. McAteer, is claiming that the name was changed as a result of his foolish move in that regard. I took the trouble to look up the charter of the city, which provides that the city of Londonderry shall extend to
"the space and circuit of three Irish miles to be measured and limited from the middle of the said city".
Perhaps the Minister will provide a more modern definition, either now or in writing, as to the current boundaries of the city. I believe that three miles from the centre of the old city would take one beyond the border. Keeping within that, however, perhaps he can tell us where it ends and the council area begins. There is great concern about this not just among the people of Londonderry but throughout Northern Ireland. It has been suggested that section 51 of 1972 Act should be amended by inserting after the word "may" the following words:
"provided that no grant of royal charter is involved."
If those words had been included by the Stormont Parliament in 1972, the subsequent difficulties could have been avoided. Perhaps the Minister will also tell us how many other charters there are relating to cities and boroughs in Northern Ireland and which of them are royal charters.
This is a wide-ranging debate, and I know that my hon. Friends would like to talk about their own problems. I hope that the Minister—either when he replies to the debate, or by letter—will be able to give me and my constituents the information which I have requested.
7.40 pm
Mr. James Nicholson: In addressing the House this evening, I wish first to refer to Class I of the Appropriation order. I do not wish to raise again the many points that I made last Thursday. I shall spare the Minister that prospect. However, there were one or two points that I did not have time to elaborate fully last Thursday, and I should like to take them up again today. Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) made an excellent speech, and he has put one or two other points into my head.
The dairy industry has been at the forefront of all our thoughts over the past few months. One of the great dangers of a total concentration on one sector of an industry is that other parts may be neglected. I detect a feeling in Northern Ireland that other sectors of the agriculture industry and their problems have been neglected because of the controversy surrounding the imposition of quotas on the dairy industry. Such a view is not correct. I should like to assure those farmers that at least we on these Benches will continue to keep all sectors under constant review. Although other parties may be involved in their election campaigns this evening the

697
Ulster Unionist party has turned out in full strength to give the people of Northern Ireland a voice in this debate, regardless of why and how the debate was originally called.
The problems facing dairy farmers are new. They have to come to terms with the quotas. Although the situation may be obnoxious, the quotas are here, and we must safeguard the future of dairy farmers. As I have said on other occasions, those who are most threatened are the small dairy farmers, the young farmers trying to get into the industry, and those who may wish in future to go into milk production. I do not doubt but that in a few years the Government will again be encouraging farmers to increase milk production.
The introduction of the buy-out scheme will, at best, ease the burden. The Secretary of State has said that he wishes to help those with fewer than 40 cows. There is a serious problem here that requires serious thought before any decision is taken. We should not forget that some farms support two or three families. Those people should be considered, too. In Northern Ireland, farming is based on the family tradition and background. The argument put to me forcefully is that there is no difference between a man running a farm with 40 cows and a man and one or two sons running a farm with 80, 100 or 120 cows, because they are all supporting their families.
Another point—one that I raised as a sideline on Thursday — requires fuller thought, although the situation many not arise for some time, because a decision is involved that will lead to another change in agriculture as we have known it. Will the Government allow farmers to sell their quotas, and what conditions will be placed on such sales?
Who will be best placed to purchase a quota? That will be the problem. It will certainly not be the small producer or the young producer trying to establish himself. It will be the producer who is in the strongest position at present —the producer with a large dairy herd. Milk production not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom will fall into the hands of fewer producers, and that will be to the detriment of the industry and of agriculture. The Government should not contemplate allowing such a thing to happen.
Many in Northern Ireland might say that, if the Department advises one to take the high road, one should take the low road. There is an element of truth in that advice. If farmers decide to opt out of milk production —and some will—what will they do instead? I hope that they will not go into beef production. There is a danger that cuts in the dairy industry will lead to over-production of beef. While, at present, prices in the beef sector may be favourable, as the year progresses the change in the operation of the variable beef premium is bound to have a serious effect. Furthermore, the introduction of clawback on sales to Europe and Third world countries has put meat plants at a serious disadvantage.
Over the weekend, a serious situation arose in my constituency with the temporary closure of the Moy meat plant. Why has that plant been forced to close? The reason was that it could not compete with other plants in Northern Ireland which at the moment are still not having to refund the variable beef premium on exports to Third world countries. They are in possession of European contracts.
698
The decision was that the variable beef premium would be clawed back from the end of May. That has placed the Moy plant in a situation in which it cannot operate.
The matter is serious for the area as well as for the plant. Eighty people employed at the plant are unemployed because of decisions taken by the Government in their negotiations with Europe. The situation will continue until the beginning of July, and the future after that is not secure. For some time now, plants which do not have Third world contracts have been experiencing difficult marketing conditions. That is not to the benefit of the industry in the long term.
There is no point in the Secretary of State telling us that the situation will be monitored. The Department was advised of what would happen if clawback was introduced —as in the case of Moy Meats—and it chose not to heed the warning. Today, 80 more jobs have been lost in an area where there is no alternative employment. Aid should be made available immediately to secure those 80 jobs. Would it not be cheaper to keep 80 people in employment than to have to support them entirely through unemployment benefit, especially as only a few weeks are involved in this case?
The long-term future for beef farmers is uncertain. As we approach the latter part of 1984, we should be deeply worried about market conditions. The lack of intervention storage space in Northern Ireland will seriously prohibit Northern Ireland's plants utilising the facility to put our beef into the system. The Minister should seriously consider providing extra storage facilities and guarantee that Northern Ireland will not be disadvantaged. Shipping should also be made available to tranship the beef. The Government should be prepared for the problem and not be seen to be floundering when it arises. I hope that it never does, but the Government have been warned, and no excuses will be accepted.
Unfair competition should not occur, but the Republic of Ireland seems to have secured an extremely advantageous trading position by negotiating the variable beef premium on all meat exports to the United Kingdom. The agreement applies to boneless products, but it might enable ineligible beef to qualify. The premium is paid to the factory rather than to the farmer. That gives the factories increased resources which can be passed on to the farmers in the Republic of Ireland. How much does that cost the British taxpayer? It is interesting to note that all fat cows are now killed in factories in the Republic of Ireland because plants in Northern Ireland cannot compete with those which can afford to pay more.
Many people suspect—perhaps even more than I do —that it is impossible to tell the difference between fat cows and heifer beef once it has been boned. That puts our meat plants at a serious disadvantage which must be rectified shortly if we are to have any hope of a future for the beef industry and fair competition.
Conditions for the intensive sectors have improved. They have been the subject of much debate in the House in the past 10 months. The improvement in the past few months has been noticeable. However, I note with sadness that the Government have not yet responded positively to the need for intervention grain storage in Northern Ireland. The present improved circumstances should be used to stabilise conditions. The drastic cut in the sow herd speaks for itself. The Government should move quickly and make it clear that they believe that there is a future for the intensive sectors in Northern Ireland. Farmers must have

699
access to cheaper grain, be it through intervention or from the North American market before it reaches the EEC. The Minister should not wait until the situation becomes critical, whereupon we shall go through the same old exercise of letting the troughs and peaks level themselves out. Now that farmers are back in business, perhaps they will be able to stabilise. Now is the time to act to ensure that they have a future.
I represent part of the county that is known as the orchard of Ireland. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) will not claim that he represents the whole of that county. He still represents a large part of it. Apple growing is of considerable importance to my constituents. We produce some of the best Bramley apples in the world. Like poultry and pig farmers, apple growers are heavily dependent on supply and demand. They have recently found it difficult to make a profit because of European competition. I admit that the scheme that is operated by the Department on behalf of the EEC to remove surplus apples from the market operates when marketing is extremely difficult, but it does not go anything like far enough. Marketing is all-important and the Government should find means for helping and improving marketing facilities.
Unfortunately, my constituency has one of the highest levels of unemployment. Unemployment is extremely high in Armagh, and even higher in Newry, and it shows no signs of disappearing. Rather, it appears to be going from bad to worse. In its recent publication, the Industrial Development Board asked to be judged on the facts. In my constituency, it created 12 jobs in 1982–83 and 17 jobs in 1983–84. If I may say so, that performance is pathetic. If, as it asks, I judge it on the facts, I am compelled to suggest that its members be fired because they have not done the job that they were given. I have had some difficulty in establishing the number of jobs created by LEDU as its figures are tied up with the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and as his district council area is split in two. Nevertheless, the LEDU's figures are more presentable. In 1982–83 it provided 252 jobs and in 1983–84 it provided 251 jobs. Although the area covered by it and the IDB are not the same, it is likely that the LEDU provided more jobs. In view of the present levels of unemployment, however, such organisations in their present form will never solve the problem.
Some firms in my constituency have drawn my attention to the problem of more than one firm producing the same product in the same area. It is time that there was better liaison between the LEDU and the IDB as then neighbouring towns would not have firms competing with each other. The result of such competition is both firms being put out of business. If local people were given the same encouragement as investors from abroad, many more jobs would be created. I believe in encouraging the small manufacturer to expand.
If the present organisations are unable to do the job that is required, they should be disbanded. I have been forced to come to this conclusion because I have been asked to judge on the facts. That may be a drastic step to take, but it seems to be the only answer, certainly for my constituency. Job creation will be improved only by those who are interested in improving Northern Ireland. I often feel that some of these organisations have great difficulty
700
looking beyond the more industrialised areas of the Province, as a result of which other areas on the periphery are simply forgotton. It is time that we recognised that other areas, apart from Belfast city and Craigavon, need help.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only have the IDB and the LEDU—especially the IDB—failed to identify jobs in the west of the Province, in the area that I represent, but they failed to make vacant factory space attractive to potential new investors and manufacturers? Does my hon. Friend also agree that asset strippers have moved in, bought up much of this factory space and are now selling it back to departments, such as the Department of the Environment, to store machinery which the roads programme is under-employing? That is one of the gravest errors that has been made by the IDB.
Mr. Nicholson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I do not doubt that what he says is correct, and I agree with him about the number of dormant factories in Northern Ireland. Indeed, in my constituency a number of factories now lie dormant. I hope that the time will soon come when they will again be used for production.
Last year, when the Bairnswear factory in my constituency burnt to the ground, the company was able to find a factory in tha Armagh city area. It moved there almost immediately and is now back in production. I was grateful that that happened, and record my thanks to the Department of Commerce for the way in which it handled the situation. I also pay tribute to the Minister responsible for the way in which he handled the problem. His endeavours and those of his Department were much appreciated by myself and everyone connected with the factory.
Class IV relates to roads—one of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's responsibilities. From my early days in the district council to the time when I moved to the higher echelons of office, roads were always a hobby of mine. I have never forgotten about the importance of roads, nor will I ever be allowed to do so by my constituents. Road conditions continue to deteriorate, and that applies both to major and to minor roads. What I am about to say in no way reflects on the many officials who try valiantly to tackle the problems, but within the resources available to them they appear to be fighting a losing battle.
Frankly, the improvement of minor roads has virtually ceased since the disappearance of Enterprise Ulster. By improvements, I mean the cutting of corners on small minor roads within my constituency. At one time major schemes were planned for certain difficult roads, and at that time one could at least tell one's constituents, "I shall argue for your road next", or, "I shall be arguing for your road the year after next." That at least gave the people hope that at some point in the future there was a chance that their problems would be dealt with.
In the main, only routine maintenance is now carried out. That falls a long way short of what happened previously. Continuous improvement to our minor roads is required, and the department should be aware of that. Milk is now collected by bulk tankers, not by lorries or creamery carts. Those tankers drive around the minor roads, and cut hard into the surface, as a result of which the roads deteriorate. The Department must face up to this fact, but as yet it has not done so.

701
One farmer in my constituency is unable to get his machinery to his farm. He must cross the fields of a neighbour's farm to do so. In this day and age, that is ludicrous. Only the other day that farmer told me that lorries were unable to deliver the additive for the silage that he has recently cut. The Department is telling farmers that in this age of quotas they must make better silage, use the grass better and use less meal, yet this man cannot get the goods delivered to his farm. At present I can only tell him that there is very little hope of improving the road that leads to his farm. There must be a quicker response to these serious problems, and the road service must be improved.
Like many of my hon. Friends, I must also refer to the problems of the Orlit houses in Northern Ireland. For more than eight years—ever since I have been a member of Armagh district council—I have been asking that these houses, many of them in my constituency, be improved. It is a shame and disgrace that over the years nothing has been done for these people. The problem should have been solved years ago. The plight of the people affected should be tackled immediately.
Some of my constituents still live in houses with no amenities. That is wrong. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive should have been allowed to bring those homes up to the basic standard that one would expect in this day and age. We have heard about the poor construction and short life that some of them have, but most of the Orlit housing in my constituency has been well kept. People are happy and do not wish to leave them. However, there is beginning to be a problem. There are two options: either the houses are knocked down and replaced elsewhere, or they are knocked down and replaced on site. If they are to be knocked down, the decision must be made quickly. The people living in them must not be left waiting for another few years.
Another solution is to sell the houses to the residents, setting the prices according to the quality of the houses. Many residents would prefer to purchase their houses. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann referred to 200 houses on an estate in the middle of Lurgan, but I am referring to cottages built in the country, some individually and others together, with large back gardens. Residents of such properties will be keen to purchase at prices which are fair considering their condition. I hope that we shall not have to talk about Orlit houses again and that a firm decision will be taken soon about their future.
Some of my constituents have found great difficulty in finding what is called an entry point for grants. A constituent had a problem getting approval for grant aid because the door in his kitchen was placed where it was. If it had been placed elsewhere, he would have received a grant. It is all very well for housing officials to measure a kitchen and say that there is space for a fridge, cooker and ample storage, but if there is no space to swing a cat in the kitchen it is of no use to the residents.
We must place a different emphasis on grants. There is no point in promising vast sums of Money to improve houses if the applicants cannot collect the money. Many officials in the Department are becoming increasingly frustrated by the red tape round improvement grants. It should be simple to apply for a grant, and grants should be available to those who want them. They should not have continually to fulfil exacting criteria to receive a grant. If the procedure is made simple and the red tape cut, administration will be easier and cheaper.
702
I draw the Minister's attention to vacant housing, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann. On the Derrybeg estate in Newry and in Newry town 101 houses were reported vacant for more than 14 weeks on 31 March 1983, yet the Housing Executive continued to build more houses. In 1984 in Newry town 95 houses were vacant for more than 14 weeks. In 1983 Armagh city had 19 houses vacant over 14 weeks, which is a much more acceptable figure, and in 1984 it was 18. We should not have vacant houses. In areas where there are extreme problems in keeping people in houses because they vandalise them and move on to other estates, which they then vandalise, it is wrong to have vacant houses.
Mr. Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is anxiety about the continuing new build by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, especially as considerable numbers of people move from south of the border to live with in-laws and then seek to be rehoused by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive? Does he agree that the Minister should advise the Housing Executive to check that abuse?
Mr. Nicholson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. What he described has occurred a number of times in my constituency. People have moved to one part in the first instance, and then on to a second. Many exercises are being embarked on in Northern Ireland, and this may be a good one for the Minister to embark upon.
I am not saying that we do not need new housing, because we certainly do. We need some new houses, but not as many as we have needed in the past. I urge the Minister to opt for urban renewal, especially in old people's dwellings. In the past, all too frequently old people's dwellings have been built miles from town centres and shops. They have had no bus or taxi service and have been left high and dry with no way of getting in and out to do their shopping. The Housing Executive must give that some thought and the Minister should encourage it to do so.
The money that the Minister will save by building fewer houses should be spent on housing that has stood for 20 or 30 years without having a penny spent on it by public bodies since the day it was erected. Because the people living in such houses have cared for them, kept them properly and decently, and did not try to wreck them, they received no money. Only those who shout for money, wreck, tear or pull property asunder get their houses rebuilt and improved. These houses should be brought up to an appropriate level in 1984–85.
Class VI includes water problems. The criteria to be fulfilled for small extension schemes in rural areas are too severe. They should be changed to include agricultural land. If a farmer requires water for his stock and land, it should count in the same way as a home. An allowance should be made for farmers who are metered and who decide to transfer water to the land, whether from an outfarm or land where there is no dwelling. That provision should be made.
I have written to the Minister at least twice during the past 12 months about the water problems in the Altnamackin and Newtownhamilton areas of my constituency. Last summer the people in the area suffered greatly because water was cut off without warning. It is a hilly area. The Minister should make available finance as soon as possible to ensure that the water supply is improved.

703
This morning I was informed of sewerage problems at Mourneview terrace in Craigmore outside Bessbrook. The sewage from 10 houses which crosses a field is simply boiling in the field, but when I contacted the Department of the Environment about it I was told that its solicitor would have to be consulted. The official told me that he had never heard of such a problem although the houses have been there for 80 years. He also said that he did not know whether it was the Department's responsibility. I contend that it is the Department's fault. I hope that the Minister will telephone his Department and tell it not to bother with legal advice, but to examine the sewers in the area and rectify the problem as soon as possible.
On education, I should bring the attention of the House to the problems of primary schools and small secondary schools in isolated border areas, which in recent years have been threatened with closure. The threat of closure has meant that those schools have not been given adequate funds. I have inspected many of them during the past few months. I know that more expenditure is required to bring them to a standard similar to that of schools with more pupils. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the problem, because we want those schools kept open.
Another problem will be caused by the merger of Armagh royal school and Armagh girls high school. I did not agree with the proposal to merge the schools, but I accept that it must go ahead. However, it should be done as quickly as possible, and there should be no dragging of feet in providing the necessary facilities. The Department forced the merger, so the Department should make available funds to ensure that the merger is carried out as soon as possible. It will affect other schools in the area, because, if Armagh girls high school is vacated, the building can be used by the secondary school, which has suffered greatly for many years because of cramped playing areas, poor facilities and not enough classrooms. I do not want further generations of children to attend that school if it does not have the facilities to provide those children with the skills that they need in the world that they must enter. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the children of that area are not held back.
I have probably more than overstayed my welcome. I wish the Minister well in his reply.
8.25 pm
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The theme of my speech will be that the elected representatives of Northern Ireland should be responsible for administering the various bodies that at present do not do their jobs properly.
I support what my colleagues said under Class 1 about milk. Normally I would not say much about milk, since my hon. Friends are more than capable of putting the full case to the House and to the world at large. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) mentioned Ballyutoag, which is in his constituency at present. It will soon return to my constituency—I do not know whether he will be sorry about that—because Belfast, North will lose its milk supply. This matter cannot be mentioned often enough because there are more milk producers in south Antrim than there are in any other
704
Northern Ireland constituency. I have passed to my hon. Friends the many representations made to me, and they have passed them to the Minister concerned.
One of my constituents, who had left milk production for a while, decided to return to it in 1981. He contacted the Department of Agriculture and it arrived at a scheme whereby, after five years, he would have a herd of 59 cows. He was promised grants to build a milk parlour and other facilities, so he went ahead and built some facilities, which cost £9,000. After they were examined and approved he was given the percentage grant to which he was entitled. He then built the next section and his herd is now 22 cows. However, he has now been told that he will be allowed to have only between 15 and 18 cows. He is now in some difficulty over the improvements that he has been making. He has spent £35,000, and has received only £3,000 from the Department. It was made clear to him at the beginning of the scheme that unless he finished the complete scheme he would not receive the grants to which he was entitled. Now he does not know whether he is supposed to stop or continue and, if he does not continue, whether he will be given a grant towards the second part of the scheme.
My constituent understands, as we all do, that if we have lakes of milk, somewhere along the line a decision has to be taken and something has to be done. When Michelin was talking about moving we agreed that there was no point in making tyres to dump them into Lough Neagh. We should put whatever resources we have into providing work that will be to some purpose. However, I ask the Minister whether my constituent will be given the money for the grants if he stops now, or is he forced to go on and spend yet more money to get the grant?
My constituent told me, quite sincerely, that if the situation remains as it is, he will no longer be in the business. He wishes that the Government would simply tell him what the position is—for example, that they will go higher, not lower, and it is up to him to make the decision. In other words, he feels that the crunch should come now and not in the future, when he has expended yet more energy and money. His son has left the agricultural college and has joined him on the farm and he has to do something about that as well.
Mr. Butler: It would take too long to deal with specific cases from the Front Bench, but the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman illustrate the position of the small farmer, whom we hope that the outgoers scheme will help, because we have provided 5 per cent. purchaser quotas, which have the prime purpose of helping the small producer and the special case.
Secondly if the expansion that the hon. Gentleman has described was done under the farm and horticultural development scheme, it is specifically mentioned as the sort of case where the holdback of 3 per cent. from the quota will be used to help. Although I cannot give a particular answer to the individual to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring, he has given an example of the type of case that could stand to benefit from the two special approaches that the Government have taken.
Mr. Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his reply. It may have taken me a long time to explain it, but the hon. Gentleman now knows the position of my constituent.
Class V concerns housing. I am interested in the news released by the Housing Executive about the new, first-day

705
discounts. My hon. Friends will know that now, when a new tenant comes into a new Housing Executive house, from the first day that he takes up possession he is entitled to a 33 per cent. grant if he wishes to buy that dwelling. That is commendable. It is an excellent idea, which I have commended to my constituents.
However, I asked the Under-Secretary how he squares that with the case of someone who has occupied a dwelling for many years, kept in in excellent condition and is now entitled to, say, a 65 per cent. discount, but, on applying to buy the home, is told that because of the historic costs clause, the price cannot go below a certain figure. It is unfair that such people, who have lived in their homes all their lives, should be penalised, when those who are coming into any other dwelling belonging to the Housing Executive can get a 33 per cent. reduction from the first day. One would have thought that first the 33 per cent. could have been given to some of the longer-term tenants to assist them. Many of them are quite old and need extra assistance along these lines.
I agree with my hon. Friends when they say that there are too many unoccupied homes in Northern Ireland. The Under-Secretary has heard me say on other occasions that this is because the wrong type of houses are being built and probably in the wrong place. The demand is for a smaller type of dwelling for older people. It is unfortunate that in some parts of my constituency, against advice given in consultations with the local council, the Housing Executive went ahead and built large houses in an area about which the Under-Secretary's predecessor had been told. The Housing Executive reduced the number but not the size of the houses. Most of the people in the area are looking for smaller houses, but are unable to get them simply because the advice of the local council was ignored. I am sure that this happens in other parts of Northern Ireland.
I very much approve of the housing improvements carried out by the Housing Executive. People who have a house requiring heating or insulation, a better bathroom or a new sink unit and so on are getting them, and this is commendable. However, a difficulty arises, particularly with older people who have lived in one home for 50 years. One Monday morning, they are faced with about 12 workmen who arrive and start tearing down walls, ripping out fireplaces, taking off roofs, rebuilding chimneys and taking out the plumbing. The workmen say to these people, "We are sorry, but you will just have to accept this, otherwise the work will not get done."
In certain parts of Northern Ireland, caravans are brought in for use by the tenants and they are decanted —that is a nice word to use for humans—into another home for a short time. Younger people, and even those who are not so young, can probably accept that, although it is difficult enough for them, especially when they have young children. However, older people cannot speak for themselves and feel that they must accept all this work going on until, perhaps, they approach the local office and get something done about it.
After all the complaints, both in the House and in council chambers and other places, I should have thought that some action about it would have been taken. I have been in the construction industry, and in my days we were capable of going into a house to replumb it and to reheat it, leaving it at night as we had found it in the morning, and finishing the job in one week. It should not be beyond the ability of the Housing Executive to employ contractors
706
capable of doing that, but it does not seem able to get these people. It mystifies me because I know hundreds of them, and I know hundreds of construction workers who are unemployed.
The Minister met SDLP councillors a short time ago and he assured them that there was sufficient money to carry out all the repairs that needed doing. I can take the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to housing estates in my constituency whose tenants have been fighting with the local and area offices for some time to get work done. They are told that they are not in the programme but that they will be put into the pre-paint programme. The pre-paint programme means that someone is supposed to examine a property to discover what has to be fixed before it is painted. A tenant getting into the pre-paint programme naturally asks when the work will be done. He is told that the programme works in such a way that older houses are attended to before properties which are not so old. After that it is not unusual for me to receive a telephone call from a constituent who has been put into the pre-paint programme saying that other houses further up his road are being done and that those properties are younger than his. In other words, the well-laid plans of the Housing Executive have gone astray.
I make these remarks for the benefit of the Under-Secretary of State, who I know to be a man of honour. When he tries to help one of his parliamentary colleagues, he always does his best. I commend these problems to him.
I see my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast, North and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in their places. They will confirm that we have a slight problem. In the borough known as Newtonabbey there is the suspicion that most of the available money is put into certain sections of Belfast. In a year that the amount of money supposed to be spent in the Belfast area is not spent, we wonder why some of it does not move a short way up the M2 towards Newtonabbey.
I move to Class II and the Department of Economic Development. I congratulate the Minister on the fact that we now have the science park and the free port in Antrim and Belfast airport. I look forward to them coming into operation. But I hope sincerely that many local jobs in those enterprises are created. I hope that it will not be necessary for experts to come in to teach the locals what has to be done. We may require some, but I hope that it will not go beyond that and that we shall have as many people fron the locality as possible working in those projects. We badly need employment. Thinking back over what has been lost in that area I am sure that I shall be forgiven if I sound as though I am trying to look after my own neck of the woods. We have people capable of doing the jobs. If the Minister cannot find them, I can probably find a few for him.
I know that the IDB and those involved with it try hard. No one who takes on a job forgets what he is supposed to do. They try to do their best in difficult circumstances. Unfortunately, they do not have as much success as many of us would hope. I refer to what one of my hon. Friends said about having the same type of industry carried on by two different firms and being looked after by the IDB and given grants by it.
I understand that the IDB is supposed to say that if there is a firm already making bicycles, it cannot give grant to someone else making bicycles in the same area. But that is exactly what happened in my constituency. We have

707
two firms, each of them employing eight people. Both firms were grant-aided by the IDB. A constituent of mine who works for one of those firms told me that he approached the IDB saying, "Let us suppose for the sake of argument that my firm goes bankrupt after receiving grant and I decide to form another company. Shall I be entitled to another grant for the same type of operation, even though I worked for the other firm?" He was told that he would be entitled to a grant regardless of whether the other firm went bankrupt. If that is the case, it is unfortunate.
Still on Class II, I come to the lignite operation. That again is in my constituency. I am delighted that there is a natural resource somewhere in Northern Ireland other than its people and its farms. Obviously I give the lignite development a general welcome. I hope very much that it will succeed and provide employment, but succeed properly and give employment to local people. I often wonder about the expertise required for open-cast lignite mining. Have we people in the locality capable of doing it? Will they need to be taken somewhere and trained, or is it a simple operation rather like driving a JCB or some activity along those lines?
I also worry about the environment in the Crumlin area. I said that I welcomed the operation, but I am making these further comments to ensure that it is done properly at the outset and that we do not have arguments and a great deal of backbiting later.
Difficulties have arisen. People living on the periphery of the operation have been told by the firm concerned that it is not interested in buying a house or a farm just a few yards from the site of the operation. Those people will feel unfairly treated because farms and houses within the area will have been bought and their occupants gone elsewhere, while those remaining will have the worry of dust, dirt and noise. I am at present negotiating on behalf of one of my constituents, because it seems that the firm concerned with the operation has been somewhat unfair in that respect.
If the operation works, we get the lignite, and the area is restored to something like its original condition, everyone will applaud. Fears have been expressed, however, that lignite may be found further afield. Fears have also been expressed about the possibility of the water table of Lough Neagh being lowered when the operation starts underneath the lough, and that could affect farmers in the area.
Some time ago I saw a television programme about a lignite operation in another part of the world. The dust and dirt thrown up by the operation seemed to present the greatest problems. For that reason, I have some reservations about the operation in my locality. If all goes well, we shall be happy, but I do not want to be running continually with complaints to the Minister or firm concerned, which I shall do if my constituents are adversely affected, because it is my job to look after their interests.
I am told that the company concerned is a wholly owned subsidiary of a corporation, and the Department states in a document that has been circulated:
"This is a private sector investment by a major company and should be taken as a demonstration of confidence in the economic future of Northern Ireland."
708
We applaud that, but may we be told whether the company is in receipt of grant either from the Government or the EEC? We are also told that the Department of the Environment
"consulted a wide range of interests before determining the planning applications. These included Antrim Borough Council and the Economic Development Committee of the Assembly. Both bodies gave the project strong support."
Did the Under-Secretary consult the local lignite committee, which was elected at a public meeting held under the chairmanship of the mayor of Antrim?
I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), the Opposition spokesman, has shown interest—I refer to the situation at Lear Fan—in 380 of my constituents and in some of those living in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs). I cannot help wondering, however, why, when jobs were lost at Michelin, ICI and Courtaulds, for example, we did not hear the same words of sympathy expressed by the official Opposition.
When Mr. Burch came to a meeting at the Lear Fan factory, he adopted an offhand manner in dealing with the press and those attending the meeting, which I did not attend. May we be told how much Government and private money has been spent on the project to date? Where is that public money invested by the Government? In other words, is it in Northern Ireland, in this country or in America?
I hope that if and when the firm resumes production, the workers in Northern Ireland will get their jobs back. I am hoping for a happy ending to the whole incident and that all the jobs that have been promised will come to fruition. I say that sincerely because I know the men and women concerned. Those workers bent over backwards to make the whole operation succeed. They accepted short time and redundancies and there were no disputes about who should do what. They accepted practically everything that the firm put to them to try to make the operation succeed. Those workers have had a slap in the face in finding themselves in the present position. The amount of information given to the workers has been minimal. Despite all that has occurred, I am sure that they would, given a chance, continue to do their best in future.
On behalf of my party, I object to the fact that the Northern Ireland Electricity Consumer Council is not being left to get on with its job. As for the proposed new general consumer council, I cannot accept what is currently proposed because we are told that if, in future, the electricity section is not seen to be working well, it will be absorbed into the general consumer council. I do not accept that. One does not allow the same person to be judge and jury.
Mr. Butler: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that there should be a general consumer council with the exception of an electricity council that would be separate?
Mr. Forsythe: As the Minister knows, in the rest of the United Kingdom there are consumer councils for each service, and I do not see why Northern Ireland should be any different. The Government have pleaded with us to accept the same standards on milk, and I maintain we should have the same standards on electricity. I should like to know why this is not the case.
We have discovered that there are committees that are self-appointed. They are able to go into the offices of

709
various public bodies, to hammer the table and to get better service than publicly elected representatives who put themselves before the public, and stand or fall by the votes that they receive. While people at a lower level are trying to treat elected representatives differently from self-appointed committees, my information is that the same support is not being given by people higher up. Publicly elected representatives should not be put in such a position, which calls into question their purpose.
I deal next with Classes I and IV, as did my hon. Friends. There are areas in various parts of my constituency where roads have been made up and resurfaced. On occasion, we have called for road drains to be put in because of flooding. They are put in, but they are not taken into the local storm drain, or, indeed, to any storm drain. They are merely put into designated or undesignated water courses. This involves various departments, the DOE roads section, drainage, which comes under agriculture, and the water service. Indeed, even building control gets involved. On one occasion, one of my constituents was flooded out on a Sunday evening with 4 ft of water which took down 40 ft of a brick wall. Great difficulty was experienced in finding anybody to take any sort of action or responsibility for the operation. It was necessary to involve the DOE roads section, drainage, which comes under agriculture, the water service and building control. It was necessary to call in building control because a septic tank was leaking raw sewage into the stream in question. It is unfortunate that my constituent should have been put into a position in which he had to rebuild the wall, although the argument continues.
Can the Minister say whether extra money is being granted for road repairs? While I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that the main roads are good, because of the poor state of the roads in my constituency, some double decker buses almost disappear into holes in the road. Would it not be possible to have one person or body responsible for such repairs, because at present many different parts of the Department are involved?
I have to be critical of the education board in my constituency and particularly of the nominated members of that board. Problems have arisen at the Ballyclare preparatory school, which is similar in some respects to the preparatory school at Coleraine which, because of a wrong decision taken by the board, no longer exists. The board was rightly censured by the ombudsman for its decision.
The preparatory school at Ballyclare is well supported, but every year two or three children are unable to pass the examination to move from one end of the school to the other. I use those words deliberately, because in my view the high school and preparatory school at Ballyclare are part of the same school. Children who fail the examination are expelled from the campus of Ballyclare high school and sent to another school. That is done on the basis of an examination taken at an age when children are not fully developed.
The preparatory school parents approached the board and suggested that more places should be made available at the high school. The board referred the matter to a committee and I am told that nominated members voted against the parents' proposal. The basis of the parents' suggestion was that the number of places allocated to Newtownabbey is lower than that allocated to other places in the board's area. The local council decided that it would be a good thing for local people and for the school to have
710
a joint recreation and sports hall for adults and children. It suggested to the board that, premises should be built on the edge of the campus to serve the town and the school.
Everything went well until the Minister approved an extension that the school had wanted for years. The board is now no longer interested in the joint provision proposal. The nominated members are appointed by the Minister, yet they turned against their master and would not implement the policy that he believes should be introduced and which through joint provision would save public money.
Those instances show that having publicly elected members of the board, answerable to the electorate. would be preferable to the present system of nominated members.
9.8 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the opportunity to raise some of the problems affecting my constituents. I shall try not to repeat what my hon. Friends have said about agriculture, with which I fully agree. Some excellent drainage work has been done by the Department of Agriculture. All the lands that could benefit should be taken into account when water courses are cleared and new drainage schemes proposed.
Some consideration should be given to the social benefits that could arise from the relief of the flooding of homes and farms. It is depressing when the public representative has to keep going back to the Department over two and three years before an obvious decision is approved.
One particular project has been turned down tune and again. Eventually, it will be justified. I refer to Bogtown — well described — Leales at Kilwaughter and the Millbrook area. On examination the scheme for that area could be justified. It would prevent the flooding of fields and farm houses as well as, from time to time, the dual carriageway. That scheme has been turned down, but I hope that it will be re-examined and approved.
In Northern Ireland we are dependent on continued assistance to industry. I agree with many of the remarks made by my hon. Friends. The Local Enterprise Development Unit has been successful in establishing new small businesses throughout Northern Ireland. In some areas it has been more successful than in others. The demands on the staff of the unit continue to increase. Staff increases should be made to take account of the added help offered and taken up. Many people think that the LEDU should do more for small businesses and that, if it did, rapid job creation would occur.
The small employer who has invested all that he can and weathered the storm of the recent recession and maintained employment for six or seven years knows better than any civil servant or Government adviser where he is going and what he can achieve realistically if he receives the necessary financing and support when he needs it. Too many people who have never invested even one month's salary in a project are still giving advice. I should like to see improved risk-taking by the LEDU. Public money should support private investment and be made available more readily.
Small business men should not be told that they do not need grants because they have been successful without them, but that is what happens. The recent successes at Shorts and Harland and Wolff have justified substantial investment of public money to support productive

711
employment as the joint efforts of management, trade unions and workers strove to reach profitability. I am glad to say that is on the near horizon.
Mr. Maginnis: Will my hon. Friend clarify the point about public money being given to Shorts? Is it not a fact that, although the Government underwrite Shorts' facility to borrow money, they do not give Shorts grants—taking into consideration that the aircraft business is a high risk business—beyond the ordinary employment grants that are given to any employer? Shorts would be making much greater progress if about four fifths of its profit were not taken up in paying interest on the vast loans which it has had to undertake.
Mr. Beggs: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree that if Shorts did not have to repay interest on the heavy borrowings required to help it reach profitability, it could reach that position much faster. No doubt the Minister will be able to give a much fuller response to my hon. Friend's point.
I believe that there has to be continuing heavy investment in the training of our young people and the retraining of the unemployed if we are to have a chance of attracting some international mobile investment and of enabling new industries and enterprises to develop.
It is a tragedy that, in such a small Province, well over 120,000 people are unemployed. The Department of Economic Development must take that factor into account and direct more resources into retraining.
I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) with regard to Lear Fan. I want to have my concern recorded, and also the concern of the employees of that company. The work force cannot be blamed for not making every effort to see that project succeed. It is small comfort to them to be told that, if all goes well, in November, or in February 1985, preference will be given to ex-Lear Fan employees when new staff are being engaged. There will have to be very serious examination of the way in which the entire project came into being and was supported and handled.
Most people recognise the importance of utilising the moneys left within the company's fund to see the project through to completion. Can the Minister give an assurance that he will examine the rights of employees to full benefits when they are laid off, and consider the entitlement of those in limbo—neither employed nor unemployed— who would like the option of having redundancy money paid to them now and of taking their chance elsewhere?
Can the Minister also give an assurance that, when the necessary certification for the aeroplane has been obtained by Lear Fan, additional moneys will, if required, be made available to support the production of planes by the company at Newtownabbey and at Antrim?
Can the Minister say whether the contract between the Government and Lear Fan includes provision for aeroplanes to be manufactured in Northern Ireland, or will parts alone be produced, or is there a real risk that, when the research and development by the company is completed, it will go into production in the United States, causing job losses in Northern Ireland? We live on hopes and promises.
712
We in Antrim, East welcome the news that the AVX is likely to expand at Larne. We look forward to that. The company has been very successful in Northern Ireland, and we would be glad to have it.
We are always looking for signs of hope and encouragement. I recently visited Kilroot park, which was formerly owned by ICI. I went there with representatives of Carrickfergus borough council and a representative of Shorts. We had an opportunity to see the excellent facilities available on that formerly derelict site. I am aware that the Shorts representative was just exploring the possibilities on that occasion, and that he was also looking at space and facilities that are available elsewhere in Carrickfergus on the Courtaulds site.
Can the Minister confirm a recent statement, attributed to a party from Northern Ireland that is not represented tonight, that Shorts is coming to Carrickfergus? Perhaps that was political good news voiced for electioneering purposes. That is just an aside, as I am not involved in the European election, but I can assure hon. Members that such a decision is the most sensible that Shorts could make. Other areas in Northern Ireland may not prove to be so attractive to it.
Under Class III, we welcome the support given for the restructuring of the gas industry and the continued subsidies to electricity tariffs. Although it has become well established that the high cost of electricity is contributing to economic decline, and although subsidies exist to maintain our electricity costs at the same rate as the highest level pertaining on the mainland, we could produce electricity much more cheaply if a decision were taken, at Kilroot or at other power stations, to convert to coal or lignite firing, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South. At Crumlin there is an unmeasurable untapped source of this product. We know that the expertise is available, and the opportunities are there to start testing. We need the equipment for conversion, so that lignite can provide us with cheaper energy and help us to become more competitive economically.
I am sorry that there is no provision for people in rural areas who still do not have the comfort and benefit of electricity supply. Many people still use Tilley lamps, gas cookers, gas fires and so on. I do not need to remind the Minister that earnings in Northern Ireland are considerably lower than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. People just cannot afford the massive expenditure required to install an electricity supply. I shall give an example. I received a letter from the Northern Ireland Electricity Service about an application by nine of my constituents. It said that to provide a supply would require
"approximately 3,500 metres of 11,000 Volt overhead line, 4 16kVA and 4 5kVA transformers, plus 100 metres of low voltage overhead line and laying an underground service cable into each property."
No grant is available for those nine homes, yet the charge is a total of £20,990. Surely, in 1984, there should be no part of the United Kingdom where there is not an accessible supply of electricity and where the Government do not give financial assistance to those who wish to install an electricity supply. The sums required would not be all that great. Today, no home should be without electricity. I hope that it will be possible for the matter to be considered and for much better provision to be made. Even

713
if only partial grant aid were given, there could be a longer term over which the residents could make their repayments.
I raised this matter elsewhere last week. Because it was raised on two or three ocasions before last week, I felt that it was important to raise it yet again in the House. The problem relates to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's policy. I share the real concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South about shoddy workmanship. In some parts of the constituency, it is still very difficult to get work done. The office in Newtownabbey at Rentalard house has too much to cope with. There are not sufficient numbers of people employed to inspect the work carried out by contractors on behalf of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Perhaps one in 100 projects is examined, which is unsatisfactory for tenants.
I refer to two areas in my constituency—Agnes street in Carrickfergus, and Tullygarley and other proposed redevelopment areas in Larne. I believe that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is promoting the rundown of the older houses, because, if improvement grants had continued to he paid out, there would have been adequate uptake and complete refurbishment. I am also concerned because I have not seen any figures setting out the cost of purchasing, demolishing and rebuilding to resettle only half as many people in the Tullygarley area.
None other than the Prime Minister, who I presume still leads and speaks for the Conservative party, is reported in My Weekly of 29 October 1983 to have replied to questions as follows:
"Liberty and property are so essentially bound up together. I try to make people more independent and more responsible for their own future, because I think this is in the nature of our character—this is how we get through.
Then one wants to bring those opportunities to people who have never had them. This explains the sale of council houses, so that those who buy them can say they are people of property. It also goes with it that you should be left with enough of your earnings to save or spend as you choose.
Again, to have true independence of government is what gives us our essential British character."
I assure the House that the people of Northern Ireland have every bit as much of that British character. That is why I ask the Minister to exercise control over the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which publicly elected representatives in Northern Ireland cannot do.
We have heard constantly today about the inadequate provision of housing in Northern Ireland in recent years and about the number of vacant properties and the length of time for which they have lain vacant. There should be a full assessment of the money required to repair vandalised properties. As the owner-occupiers, who own 95 per cent. of the property scheduled for redevelopment, have the unanimous support of Larne borough council, it is clear that the unity of purpose and community spirit for which we have been crying out in Northern Ireland exists in that community. Over the years, events have shown that it is impossible to build a new community spirit to replace what has been destroyed by redevelopment schemes. Therefore, I seek the Minister's indulgence and personal interest in respect of the proposed redevelopment scheme in that area. It is not too late for the wishes of residents to be taken into consideration.
Finally, there is the Larne to Belfast rail link. I understand that about 10 miles of line is to be replaced in the coming year. I hope that most of that will be replaced on the Larne to Belfast link. I also hope that the cross-city
714
link will become a reality, so that the major project under way in the Larne, a new terminal, is matched elsewhere in Belfast.
9.35 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate being called at this stage of the debate, and apologise for not being in the Chamber earlier. As the Under-Secretary of State is aware, I have been where, originally, he too was to have been. Not having been here for the whole debate, I do not want to trespass upon the time of the House by repeating things that have been said already. However, there are one or two questions to which I should like the Minister to address himself in his reply.
Class IX refers to provision for the health and social services within the hospitals. Has sufficient account been taken of the perinatal mortality rate in Northern Ireland? The rate is still very high in comparison with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Money spent at that stage could mean a saving in other health services later on.
I am also interested in Class X. Is the Minister satisfied that, in respect — in particular — of attendence and mobility allowances, money is not wasted in administration and reviews and that, for example, the simple tests that are sometimes used may not be misleading? I am thinking, for example, of a lad with spina bifida who had been in receipt of an allowance but has recently been turned down because he was asked to walk along a narrow level corridor and was able to do so. No account was taken of the fact that he lived in a community on a hill and that he cannot get on and off public transport. He has major difficulties, yet his family have been encouraging him to be as active as possible. Having been turned down for the allowance, he will not be able to get out of the house is he once did. I believe that in spending too much money on administration we may be wasting money in the long run.
I know that this problem is not restricted to Northern Ireland, but I ask the Minister to consult his colleagues in the DHSS on the vexed question of paying a higher level to those on long-term unemployment benefit, specially in the context of Northern Ireland.
There are people who lie down on the job and others who think that work is the only four-letter word in the modern world, but the reality is that there are not enough job opportunities for people to take up. The normal rates are a help, but the long-term unemployed have no extra cash for the renewals that are needed. The question of long-term unemployment benefit should be reconsidered.
Finally, I have a point to make about Class VIII. Some people received the mistaken impression from my question about the funding of Lagan college that I was against it per se. I am not against it per se but against the fact that voluntary grammar schools in my constituency were under pressure to unite, close or go elsewhere. I appreciate that Lagan college has changed its plans for this year and is not coming to south Belfast. However, at the time it was looking for property in south Belfast and had the Department's blessing. I saw no rhyme or reason in closing, uniting or thwarting excellent voluntary grammar schools that are open to all classes and creeds to bring in another school financed by public money.
When I raised the issue, it was a cry on behalf of people who do not have the privilege of grammar schools education and will not have the privilege of attending an all-age comprehensive school. Schools such as Park

715
Parade closed because of the foolish planning of the board and the Department. Working-class people should not be penalised. It is absurd that a board should continue to provide bussing expenses for children to go outside their board area when there are vacancies in schools within the board's area. I am objecting not to free choice but to the state subsidising bussing expeditions when there is adequate school provision in the area.
9.41 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis: I shall not repeat issues that my colleagues have already dealt with well, but will raise some constituency points, the first of which is the inevitable problem of milk quotas.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the problem of a milk producer in my constituency or, rather, a person who planned to become a milk producer in my constituency. I have here a letter that I received in reply to a question I asked the Minister in another place. It concerned a young man who had been encouraged to invest a great deal of his own money and the bank's money to go into milk production. His new herd was to come into production on 21 May as the first of his cows was due to calf then. He had a bulk milk tank sitting in the farmyard but the Milk Marketing Board would not install it.
I wanted to get something done so I wrote to the Department, which sent me a comprehensive letter. It must have been realised that I attend the House and know about the milk lake. I also know that the milk lake is not caused by producers in the United Kingdom, but that is by the way. However, I got no answer to the new producer's problem—what was he to do with the milk produced between 21 May and, I guess, because we have not been told yet, some time in September or October, when the panels are set up to examine the 3 per cent. that the Minister mentioned. What will he do with his milk? How will that man with his large investment survive for the next four or five months? It is no good saying, as did the Minister's letter:
"You may wish to advise Mr. Maguire to await the detailed letter from the Department regarding application for special treatment and then to make his formal case within the appeal procedure".
I have already alluded to the asset-stripping of empty factories in my constituency. These factories have been forced to close in the last few years because of economic difficulty, yet a small group of people have purchased them for a song, and subsequently, without any investment whatever, have sold them to various Departments. I am sorry to say it, but it appears that one of the gravest offenders is the Department of the Environment.
I know that the Under-Secretary would be unhappy to think that the department over which he has authority is aiding and abetting asset-stripping. Indeed, I pay tribute to the Minister, because when he has promised something he has tried to make it stick. I am also glad that he has at last fixed a date in his diary to visit the Dungannon district council area, even if it is only for four hours. Nevertheless, I implore him to look at what his civil servants are doing with regard to derelict factories.
It is wrong to exploit the misfortunes of those who have gone out of business and are unemployed. It was noticeable that when I brought over a Yorkshire firm
716
which was interested in setting up business in my area, the Department of Economic Development was unable to provide a list of vacant factory space for that firm.
Class V deals with grants for housing services. Will the Minister consider yet again the effect of existing housing policy? For a number of years, it was reasonably good, but it has now become almost redundant. We are now saddled with a housing policy that is beginning to change the face of rural Ulster. That policy encourages people living in substandard houses in rural areas to move into newly built houses in the towns—some of them costing £17,000, £18,000 or £20,000—whereas what is really needed is an extension of renovation grants to cover those houses requiring some demolition.
Two farmers living in the country may apply for a renovation grant for their houses. They may be living on five acres of land and have some independence. One man may not need to demolish a wall in the course of renovations and will be given his £7,500 grant. He will be able to remain in the area where he feels most at home and continue a not too well paid occupation while farming his few acres. He can retain his independence. The man on the neighbouring farm may need to knock down a wall and be refused a grant because that demolition is considered to be excessive. He is faced with the choice of keeping his family in substandard accommodation or moving to a new house in a town, as he will be encouraged to do. He will have to leave his acres and move to an unaccustomed environment. His children may find it difficult to adapt and his poorly paid job may be of little advantage to him. He may find that he is better off if he does not work but receives supplementary benefit depending on the size of his family. He will find himself worse off having moved into that house built with public money amounting to £20,000 than if he had received the £7,500 grant, which would have allowed him to remain in his natural environment.
Finally, will the Minister consider the revenue programme—not the capital programme—for the western health and social services board? In the west of the Province, especially in my constituency, the average age in the community is much higher than in other parts. We find great difficulty in maintaining our nursing and home help services. Although the Under-Secretary of State is aware of the problems and would like to help, he must realise that the western board is about £5,500,000 a year under-financed in its revenue budget compared with other parts of the Province.
I appreciate this opportunity of bringing those points to the Minister's attention and I hope that he will give me considerable hope for the future.
9.53 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: I begin by expressing my appreciation, which I trust will be echoed by all elected representatives in Northern Ireland, of the trouble which the Minister and his Department have taken to produce their directory about the people involved at different levels in the health and social services. During an earlier Appropriation debate, I suggested that such a publication would be useful. While I do not take credit for it, I congratulate the Minister and his Department on it, because it will prove a useful document for all hon. Members.
I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) said about Orlit houses built

717
by private developers. We dealt with prefabricated houses in general at an earlier stage, but we are talking now about the 50 houses in Northern Ireland erected by private developers. As my hon. Friend said, the Housing Executive has developed a technique for testing such houses, and the practice is to select houses at random for such testing, which probably involves dismantling a fairly large part of the structure. Such testing is clearly beyond the resources, in terms of cost and expertise, of owner-occupiers, and I support my hon. Friend's plea that the Housing Executive team, with its expertise, should be made available to carry out tests in, for example, two houses in each of the two groups that exist in Northern Ireland—one in Lisburn and one in Omagh.
My hon. Friend also made a useful suggestion to overcome the refusal of building societies to provide mortgages for the few houses which, for various reasons, may have to be sold—reasons that are not related to structure. It would be a great help if the Housing Executive would grant purchase loans for those half-dozen houses.
In his opening speech the Minister of State rightly paid tribute to the achievements of the Local Enterprise Development Unit and I understand that co-operation between the unit and the industrial development board is now much improved. I hope that my understanding is correct. Does the co-operation extend to a pooling of resources for promotion of the sort in which the Minister of State was engaged in America—we congratulate him on his efforts and on the potential success of his promotion tour — for the assessment of new projects and for research?
I have formed the distinct impression that the IDB and the LEDU would welcome a proposal to simplify and make more intelligible the range of schemes for industrial incentives. There is confusion in the minds of some officers in both bodies. If that is so, what must be the confusion in the minds of potential investors, especially investors from outside Northern Ireland? The Minister of State showed that he is always eager to consider suggestions for improving the functioning of the Department of Economic Development and the agencies under its control. I hope that he will consider what may prove to be the necessary streamlining of incentives.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that this is an occasion for raising grievances. It is also an occasion for drawing attention to what appear to be payments to Northern Ireland by the Exchequer, in a way that attention is not and cannot be focussed on Scotland or Wales. Therefore, it is easy for Ulster's critics and enemies to allege that the Province is a burden on the British taxpayer. They choose not to assert that Scotland, Wales, or even England are burdens—
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: And the GLC.
Mr. Molyneaux: Yes, especially the GLC. Those who complain about the subventions to Northern Ireland always stop short of suggesting which social services should be cut or which measures to reduce unemployment should be curtailed. The Dublin forum, which was mentioned in the presence of the previous occupant of the Chair, revealed the cost of running Northern Ireland, but the Foreign Minister, Mr. Barry, who claims to be a spokesman for the so-called minority in Northern Ireland, declined to explain the extent to which cuts in family allowances, which his policies would entail, would affect that minority.
718
With regard to the necessity for this order, I have never obtained any explanation of the need for what the Select Committee on Procedure referred to as a "fictional" Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. I asked this question on 1 March, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South raised the same question earlier today. Until we have an explanation for a refusal to make a start on modifying the Order in Council procedure, of which this is a part, there will remain a suspicion — one that kindles hope in the minds of terrorists—that every effort is being made to ensure that Northern Ireland is treated as something that is not part of the United Kingdom.
We are not asking that all the direct rule apparatus be swept away at a stroke, but for a start to be made, as it must be. We hope that the opportunity will be taken within the next few weeks, before we come to debate other items of Northern Ireland legislation, particularly the renewal for the tenth time in 10 years of the temporary legislation that enables the Government to govern Northern Ireland, on a temporary basis, for 12 months at a time.
Under Class XI, Vote 1, I do not know what the Secretary of State has in mind for the Northern Ireland Assembly. He was reported in the Belfast Telegraph on 6 June, the anniversary of D-Day, as attacking Northern Ireland politicians. The heading was "Prior slams politicians". That should gladden the heart of the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who took us to task earlier. The Secretary of State was reported in that article as saying:
"The Government wanted to give people in Ulster a greater responsibility for running their own affairs."
He was obviously thinking of his Northern Ireland Act 1982, setting up the Assembly but he went on to indulge in a sporting metaphor. He said:
"Every time the politicians had the ball at their feet, they kicked for touch as fast and as far as they could."
That is an unfortunate metaphor, for the Assembly is not a leather ball but a concrete block. It is not rolling anywhere, as it was vainly expected to roll. That will not surprise any hon. Member, for we illustrated the gaping holes in the 1982 Act until we had to be muzzled by the guillotine, which was imposed with the connivance of Her Majesty's Opposition — a rare operation for the Opposition to engage in. We expressed our disbelief, which was shared by all hon. Members, and we carried that expression of disbelief and disapproval into the Division Lobby. We never deceived the people of Northern Ireland into imagining that they had, or ever would have, the ball at their feet.
In this report, the Secretary of State went on to whine,
"They"—
that is, Northern Ireland politicians—
"will always want someone else to blame if things go wrong. I am on the receiving end and I don't think it is fair. The people themselves should be responsible for their own destiny"—
a favourite phrase of his. He said, too, that it does them no good if they believe that there is always someone else to take responsibility.
The Secretary of State was thus announcing what is virtually a new constitutional doctrine, because hitherto it was believed that the Secretary of State alone was charged with the responsibility for governing Northern Ireland, in company with his right hon. and hon. Friends. Certain critics of the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), during his time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, claimed that he behaved as if he had a right to

719
govern Northern Ireland. But he had that right and would have been guilty of negligence had he failed to discharge the duty which that right conferred upon him.
If the present Secretary of State is to be believed, we are in for exciting times. Presumably we shall see the Prime Minister declining to perform her duty on the ground that she does not have the consent of the leaders of the Opposition parties in the House of Commons. If the "Prior philosophy" catches on, the right hon. Lady will have to take account of the need not only for cross-party consent here in the House of Commons but for consent of the community outside perhaps in the shape of Messrs Scargill and Livingstone.
Viewing Class XI, Vote 1, I derived some degree of comfort from the final words of the Secretary of State reported in the Belfast Telegraph. According to that report, he said, for the first time in my memory, that
"He was not committed to any particular path which the Assembly should take and said that suggestions would be seriously considered."
We have met the right hon. Gentleman's challenge in advance and we alone of all the parties in Northern Ireland have put into print a document entitled "The Way Forward" which signposts the path for the future. While the Secretary of State has made sympathetic noises, there has been no real action in the way of a start to dismantling the apparatus of direct rule or any modest start to giving the elected representatives at least some of the responsibilities to which he referred in his speech.
As a means of expressing our dissatisfaction at the lack of progress and perhaps as a means of stimulating and encouraging the Secretary of State to do better, I shall be advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the No Lobby tonight.
10.7 pm
Mr. Derek Fatchett: We have had a wide-ranging and extensive debate. For many of us it has been an excellent trip round Northern Ireland and its constituencies. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke of the possibility of taking the Minister for a walk on some occasion. All his colleagues have taken the House on a trip round Northern Ireland. That has probably been a useful constitutional exercise and one against which no one could argue. Those hon. Members not present tonight may have been tempted by the counter-attractions of campaigning in the European elections, but I am sure that they will be saddened to have missed the wide-ranging nature of this debate.
I was interest ed in many ways by the contribution of the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who, sadly, is not with us at the moment. His speech may have led to certain disquiet and tremors among members of the Official Unionist party. He put forward a very interesting political thesis. He argued that the level of public spending in Northern Ireland was greater than in other parts of the United Kingdom and that Northern Ireland was dependent upon that high level of public spending. He went further and said that if the politicians of Northern Ireland did not resolve their own problems amongst themselves, the British people would have the right to adopt a position showing their indifference and hostility towards the people of Northern Ireland and the way in which the Province was currently organised and administered by its politicians.
720
That hypothesis shows that there are those in the Conservative party who recognise that the British people's support for the continued division of Ireland will not be indefinite and that it is dependent upon the behaviour of the politicians of Ulster. The hon. Member for Dorset, North did a service to his party and to the House when he reminded us that the constitutional position was that this Parliament and the British people had the right to make a judgment about the future of Northern Ireland.
The Minister painted an encouraging picture of the state of the Northern Ireland economy. I found that picture not totally matching the reality of the situation there. He referred, for instance, to the fact that the loss of jobs in manufacturing in 1983 was only 1,800 compared with 10,000 in 1982. That demonstrates the failure of the Government in that they measure success in terms of a smaller number of job losses rather than in terms of jobs created. Yet Conservative Members sit complacently when 121,000 people are unemployed in Northern Ireland, when there is 28 per cent. male unemployment and when 47 per cent. of the unemployed have been out of work for more than a year.
Mr. Francis Maude: The hon. Gentleman refers to my hon. Friends sitting complacently on these Benches. What comment does he have to make about Opposition Members who are not even present?
Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friends have made it clear that they are concerned about the level of unemployment and would bring forward policies to try to resolve the problem. Indeed, not only is there complacency on the Government Benches, but certain Conservative Members are prepared to use the high level of unemployment as a political and economic weapon.
Mr. Adam Butler: The leader of the Official Unionists said that there would be a Division later. Will the Labour party vote with or against the Government?
Mr. Fatchett: The Labour party will be abstaining— [Interruption.]—because we are concerned to maintain the levels of public expenditure in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we will not be voting against the order.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) drew attention to the injustice involved for the long-term unemployed—47 per cent. of the unemployed population of Northern Ireland—and we should like to see that group added to those in receipt of the higher supplementary benefit rates.
Against the background of a failing economy and Government complacency or indifference, I was interested in the contributions of Official Unionist party Members, who seem to suffer from a degree of schizophrenia. Some of them want to cut public expenditure, some feel that the level of public expenditure in Northern Ireland is adequate, some want to see the level of public expenditure increased and some of them want both.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) introduced a notion which may not always attract his hon. Friends—the notion that monetarism is leading to the closure of schools in Northern Ireland. He may agree with me that that same monetarism, which is the official policy of the Government, is leading to the high levels of unemployment to which I have referred. That monetarism will lead to a continuation of policies which, I suspect, not only the Government but some of his hon. Friends would

721
like to see continued. It may be, therefore, that before the Official Unionists debate the economy, they should work out their act to discover what they want to do on public spending and whether they want it increased or decreased.
Having shown that degree of division or schizophrenia, Official Unionist Members may care to reflect on some of the divisions that exist in the Northern Ireland Office and the Government. The Minister of State is known very much as a dry in economic theory terms. He said in the previous debate that there were to be continued long-term constraints on the level of public spending, while his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), sang the praises of the high level of public spending, and, I suspect, would like to see public spending increased. Thus, while the hon. Member for Bath says that some of the Official Unionists showed divisions in their comments, it may well be the case that what we observe in the Northern Ireland Office is the divisions that are so clear in the Government. Whether they are to continue with those monetary policies will be one of the key debates that will take place in the Conservative party. It is a great shame that in Northern Ireland that debate takes place in microcosm in the Northern Ireland Office.
I wish to make one or two detailed points about the Northern Ireland economy. We would be satisfied with the work of the Local Enterprise Development Unit. We recognise that in the course of the last year LEDU promoted more jobs than the official target set for that organisation. While this performance is encouraging, it is a drop in the ocean compared with the total number of jobs that would be required to get us back to the position in 1979 when the Labour party left office. We would need 65,000 jobs to recreate that position. That is an indication of the Government's economic failure.
We are concern ed that there are suggestions—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will share this point to a great exten—that LEDU money could be used to support firms that may be established to do work that will be privatised in the Health Service. We would consider that a violation of LEDU's objectives, not consistent with the way in which LEDU has been working, or with the criteria under which it has been working. As I understand it, that would simply take work away from the public sector and put it into LEDU firms financed by public money. Surely LEDU operates on the basis, not of privatising but of trying to encourage new work and new markets. I should like the Minister to make it clear that he will not encourage LEDU to come forward with developments that will enable firms to privatise work that would otherwise take place in the public sector.
My second detailed point on the economy relates to the fact that in 1983–84 the Government underspent on industrial development by £32 million. As a result, the Government have reduced the trade and industry sub-programme for 1984–85 from £187 million to £175 million. Earlier in the debate, the Minister painted an encouraging picture, although it was not the reality. Every development to which he referred depended upon public spending and Government money, which is inconsistent with the philosophy officially espoused on the s Conservative Benches. If every development is dependent upon Government money and public spending, why are the Government cutting back on the amount of money that will be available for industrial development?
The economy in Northern Ireland presents us with a difficult and worrying picture. It is a picture that is
722
reproduced throughout the United Kingdom, one that reflects the policies and values of the Government, and one regarding which we would hope, but with little expectation of fulfilment, that the Government would change policy, change their priorities and take some action to get people back to work. It Is disturbing that no Official Unionist Member has asked for measures to get people back to work or spelt out the priority that the Official Unionist party attaches to jobs.
I do not apologise for returning to the subject of housing. The Government have said that housing is one of their priorities, but we feel that there is still an enormous housing problem in Northern Ireland and that the Government could do much more than they are doing or show any inclination to do.
One house in seven in Northern Ireland is unfit for people to live in—a rate three times greater than that in England. A total of 142,000 houses need some form of remedial action to raise them to acceptable standards, and every fifth house lacks one or more of the five basic amenities. That is the scale of the housing problem in Northern Ireland and the problem is much greater than that in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Northern Ireland Housing Executive estimates that the current housing shortage in Northern Ireland may be between 30,000 and 60,000 homes. Against that background, we cannot afford to be complacent and we would have expected the Government to bring forward more adventurous and bolder plans.
Mr. Ross: Has the hon. Gentleman been to Londonderry recently? Does he know what the waiting list is there? Can he tell us about the housing situation in the second city of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Fatchett: I have quoted the official figures from the Housing Executive. The hon. Gentleman may challenge those figures if he wishes.
Mr. Ross: I would dearly love to swap the waiting list in my constituency with that in Londonderry, where there are only 1,000 on the list. I have not seen more money put into housing in the second city of any other part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Fatchett: The people on the Isle of Wight might be willing to take that bargain and swap the hon. Gentleman on the same basis.
I rely on the official figures. lithe hon. Gentleman does not believe them, he can take them up with the Housing Executive.
Mr. Ross: I do not believe them.
Mr. Fatchett: If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about the matter, why did he not intervene in the debate?
Mr. McCusker: How does the hon. Gentleman square his comments with the official figures for 31 March 1983 which showed that the three housing areas in Londonderry had 74, 71 and 10 vacant properties? In a town in my constituency, there are 1,161 such properties and a neighbouring town has 118. There are 140 vacant properties in Coleraine, 207 in the Belfast 5 housing area, 212 in Antrim and 171 in Ballymena. Did the hon. Gentleman hear me say that in most parts of Northern Ireland there are more houses than are required?
Mr. Fatchett: If the hon. Gentleman read the Official Report, he would find an explanation. The location and type of house play an important part in the equation and the hon. Gentleman has not taken that into account.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said that there was no causal relationship between the high unemployment and the high rent arrears in Northern Ireland. He seemed to suggest—perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—that the rent arrears were the result of either personal inadequacy or fecklessness on the part of the individuals involved. If that is so, why is the level of rent arrears in Northern Ireland favourable compared with that in many of the London boroughs? For instance, in 1982 the average rent arrears in Haringey was £231·64, in Lambeth £132·22 and in Northern Ireland £89·46. The right hon. Member for Down, South may say that the tenants in Haringey, Lambeth and other London boroughs are more feckless and inadequate than tenants in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman did his constituents less than a service when he based his argument on fecklessness and inadequacy.
Even if there is no simple causal relationship between unemployment and rent arrears, surely it is necessary to take into account both the growth in unemployment and its duration. Many people are now unemployed for the first time in their lives and are unemployed for a long time. As a result, they face financial problems, including paying rent, which are not of their own making. They are directly related to unemployment and Government policy.
At the end of 1978, 61,000 people in Northern Ireland were unemployed. Today's figure is 120,000. About 47 per cent. of unemployed people have been out of work for more than a year. In the United Kingdom the figure is 37·8 per cent.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) refers to my argument. I refer him to the evidence taken by the Public Accounts Committee, which shows no corresponding increase in arrears in relation to the increase in unemployment.
Mr. Fatchett: The relationship may not be simple in that sense. Government Members would not expect a simple one-to-one relationship, or do they argue that every unemployed person will find it difficult or impossible to pay rent? My argument is that the rapid increase and duration of unemployment increases problems and more and more people will be in arrears with their rents. The direct reason for that is Government policy and the use of unemployment as a weapon of economic and political management.
We have had a wide-ranging debate, which has dealt with the economy and other issues. As the hon. Member for Dorset, North said, we should not view the economic issues in isolation, but as part of the constitutional and political problem in Ireland. We should like an early opportunity to debate the political and constitutional issues and to show how the divisions of Ireland have exacerbated the north's economic problems. We should welcome the opportunity for hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Dorset, North to intervene to show the extent to which the Conservative party is weakening in its commitment to the Union. We recognise that weakening and the importance of such a constitutional debate. I look forward to that debate taking place and —
Mr. Nicholas Baker: I am grateful for some of the things that the hon. Gentleman said, but if he was saying that I was somehow weakening in my support for the Union of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, he must have misheard what I said.
Mr. Fatchett: I listened with great interest to the contribution that the hon. Member made earlier in the debate. The logic of his argument was that the British people may well at a certain point feel an indifference, an antipathy, towards Northern Ireland if the people of Northern Ireland do not resolve their own problems. He then went on to say that at that point the British people may well take—and have a right to take—a certain decision. That is not a position from which I would differ, and I think it is an important development in terms of debate. It is those constitutional issues that we need to pursue on a further occasion.
10.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): We have had, as usual, as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said a moment or two ago, a wide-ranging debate which I have had the pleasure once again of attending throughout. It is a task both engaging and impossible to sum up a discussion which goes quite as wide as this. We welcome the hon. Member for Leeds, Central to our deliberations even if he was not able to bring many of his right hon. and hon. Friends with him. He told us that the Labour party is intending to abstain, although, unlike a former Member of this House who represented a Northern Ireland constituency, the party is clearly not intending to abstain in person.
It is a great thing, as the hon. Gentleman will discover the longer he takes part in our discussions on Northern Ireland, to follow in the footsteps of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), and we hope that in due course the hon. Gentleman will know as much about Northern Ireland as the right hon. Member does, and serve Northern Ireland as that right hon. Member has done.
Today's debate has perhaps been affected to some extent by the exhilarating imminence of the elections to the European Parliament, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) referred. We have certainly not had all the fire and brimstone that we usually get in these debates. Our loss is doubtless the European election campaign's loss too.
I shall try not to add too much to the excitement this evening. As usual, if I do not have the time or the information to answer a point made by a right hon. or hon. Member during the debate, I shall see that a letter is dispatched as soon as possible covering the point.
The familiarity of the form and scope of the debate extends as well to one of the notes which has echoed throughout most of it. Implicit—even explicit—in a number of the speeches that have been made is the suggestion that Northern Ireland should get more public expenditure, or, in one or two cases, the suggestion that Northern Ireland is being done out of something to which The Province is entitled. I have never found that approach particularly helpful. I think it corrupts sensible and rational argument about the situation in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland has special problems in social and economic as well as in security matters. In order to try to deal with those problems, the Government spend

725
substantially more per head of population—between 30 and 40 per cent. more—than is spent in the rest of the United Kingdom. As I have said before, that is not a gratuitous handout; it is a generous and appropriate recognition of the particular problems of part of our country. It was in attempting to draw attention to those problems in a speech a week or two ago that I referred to poverty in Northern Ireland. I was interested that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) concluded from what I had said that I had somehow suggested that Northern Ireland's problems were too special. Perhaps I may quote from my speech, which sounds even better when I re-read it than it did at the time. I said:
"Not every region of Great Britain is markedly better off in every way than Northern Ireland. We have to be careful therefore not to over-emphasise the differences in the scale of poverty in Northern Ireland. We need also to consider whether the Province's lower average living standard is a result of more people with a low standard depressing the average or of most people living at a similar standard with a small proporion in much greater poverty. Nevertheless, there are differences"—
of course there are—
"between Northern Ireland and other regions of the United Kingdom which are well illustrated by the major services for which I am responsible, the health service and housing."
I shall refer to those in more detail later on. I believe that that is accurate. I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman deduced from my remarks what he appeared to deduce. I thought for a moment that we would hear about the Upper Bann austerity package, but the hon. Gentleman stopped a little short of that.
I am sure that he would concede that the idea that we might expect greater disparity between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in public spending is ludicrously far from the truth. It is almost inconceivable that we shall see a further exponential increase in Northern Ireland's public expenditure and — this follows from something that was said by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central—it is inconceivable and thoroughly undesirable in an economy in which about 70 per cent. of GNP is accounted for by public spending. I wish that awareness of that fact would inform rather more political argument than it does. The level of public expenditure in Northern Ireland is a sign of weakness, and another large increase in public spending could lead to further enfeeblement, not to a strengthening of our regional economy.
The argument should not, therefore, concern whether we can avoid the debate on priorities by raising the base line of expenditure, but whether we have those priorities right and on what we should spend less in order to accommodate those priorities in our total spending. The argument should be about whether we are spending the money that we have wisely and well.
I add reservations to that. They are shared by many hon. Members and were expressed again today, as to whether we have our priorities right within the total housing budget. That helps to explain some of the changes made in our housing strategy in the past year, with the reduction in the new build programme. I also have reservations about priorities in relation to some other areas over which I have ministerial responsibility. I hope that I shall have time to express my reservations about the Health Service later on.
It is important for us to discuss our total public spending programme in this way, recognising that there is no justification for a particular level of entitlement in every area. That would be just irresponsible populist politics. If there is super-parity in one area, it stands to reason that we cannot do as much elsewhere as we might like.
726
An area in which we have super-parity in expenditure is in housing, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members this evening, including the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. In a wide-ranging speech, the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker)—I am grateful for the kind things that he said about me, and I shall attempt to reciprocate on several future occasions — raised several points about housing. He seemed to concede that it had been chosen by the Government as a foremost priority, for the good reason that the level of housing unfitness in the Province is so much worse than on this side of the water. One explanation is that little new housing had been built in Northern Ireland between the wars, unlike the position in Great Britain.
Since we gave priority to housing in 1980–81, gross expenditure—some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may find these figures difficult to appreciate — has increased by more than 60 per cent. in five years. From 1980–81, until this financial year, gross spending on housing will have exceeded £2,180 million. In that period, we shall have spent £426 million on new building, £260 million on improving Housing Executive stock — and £190 million on housing renovation grants and £145 million on housing associations.
We shall also have spent £213 million on maintenance —an increase of 44 per cent. Understandably, the hon. Members for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) and for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) were concerned about resources. The resources allocated to both planned and response maintenance in 1984–85 reflect in full the Housing Executive's own assessment of its requirements. Clearly, the Housng Executive must set its own priorities, but I assure both hon. Members that its maintenance programmes are not being hampered by lack of funds.
Expenditure on improving existing dwellings and estates increased by 228 per cent. in the same five-yeas period. Not to recognise how that commitment of public funds has transformed many parts of the Province and the quality of life of many people in Northern Ireland is simply churlish. I do not make that charge against the hon. Member for Leeds, Central but merely suggest that the hon. Gentleman is not excessively burdened with knowledge of the subject. We hope that he will be able to come and see more for himself in the next few months.
Mr. Fatchett: I said that, although we did not criticise the Government's policies, the Government could not afford to be complacent about what they were doing, because there was still a housing problem in Northern Ireland. I then quoted statistics to back up that assertion. Surely the Minister would not criticise such an approach. I was simply saying that there was a job to be done. I am sure that, if he can persuade his colleagues in government to make the necessary funds available, he will wish to do the job that I have signposted.
Mr. Patten: We are certainly not complacent, but I do not think that it would be reasonable to ask my colleages for an even larger increase in expediture on housing. I do not believe that that could possibly be justified. I believe that the present programme is just about right to deal with the problems that we face.
I do not want to make too much of an issue of this, but I believe that the hon. Gentleman's figures predate the present programme. For example, I believe that he quoted figures for housing unfitness from the last house condition

727
survey. I am sure that the figures that will emerge from the next survey later this year will tell a very different story. So far as we can tell, our aim of a 1 per cent. per year improvement on housng unfitness has been exceeded by more than 100 per cent.
Mr. Fatchett: I was quoting the latest available figures.
Mr. Pattern: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can have been quoting the latest available official figures, as I believe that the latest figures suggest an infitness level of 9 per cent. compared with 14 per cent. in the last house condition survey. I do not want to make an issue of this, but the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave bear no relation to the housing situation on the ground in Northern Ireland. Whether one is Left, Right, centre or flat earth, I believe that that is the situation.
I am especially pleased at the way in which we have been able to encourage home ownership. As hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies know, this cuts right across both class and sectarian bounds. Through the Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association, which will receive a Government grant of £12·5 million this year, many families have been able to take the first steps towards home ownership, which just a few years ago they would have regarded as well beyond their means.
Private sector house starts are running at record levels and 20,000 Housing Executive tenants have bought their own homes. Building society lending last year was 20 per cent. up on the figure for 1982 and the societies' own figures show that more than four out of 10 first-time buyers in Northern Ireland who were helped by building societies had incomes under £7,000 per year. That is a success story in any language.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North and other hon. Members referred to the problem of standards in the construction industry—a problem which in the past has also concerned some of my hon. Friends.
With the enthusiastic support of the leaders of the construction industry—indeed, to be fair, in response to their vigorous prompting over a considerable time— I recently announced measures to combat malpractices in the construction industry. I hope that those measures will lead not only to a reduction in abuse and racketeering but to a general rise in standards.
Several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Members for Belfast, North and for Upper Bann, referred to Orlit homes. As the House knows, two groups of people are involved. There are those who have bought system-built houses from the Housing Executive—houses which may be defective—and there are those who are Housing Executive tenants in such homes. Some hon. Members referred to a third group — those who bought Orlit homes which had been built by the private sector. We intend that those in the first category should be given the same rights as will apply in Great Britain after the passage of the Housing Defects Bill, which is well on its way to the statute book. Owners will be able to get a 90 per cent. repair grant and will be able to claim 95 per cent. repurchase terms. We shall follow the Great Britain legislation as soon as we can with an Order in Council for Northern Ireland. If there are any difficulties in the
728
meantime, I will be prepared to consider administrative arrangements for assistance if urgent action seems necessary to avoid hardship in individual cases.
As I have said in the past, we cannot extend the proposed legislation to cover defective houses built by the private sector. We cannot reasonably be expected to act as guarantor for a wholly private transaction. However, the Housing Executive is prepared to consider approaches by private sector owners about the availability of repair grants under the terms of the 1983 Housing Order (Northern Ireland). I will refer to the chairman of the Housing Executive the suggestion that the Housing Executive could underwrite the mortgages of those private sector Orlit owners. I am bound to say, however, that I can see grave difficulties in such a proposal.
The Housing Executive has still not completed its survey of its own stock of Orlit homes, mainly because of the difficulty of gaining access to some houses. However, in the work that it has already done, the Housing Executive has not identified any situations which could pose a danger to occupants.
I hope that the survey will be completed soon. I understand the anxieties that have been aroused, not least because I represent a number of families who live in such houses. I hope that we will soon be able to consider proposals from the Housing Executive for dealing with its stock, and also to consider the financial consequences for the housing budget as a whole of that programme of improvement.
A number of points were made about health and personal social services. I could dwell on them at length, but I shall say only that those who criticise the levels of provision for health and personal social services in Northern Ireland should consider the recent report of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, which argued — I did not agree with the argument—that we are spending too much on the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland.
Some changes must be made. It is clear that we must go further in rationalising acute care beds. The Minister who does that will make himself extremely unpopular, but it must be done.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred once again, quite properly, to the importance of adequate co-ordination between the Housing Executive and the personal social services with regard to families who fall into arrears either with rent or with heating charges. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman raised that matter when we last discussed Appropriation in the Province. I took it up with both of my Departments. I hope that I shall be able to say something more positive next time we have the opportunity to discuss these matters. It is extremely important and deserves sympathetic and urgent attention.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth) mentioned perinatal mortality, which I know he has raised on previous occasions. We are anxious to reduce infant and perinatal mortality rates which, unfortunately, are still higher in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Implementation of the Baird report on infant death and handicap is among the priorities in the regional strategic plan, in which the hon. Gentleman took such a close and helpful interest when it was before the Assembly and when we had a chance to talk about it in the House. Provision in this year's Estimates allows for £3·5 million of new money—that represents about 0·7 per cent.—to

729
enable the services to make progress on these priorities. I know that that is not as much as many hon. Members would like, but I think it a reasonable response to the level of need to which I have referred.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North referred to a matter that is, I am afraid, all too relevant to this discussion—the level of death grant. It has remained unchanged for many years. As I said in the previous Appropriation debate, the future of the benefit has been the subject of detailed consideration by my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security for some time. I am sorry not to be able to report more progress. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's worry that the level of grant, at £30, is of little value nowadays. I hope that the policy reviews on social security that are now in progress will help to resolve the matter.
Perhaps I can deal with the points that other right hon. and hon. Members have raised seriatim. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, who we quite understand had to go to a prior engagement this evening, raised several matters. One was Lear Fan, which the hon. Members for Antrim, South and for Antrim, East touched on. I do not believe that I can add anything to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said. If there are points that he did not cover and I have not been able to cover, I am sure that we shall be able to touch on them in correspondence.
As time presses and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West is not here, perhaps we can deal with his points about education in correspondence. He mentioned the rate of supplementary benefit for the long-term unemployed, as did the hon. Member for Belfast, South. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to confirm, which I do, that it is the cost of increasing the rate of supplementary benefit to the long-term unemployed, rather than the principle, which is the obstacle. I do not have to hand figures for that cost, but I suspect that those quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman are a trifle on the low side. Nevertheless, I could not envisage making that significant change in Northern Ireland alone. Social security is handled essentially and quite properly on a United Kingdom basis. I appreciate the anxiety of the Northern Ireland Consumer Council, the Social Security Advisory Committee, which we were able to welcome to Northern Ireland, and other bodies. No doubt those anxieties will be examined again in the policy review of supplementary benefit that was recently announced in the House.
The right hon. Member for Down, South invited me to take a further walk at Killough, which I shall do with enthusiasm. I shall look into the point he raised. He mentioned the fact that we are debating these issues earlier than normal and questioned the refinements of procedure that have enabled us to do so. I do not want to sound too prosaic but I understand that Departments other than the Department of Finance and Personnel took the responsibility for proof reading and checking the various Votes. That, taken together with quicker printing, enabled us to cut four or five weeks off the normal timing. None of that is in any way a criticism of the Department which my hon. Friend runs with such skill.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to catchment areas for psychiatric services, particularly to the Donaldson report and to the position of the Downshire hospital. As he knows, this matter is under consideration at present, and my Department intends to consult further with the
730
health and social service boards before any final decisions are taken. In the meantime, the eastern board is examining responses to its consultation paper about the proposed new psychiatric boundaries in its area, including the Downshire hospital. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of the case in principle for realigning the boundaries of the catchment areas, which he argued with his usual clarity and realism. I accept his view that it would be wrong to make these changes before we could ensure that the necessary provision, both in physical and human terms, was in place for the new clientele.
That is an important aspect of our further discussions with the boards. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have visited the Downshire hospital. I am well aware of the arguments affecting it, and I can fully understand why those arguments are put so strongly. I have also been able to discuss them with the district council. I hope that it is not long before we are able to clear matters up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), whom we always welcome to these debates, asked about pupil-teacher ratios and the comparison between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It is true that overall pupil-teacher ratios in Northern Ireland lag some way behind other regions in the United Kingdom, but the pupil-teacher ratio in secondary schools in Northern Ireland is second only to Scotland.
The Government's policy remains that of at least maintaining existing ratios. Indeed, there have been modest improvements in recent years, from 19 in 1980 to 18·7 in 1983. Not only is the maintenance of pupil-teacher ratios important, but so is the calibre of teachers in the profession, and we must continue to have high regard to the improvement of the intake to the teaching profession and the further training opportunities of serving teachers.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) asked when we expected to be able to announce the Government's decision on the conversion of oil-fired power stations to use coal or lignite. I am advised to say that I would be reluctant to predict when a final decision might be announced, but we intend that it should not be long delayed.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North raised mainly housing questions, which I thank I have already dealt with. He also drew attention to the lack of conveniences in the centre of Belfast. I shall take the matter up with my Department and the city council and attempt to come to the relief of his constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) made an interesting speech. It is always valuable for Great Britain Members to take part in our debates, but if I were to respond to what he said I would be even further from the subject of the debate than he was.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and others referred to milk and related issues. I cannot usefully add very much to what I said during an Adjournment debate last Thursday, but I am sure that my noble Friend and my hon. Friend will have many future opportunities to discuss this important issue, both in the House and outside it.
The hon. Members for Antrim, South and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson) asked about expenditure on roads. I admit that we have recently cut expenditure on roads substantially partly to accommodate an increase in housing expenditure. That decision about priorities is wholly justified. This year it was important to make more money available for maintenance and improvements, even

731
at the expense of a larger cut than would have taken place in the major capital works budget. Therefore, we cut £6 million from major capital works and will find £1 million extra for minor works and £2 million extra for maintenance. That should enable us to maintain the fabric of Northern Ireland's excellent roads, but I realise that that will not protect me from the wrath of district councils when I visit them during the coming months.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) referred to replacement grants. I am conscious of the requests made for such grants. My predecessor corresponded with many public representatives on the matter. The fundamental difficulty with the proposal is that there is no parallel on this side of the water, and there are no plans to introduce such a grant here. The introduction of replacement grant in Northern Ireland would therefore result in a departure from parity and might be difficult to justify.
More to the point, I expect that the forthcoming 1984 house condition survey will show how successful the present grant system is in dealing with unfitness, especially in rural areas. If it shows a continuing and substantial problem, we shall carefully consider the options open to us within the existing renovations grants scheme. Clearly, the outcome of that survey will help to
732
determine the argument that we shall have during the coming months. It is right to examine the survey before taking the matter further.
One constitutional point has surfaced continually during the debate. It comes with the regularity of the tides. The right hon. Member for Down, South, as always, criticised our legislative procedures. His argument was a familiar one. I do not suggest that familiarity breeds contempt, but there is not much to be gained by my deploying the Government's reply to the right hon. Gentleman's case again. Even if I had the gift of the gab, or, like the pentecostalists, the gift of tongues, I would not be able to convince him of the wisdom of our case, just as he, with such a bard's tongue, seems unlikely to convince us. However, he seems to have convinced his right hon. and hon. Friends that they should accompany him through the Lobby to vote against this admirable order. They cannot have their hearts in it, especially during the last fever-pitched hours before the European election campaign, but we must all do odd things in life from time to time.
If the House divides, I hope that other hon. Members will give the order and the people of Northern Ireland, who will benefit from it, the support that they deserve.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 12.

Division No. 359]

[11.03 pm

AYES

Ancram, Michael

Hawksley, Warren

Arnold, Tom

Hayes, J.

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Heddle, John

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Henderson, Barry

Berry, Sir Anthony

Hickmet, Richard

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Hicks, Robert

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hind, Kenneth

Bottomley, Peter

Hirst, Michael

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Holt, Richard

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Brinton, Tim

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Budgen, Nick

Hunter, Andrew

Burt, Alistair

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Butcher, John

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Butler, Hon Adam

Key, Robert

Carttiss, Michael

Kirkwood, Archy

Cash, William

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Conway, Derek

Knowles, Michael

Coombs, Simon

Knox, David

Cope, John

Latham, Michael

Cranborne, Viscount

Lawler, Geoffrey

Dorrell, Stephen

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Lester, Jim

Dover, Den

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Dykes, Hugh

Lord, Michael

Favell, Anthony

Luce, Richard

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Lyell, Nicholas

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Forth, Eric

Macfarlane, Neil

Franks, Cecil

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Freeman, Roger

Maclean, David John

Freud, Clement

Madel, David

Galley, Roy

Major, John

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Marland, Paul

Goodlad, Alastair

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Gorst, John

Mather, Carol

Gregory, Conal

Maude, Hon Francis

Ground, Patrick

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Merchant, Piers

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Harris, David

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Moynihan, Hon C.

734

Needham, Richard

Stradling Thomas, J.

Neubert, Michael

Sumberg, David

Newton, Tony

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Nicholls, Patrick

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Norris, Steven

Terlezki, Stefan

Oppenheim, Philip

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Ottaway, Richard

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Page, John (Harrow W)

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Thurnham, Peter

Pawsey, James

Tracey, Richard

Powell, William (Corby)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Powley, John

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Renton, Tim

Viggers, Peter

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Waddington, David

Roe, Mrs Marion

Waller, Gary

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Rowe, Andrew

Watson, John

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Watts, John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Whitney, Raymond

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Spencer, Derek

Winterton, Nicholas

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Wolfson, Mark

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wood, Timothy

Stanbrook, Ivor

Yeo, Tim

Steen, Anthony

Stern, Michael

Tellers for the Ayes

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Mr. Ian Lang and

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Mr. Douglas Hogg.

NOES

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

Beggs, Roy

Skinner, Dennis

Corbyn, Jeremy

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

Madden, Max

Maginnis, Ken

Tellers for the Noes:

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Mr. Harold McCusker and

Nicholson, J.

Mr. William Ross.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved, That the draft Appropriation (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 9 May, be approved.

Afia Begum
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
11.15 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I wish to discuss the deportation of Afia Begum and her baby daughter Asma. This was a disgraceful action, not only because of the harsh treatment of Afia and Asma but because of the circumstances of the deportation. I want to put that firmly on record.
On 7 March, I was given leave by the House under the ten minute Bill rule to introduce my Entry Clearance (Change of Circumstances) Bill, which was inspired by the case of Afia and Asma. I gave details of that case then, and I repeat them briefly:
"In January 1982 Afia was granted an entry certificate to join her husband in Britain. On 15 March 1982 fire swept through the slum tenement in Brick lane where he lived and he was tragically killed. Afia was allowed in to clear up her husband's affairs but, on arrival, was effectively told, 'Your circumstances have changed. Your entry permit is invalidated and you are no longer allowed to stay.'
No account was taken of Afia's family. Her father is settled in Britain and has been here for 26 years, her mother has formally applied to join him and, under the present law, will eventually be allowed that right and her uncles and other relatives also live here. Moreover, no account was taken of the personal circumstances created by deportation for Afia. As a widow with a baby and away from her family, she is condemned to a solitary future, as most of her family are in England. That has happened only because of her husband's tragic death and the Home Office's haste to re-interpret the rules in the harshest possible way to capitalise on his death to exclude her.
The Home Office's hard line has forced Afia and her baby into hiding for more than one year. They have been protected by a courageous group of Asian women known as the sari squad." —[Official Report, 7 March 1984; Vol. 55, c. 854–55.]
Many hon. Members protested to the Minister and the Home Office. I put down an early-day motion which was signed by more than 70 right hon. and hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that he thought that Afia Begum was a victim of prejudice of the worst kind and at the highest level. It all fell on deaf ears. The Tory party, which is supposed to be the party of choice, did not intend to let Afia have any choice about which country she could settle in. The Tory party, the party of the family, intended to split this family.
This treatment is disgraceful enough — incidentally, the Minister has never taken the opportunity to defend his policy in the House, even though it was questioned here —but the nature of the deportation was equally, if not more, disgraceful. At 6 o'clock in the morning of Thursday 3 May the police arrived at the address where Afia was staying, bundled her and the baby into a van and sent them off to Harmondsworth. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and I demanded an urgent meeting with the Minister and saw him that evening.
The Minister sat with an assistant and a civil servant quite unimpressed by our case. I was reminded of what it must have been like for Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany in the 1930s facing hard-hearted officials and being sent back.
We put to the Minister the case of Afia's mother and her young brothers having the right to come here eventually, and all that he could utter was a veiled threat
736
that Afia's application could be delayed almost indefinitely, presumably as a result of Home Office inquiries and the manipulation of the rules. Although he admitted that her case was rare, he showed no compassion for her personal circumstances or for the frail condition of her father. He said that he would consider the case, but he held out little hope of success. The only success achieved by the deputation was that her father was allowed to visit her in Harmondsworth, a right which had previously been denied her.
The following day, Friday 7 May, a Home Office assistant telephoned me to say that the Department intended to deport her and that she would have to leave the next day. The reason for the haste could only have been that the Government were keen to take advantage of the bank holiday weekend to pre-empt any discussion of the matter in this House and a debate in the European Parliament, which in fact took place later in the month.
Four hon. Members contacted the Home Office, and all their representations were effectively ignored. A city councillor from Amsterday, Tara Singh, telexed the Home Office saying that she was prepared to allow Afia stay in her home in Holland prior to the European Court case. A Dutch MEP, Madam Van Den Henyel, also telexed the Home Office saying that she would make representations to the Dutch Government for Afia to stay in Holland. But as it was late on the Friday, the deportation needed to be delayed over the weekend so that effective representations could be made. Those representations were callously ignored by the Home Office.
In other words, this law and order Tory Government perverted the course of European law. Desperate to make sure that Afia was out of the way, they deported her as quickly as possible, before the European Court of Human Rights considered the matter. I contacted the Home Office to ask for an urgent meeting to discuss the important representations that had been made for Afia to stay in Holland, but the Minister was not available and my approaches were effectively ignored.
Afia and Asma were bundled on to a plane to Bangladesh at 10 o'clock the next morning, Saturday 8 May, despite brave protests by members of the sari squad, and when the plane reached Holland, Afia and her baby were not allowed to leave it.
The European Parliament considered the case on 24 May and carried, by 71 votes to 58, a resolution
"noting that the United Kingdom Government has deported Afia Begum, a citizen of Bangladesh, who was living in the United Kingdom,
noting that if Afia Begum's husband had been alive, she would have been entitled to stay in the United Kingdom,
noting that Afia Begum's husband died tragically in a fire in the East End of London and that the British Government said that as a result Afia Begum was no longer entitled to live in the United Kingdom,
noting that Afia Begum's father, who is old and ill, and other close relatives live in London,
noting that Afia Begum has no means of support for herself and infant daughter in Bangladesh, to where the United Kingdom Government has deported her and her child,
noting that this matter has been referred to the European Commission on Human Rights."
Another motion, carried by 70 votes to 67, condemned
"this act as callous and showing the racist and sexist nature of the United Kingdom immigration laws."
That was said by a Tory-biased European Parliament —Tory-biased until next Thursday, that is—and other, more condemnatory, resolutions were debated. One in particular was lost only because, with 72 votes for and 72

737
against, fellow Tories were dragged in to vote it down. One Tory heckled the meeting to keep it going a little longer while that happened. I refer to Lady Elles, who cannot have had any difficulty moving between countries and staying in any one of them.
The treatment of this case was disgraceful, especially when one compares it with other recent cases. Consider, for example, the Pereira case. I am pleased that the Pereiras have been allowed to stay. They were unnecessarily put at risk of deportation. One reason why they were allowed to stay was the bad press that the Home Office received over Afia's case. Obviously the Pereira case represented only a token on the part of the Government, with the Home Office now being back to its evil ways.
I could give details of a number of other cases, but, as time is short, I shall merely quote a letter from Anne Owers of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants who wrote to The Guardian:
"According to the Daily Mail, which strongly supported the family, David Waddington, the minister responsible, was `particularly, impressed by the strength of support and affection for the family in their home village.'
Yet the friends and neighbours of Vinod Chauhan, Afia Begum and the Hasbudak family did not have the same success in their campaigns. Only a week ago in your columns … Mr. Waddington claimed that this was because 'I … am not swayed simply because a campaign has built up. How could it be fair for me to allow someone to stay just because there is a massive publicity bandwaggon?'"
That sort of publicity band-waggon is all right if it is in the Daily Mail. Indeed, the Minister told us that he would not be swayed by a campaign on the Afia Begum case, but he is swayed by campaigns organised by the Daily Mail and Tory village voters. It is a disgrace.
Then there is the nine-day wonder case of Zola Budd, whose case was dealt with by the Home Office in nine days. I have seen the transcript and heard the tape of the Minister of State's interview on "The World at One" on Radio 4 on 9 April when he said that Zola Budd was allowed in because her father was able to register as a British citizen. When I asked him when the father applied to register as a British citizen, the Minister said that I had misunderstood the position and that Mr. Budd had no need to apply for a citizenship that he already possessed. The Minister did not even know the facts of that case when he was interviewed on the radio.
These cases show the racist nature of the immigration laws. Someone whose descendants have severed their connection with this country can get in, but those such as Afia, whose families are here, get thrown out.
It is humiliating that those on the waiting list have to wait two years or more to join their families here. The Home Office and immigration officers go through the facts of those cases with a fine-tooth comb to find discrepancies and, in some cases, they incite discrepancies by asking leading questions. But if the Daily Mail launches a campaign, the Minister succumbs.
The Afia Begum case shows that people in her position have no rights under our immigration laws. They get no compassion and their cases have brought the laws into the disrepute that they deserve. However, the Minister has also brought himself into disrepute through his callous and uncivilised treatment of widows and their children.
An application on the Afia Begum case is to be made to the European Commission of Human Rights, and I hope that the Commission will condemn the Government. Despite Afia's treatment at the hands of the British
738
authorities, I understand that she still wants to return to this country to join her relatives. I hope that the Government might yet change their mind. If not, I hope that a future decent and humane Government will allow her to return.
11.28 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: The facts of this case first came to my attention following the changes in parliamentary boundaries which brought Brick lane, where the tragic death of Mr. Hamid occurred, within my constituency.
I have studied the case and written to the Home Secretary. I believe that the decision made by Home Office Ministers was not only strange but utterly wrong. There is no dispute about the facts. Mr. Hamid was the husband of Afia Begum, was lawfully settled in London, and had lived here for about 12 years. Afia Begum, having properly applied through the normal procedures, had been granted the right to enter and was, under our immigration rules, entitled to come to Britain to join her husband. So what on earth happened? A tragedy happened. Her husband died in a fire in Brick lane, just before she was due to leave Bangladesh. She waited until the funeral rites were performed in her village and came to London to see her father.
The Home Office then decided to withdraw the right granted to her to stay in the United Kingdom. If Afia Begum had arrived one day before, or even on the day of her husband's death she would have had the right to stay permanently in the United Kingdom.
I do not expect immigration rules to cover every conceivable circumstance, but what is the Minister's discretion for unless it is to cover situations which cannot be anticipated and which require common sense and compassion? The arguments for compassion and common sense are overwhelming. The lady's father is living in Britain. Other members of her family also live here and others have applied to come to England.
I hope that the Minister will reflect seriously on what I say. When discretion is involved, Ministers have to think hard. We know of a recent use of discretion which does not fit easily with the lack of discretion in this case. Good race relations depend not only upon the justice of the immigration laws, but upon Ministers using their discretion wisely, humanely and in a civilised way.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
11.31 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I should have liked the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to take part, but some serious matters have been raised. I shall give way if I can.
I have studied carefully the utterances by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and the first thing to make clear is that he apparently does not accept the need for immigration control at all. I do not blame him for that, but if he is honest with himself, he will recognise that that belief is bound to colour his approach to individual cases. Even if a decision is made within the rules, and after all possible weight has been attached to the compassionate circumstances, he is unlikely to like the decision because he does not like the rules and the law under which they are made, as he said tonight.
The vast majority of people do, however, accept the need for immigration laws and for adequate machinery to enforce the control required by those laws.

739
My difficulty is not so much caused by people like the hon. Member, whose views are bizarre and extreme, but by the broad mass of ordinary hon. Members on both sides of the House who accept the need for control in principle, but dislike seeing the control actually applied in individual cases. That does them credit. No one likes to say to decent people who wish to make their homes here that they cannot. But if there is to be control, not only will some people be refused; some people will try to beat the control and defy the law and will have to be removed.
Obviously no rules can cater for every situation. I agree with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that there will be circumstances in which it will be right for a Minister to act outside the rules because of the exceptional circumstances of the case, but it would be wholly wrong if Ministers exercised their discretion, which they undoubtedly have, on a whim and without regard to the fact that without some consistency there cannot be fairness. People are entitled to know where they stand and are entitled to expect to be treated as others in like cases have been treated.
In February 1982, Mrs. Hamid was granted entry clearance to join her husband, who was settled in this country. Tragically, however, after the granting of entry clearance he died in a fire and in due course his body was sent back to his village in Bangladesh and the funeral took place. It was very sad that Mrs. Hamid should have been widowed, especially as she was very young herself and had a young baby. But at least she was not alone in the world. She had her family in Bangladesh to whom she could turn and except for her father, who had been living in England since before her birth, all her immediate family—her mother, her brothers and her sisters—were with her in Bangladesh. Yet even today, the hon. Member for Leyton continues to repeat the inaccurate statement that most of her family were in Britain and that somehow the Government were, by their decision, to split the family.
The contrary is the truth. It was nonsense to suggest that it was improper for the Government to take the action that they were taking because Mrs. Hamid's mother was about to come here. Even to this day, I have no knowledge of any application by the mother to come to Britain to settle. So Afia Begum was not to be alone for she was to be with her family in Bangladesh. Neither, incidentally, was she to be destitute because she was the beneficiary under her husband's life assurance policy.
It was clear that Mrs. Hamid no longer had any claim to take up residence in Britain. Ever since the beginning of immigration control, we have allowed wives and children of men settled here to join the heads of families. It is not a right which has been afforded by every country and it is something in which Britain can take pride. However, large numbers have been and are still involved and no Government, Left-wing or right, have said that an adult woman can come here to live on her own or join her father here, least of all when the rest of her family to whom she can turn for support is overseas. That was the position of Mrs. Hamid. Consequently, after her husband had died, there was no possible basis for her to come here for settlement. Nevertheless, she set out for Britain, and inevitably, when she arrived, she was refused entry.
740
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney and the hon. Member for Leyton are apparently complaining about paragraph 13(b) of the rules, which provided:
"A passenger who holds an entry clearance … is not to be refused leave to enter unless the immigration officer is satisfied that … a change of circumstances since it was issued has removed the basis of the holder's claim to admission."
But the rule—this can be seen in a moment—is common sense. If a person is granted permission to enter for a particular purpose and the circumstances change so that the purpose no longer exists and the basis on which permission to enter was granted has disappeared, the entry clearance previously granted should not and will not secure entry, and that has been the view of successive Governments.
However, the rules provide that a person in possession of an entry clearance has a right of appeal against refusal of leave to enter before removal, and although Mrs. Hamid could have been held in custody while she excercised that right, the immigration officers, who have been so criticised by the hon. Member for Leyton, recognised that this was a sad case and gave her temporary admission so that she could clear up her husband's affairs.
Mrs. Hamid appealed to the independent appellate authorities and she lost, but even then this unprincipled, wicked Government were in no hurry to make her go, and —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows perfectly well the nature of the ridiculous allegation that is being made. The hon. Gentleman speaks always from a sedentary position and he should listen to the argument.
Even after Mrs. Hamid's appeal, we were in no hurry to make her go. Later numerous representations were made by hon. Members that we should allow her to remain outside the rules, and all those representations were considered. I shall merely say that none of these cases is easy and that when a Minister, under great pressure, faces his responsibilities, he is not being a coward and a lout. It is when a Minister shirks his responsibilities that he earns the condemnation of those who are fair-minded. I came to the conclusion that there were no grounds for putting aside the rules and allowing Mrs. Hamid to stay.
I am now talking about the situation in July 1983 when, after all these representations had been heard, arrangements were made for her departure. But she did not turn up at Heathrow when she had been required to do so. She absconded and thereby put herself outside the law. She had abused the concession granted to her when given temporary admission by "going to ground", and her case had now taken on an entirely different complexion. She was now an illegal immigrant in defiance of the 1971 Act, and ours is a society which prides itself on the rule of law and views with circumspection those who flout the law to obtain by coercion that which they cannot achieve by lawful argument and persuasion. Incidentally, that is one obvious reason why the Pereira case is entirely different from the present case, because nobody can allege that Mr. and Mrs. Pereira tried to defy immigration control and went into hiding and made it clear that they were going to try to beat the control.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Waddington: I simply have not time. I will give way if I can get through my answers to the very important points which have been raised.

741
As for the case of Miss Zola Budd, I must emphasise again that under the rules she was entitled to come. There is no mystery about that. She was the minor daughter of a British citizen father, and I would not have thought that even the hon. Member for Leyton would suggest that a daughter under the age of 18 of a British citizen father should not be allowed to enter this country. Therefore, there is not the slightest connection between the case of Zola Budd and the present case. The hon. Gentleman talks about it all being done in a matter of days. He is hopelessly mixed up, as usual. I am not talking about the application for nationality; I am saying that that girl was entitled to enter the country as the daughter of a British citizen father, and no one could stop her coming. Thereafter, the question whether she could get nationality in a month or three months is an entirely different matter and is nothing whatever to do with this case, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
Early last month Mrs. Hamid was traced and apprehended, and I commend the diligence of those whose duty it was to find her and who did so quietly and with discretion—and, I might say, kindness. It is interesting to note that when apprehended she said that she had been advised to stay in hiding, and I recall that the hon. Member for Leyton said in this House on 7 March—Official Report, column 855 —that Mrs. Hamid and her child had been protected by the sari squad, that the sari squad should be congratulated on sheltering them, and that he was pleased to sponsor a sari squad meeting. That statement does the hon. Gentleman no credit, and I hope that he now realises that he certainly did Mrs. Hamid no service.
The House will recall that when apprehended Mrs. Hamid was not removed at once, as she could have been.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Waddington: She was, after all, an illegal immigrant, and there was no need to set in motion machinery for deportation, which is a machinery only necessary when someone has been granted leave to enter. Mrs. Hamid never had been granted such leave and never
742
had been in this country for one day with leave to enter, but she was not removed at once, in case anyone wished to make further representations. I am entitled to feel somewhat aggrieved at the remarks by the hon. Member for Leyton when I, indeed, heard representations from him and from his colleague the hon. Member for Islington, North.
The hon. Member for Leyton has the neck to make the preposterous allegation now that I made a veiled threat to delay the entry of the family. I did nothing of the sort. I pointed out then, as I pointed out today, that I had no knowledge of any application by the family to enter. I also pointed out that if an application to enter had been made, there were, of course, other people who were waiting to be interviewed, but I found no reason to reverse the decision made before she had even gone into hiding, and by taking the advice of the sari squad and irresponsible people such as the hon. Member for Leyton and going into hiding, she certainly had not improved her case.
The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have advanced a number of preposterous and arrogant propositions. The most absurd is that she should not have been removed—and presumably should have been kept in custody until a ten-minute Bill, which the hon. Gentleman had sought leave to introduce, was debated.
Mr. Corbyn rose—
Mr. Waddington: The hon. Member for Leyton, who is acquainted with the ten-minute Bill procedure, will recognise that Mrs. Hamid might have had to wait for ever.
It was said that Mrs. Hamid should not have been removed, pending the hearing of her case before the European Court. To suggest that every illegal immigrant should be entitled to stay here for months or even years while a case is pending is equally ridiculous, and—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Glue Sniffing
  Glue Sniffing
  Registered Drug Addicts
  Registered Drug Addicts
  Reddish Police Station (Youth Club)
  Reddish Police Station (Youth Club)
  Residential Homes
  Residential Homes
  GLC Elections (Cost)
  GLC Elections (Cost)
  "Criminal Justice"
  "Criminal Justice"
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Police Regulations 1979
  Police Regulations 1979
TRANSPORT
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Hong Kong (Road Pricing)
  Hong Kong (Road Pricing)
  BR (Surplus Track)
  BR (Surplus Track)
  Roads (Contracts)
  Roads (Contracts)
  M1. (Roadworks)
  M1. (Roadworks)
  Public Transport (Privatisation)
  Public Transport (Privatisation)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Okehampton Deer Park
  Okehampton Deer Park
WALES
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Health Authorities (Patient Registration)
  Health Authorities (Patient Registration)
  Confinements (Statistics)
  Confinements (Statistics)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
PRIME MINISTER
  Pay Negotiations
  Pay Negotiations
  Government Documents (Disclosure Inquiry)
  Government Documents (Disclosure Inquiry)
  Dairy Farmers
  Dairy Farmers
  Hampstead Heath
  Hampstead Heath
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  National Film Finance Corporation
  National Film Finance Corporation
  Film Levy
  Film Levy
  Residential Care Homes
  Residential Care Homes
  English Industrial Estates Corporation
  English Industrial Estates Corporation
  Brymbo Steel Works
  Brymbo Steel Works
  Iran and Iraq (Military Exports)
  Iran and Iraq (Military Exports)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nigeria (Detained Britons)
  Nigeria (Detained Britons)
THE ARTS
  Library Services
  Library Services
  Minister for the Arts
  Minister for the Arts
  Office of Arts and Libraries
  Office of Arts and Libraries
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Building Works (VAT)
  Building Works (VAT)
  NHS Employees
  NHS Employees
  EC (Budget Contributions)
  EC (Budget Contributions)
  Alcohol (Consumption)
  Alcohol (Consumption)
  Drug Offences (Cumbria)
  Drug Offences (Cumbria)
  Alcohol (Taxation)
  Alcohol (Taxation)
  International Debt
  International Debt
  Wytch Farm Oilfield (Sale)
  Wytch Farm Oilfield (Sale)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  VAT Registration
  VAT Registration
  Pirate Radio Stations
  Pirate Radio Stations
ENVIRONMENT
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Publicly Owned Land (Development)
  Publicly Owned Land (Development)
  Land Registers
  Land Registers
  Tenants (Right of Exchange)
  Tenants (Right of Exchange)
  Blood Lead Levels
  Blood Lead Levels
  Local Government Superannuation Scheme
  Local Government Superannuation Scheme
  Petrol (Lead Removal)
  Petrol (Lead Removal)
  Audit Commission
  Audit Commission
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  Housing (Enterprise Zones)
  Housing (Enterprise Zones)
  Markets
  Markets
  Building Research Establishment
  Building Research Establishment
  Fire Research Station
  Fire Research Station
  Landlords and Tenants
  Landlords and Tenants
  Rent Acts
  Rent Acts
  Rents
  Rents
  Private Hospital Developments
  Private Hospital Developments
  Hampstead Heath
  Hampstead Heath
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Building Regulations (Disabled Persons)
  Building Regulations (Disabled Persons)
  Osborne House (Parking Charges)
  Osborne House (Parking Charges)
EMPLOYMENT
  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Voluntary Projects Programme
  Voluntary Projects Programme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  National Dock Labour Board
  National Dock Labour Board
  Registered Dock Workers
  Registered Dock Workers
  "Occupational Exposure Limits 1984"
  "Occupational Exposure Limits 1984"
  Wages Inspectorate
  Wages Inspectorate
DEFENCE
  NATO Strategy
  NATO Strategy
  Naval Dockyards (Manual Workers)
  Naval Dockyards (Manual Workers)
  NATO (Defence Policy)
  NATO (Defence Policy)
  United States Forces (Strategy)
  United States Forces (Strategy)
  BAOR (Training)
  BAOR (Training)
  F-111 Aircraft
  F-111 Aircraft
  Portsmouth Dockyard
  Portsmouth Dockyard
  Warsaw Pact Countries (Communications Equipment)
  Warsaw Pact Countries (Communications Equipment)
  Port Stanley Hospital
  Port Stanley Hospital
ENERGY
  North Sea Oil (Orders)
  North Sea Oil (Orders)
  Severn Barrage
  Severn Barrage
  Natural Gas Pipeline (Europe)
  Natural Gas Pipeline (Europe)
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Gas Flaring
  Gas Flaring
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
  Oil Production
  Oil Production
  Energy Saving
  Energy Saving
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
SCOTLAND
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Cervical Cytology
  Cervical Cytology
  Mammograms
  Mammograms
  Well-woman Services
  Well-woman Services
  Scottish Health Service Planning Council
  Scottish Health Service Planning Council
  Salmon Stocks
  Salmon Stocks
  Registered Voters
  Registered Voters
  Disease Statistics
  Disease Statistics
  Teachers (In-service Training)
  Teachers (In-service Training)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Scheduled Offences (Remands)
  Scheduled Offences (Remands)
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Aid and Trade
  Aid and Trade
  Cementation International
  Cementation International
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers (Costs)
  Teachers (Costs)
  Secondary Schools
  Secondary Schools
  Maintained Secondary Schools
  Maintained Secondary Schools
  Pupil Costs
  Pupil Costs
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Open University
  Open University
  Sedco BP 471 finance issue
  Sedco BP 471 finance issue
  Foreign Language Teaching
  Foreign Language Teaching
  Pneumoconiosis Unit, Llandough, Penarth
  Pneumoconiosis Unit, Llandough, Penarth
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Dairy Products
  Dairy Products
  Milk Quota System
  Milk Quota System
  Dairy Support
  Dairy Support
  Farm Income
  Farm Income
  EC (Exports)
  EC (Exports)
  Dairy Farmers
  Dairy Farmers
  Drainage Schemes
  Drainage Schemes
  Isle of Man
  Isle of Man
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Pre-school Immunisation
  Pre-school Immunisation
  Heart Disease
  Heart Disease
  Prescription Charges (Exemptions)
  Prescription Charges (Exemptions)
  Primary Care
  Primary Care
  Occupational Health Services
  Occupational Health Services
  Dental Charges
  Dental Charges
  NHS Staff (Hours)
  NHS Staff (Hours)
  Residential Care
  Residential Care
  Pharmaceuticals Industry
  Pharmaceuticals Industry
  NHS (Doctors)
  NHS (Doctors)
  Social Security Expenditure
  Social Security Expenditure
  Golfer's Elbow
  Golfer's Elbow
  Beat Elbow
  Beat Elbow
  Epicondylitis
  Epicondylitis
  North East Thames Regional Health Authority
  North East Thames Regional Health Authority
  Althesin
  Althesin
  Day Nurseries
  Day Nurseries
  Under-fives Initiative
  Under-fives Initiative
  Basildon and Thurrock Health District
  Basildon and Thurrock Health District
  NHS (Industrial Disputes)
  NHS (Industrial Disputes)
  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Carcinoma (Merseyside)
  Carcinoma (Merseyside)
  NHS (Manpower Reductions)
  NHS (Manpower Reductions)
  Patients (Travel Costs)
  Patients (Travel Costs)
  Giro Payment Books
  Giro Payment Books
  Nuclear War
  Nuclear War

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

Mr. B. A. Foster
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: 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 set up an inquiry into the case of Mr. Barry Arthur Foster, who is mentally handicapped and whose convictions, based on his confessions, were quashed after another man had been sentenced for the same offence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): No, my Lords. The issues for the police raised by this very serious case are already being dealt with through the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and the codes of practice to be issued under it. Moreover, as the Government's response to the report on miscarriages of justice of the Home Affairs Select Committee made clear, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will in future exercise his power of reference to the Court of Appeal, under Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, more readily than hitherto.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that reply, which perhaps falls just a little way short of giving complete satisfaction. Would he not accept that this case, in which an innocent man was detained compulsorily in Rampton for six years, has some analogy with the Confait case, in which an inquiry was held which proved to be very valuable? Since he refers to the current Bill, would he not accept that, in the light of this case, procedures affecting the mentally handicapped ought to be dealt with in the Bill itself rather than leaving them to a code of practice which, as far as I am aware, does not refer anywhere to confessions, since it is right, is it not, that the police officers who first interviewed Foster must have ignored completely the Judges' Rules and the administrative directions?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can agree with the noble Lord in this. There is a close analogy with the Confait case. Indeed, the analogy is so close that that is why we feel that a separate inquiry is not necessary. The Fisher Inquiry examined the Confait case and precipitated the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, the result of which is the Bill. As to the code of practice, I do not wish to lead your Lordships into the debates that doubtless we shall have on the Committee stage of that Bill, but I think it is apposite to say that the code of practice is tied into the Bill by sanctions and is as effective as though it were on the face of the Bill; and that it is designed to deal specifically with matters
878
relating to those who are questioned by the police when they may be mentally impaired or handicapped. Of course, at Committee stage it will be open to the noble Lord to suggest improvements to it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that in this Question he is dealing with a case which many of us consider to be an absolute scandal and a blot upon our administration of justice? If he agrees with that description, would he not agree that this is eminently a case for an inquiry? Is he aware that the very Bill he quoted has led to discussions in this House about the nature of interviews and the danger in regard to interviews without legal representatives and with long periods of detention? Lastly, is he aware that although a letter on this matter was sent by the secretary general of MENCAP to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 10th April this year with a reminder, the Secretary of State has not yet had the courtesy to reply?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first question, my answer must remain what it was in my first Answer—that is, that it is a serious case; that we have taken note of it; that we believe that the provisions in the Bill I referred to will cater for it. It is open to the noble Lord to continue the reflections which he referred to a moment ago on the suitability of the provisions there when the Bill is discussed. As to the correspondence to which the noble Lord refers, I am not aware of the detail but I can assure him that, if there has been any discourtesy on the part of my right honourable friend, certainly it is unintentional. I regret the necessity of advertising the length of time taken to answer in this context, but I can assure the noble Lord that as a result of the time taken it will be a very careful answer.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the code of practice proposed under the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill will deal with only one of the very unsatisfactory features of this case? Would he not agree that when there has been a case of such notoriety, which has caused such public anxiety, rather more attention needs to be given to the matter than merely revising the code of practice?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I will reaffirm for the last time that we see this as an important and unfortunate case. I will also confirm for the last time that we believe it is dealt with in the Bill. I do not believe that I ought to weary your Lordships with a detailed analysis of the provisions in the Bill. If my noble friend thinks they are not sufficient to deal with this problem I am certain he will bring amendments to put that right.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the very real disquiet which exists about this case, would the Minister be good enough to think again and at least consult with his right honourable friend the Home Secretary about it? Is he aware that a discussion of the case during the Committee stage of the Bill is not really an alternative to a specific inquiry on the case itself? Is he aware that noble Lords on all sides of the House, as well as many people outside, would feel much reassured if the Government agreed to an inquiry?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I always draw my right honourable friend's attention to things said in this House by your Lordships which touch his responsibilities, and I will certainly do that on this occasion. I would, however, point out that the events in question took place some considerable time ago; the people who might be required to give evidence might not all be in the service in which they were at the relevant time; and the interest which your Lordships have shown relates to what one of your Lordships described as possible misconduct of the police in ignoring the Judges' Rules. There are procedures for complaining about such misconduct and no such complaint has been made. If it were to be made, it would doubtless be followed up.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister agree that apart from the cases of Confait and Foster to which reference has been made, the BBC programme "Rough Justice" has demonstrated that a number of other people have been convicted of very serious offences and have spent a great many years in prison for crimes which they did not commit? Is the noble Lord really saying that the only answer that the Home Office have to this is the reply that they made to the Select Committee in Cmnd. 8856 that the Secretary of State will be prepared to refer cases to the Court of Criminal Appeal more readily than he has done in the past? If that is so, can the noble Lord say how many cases, in the year which has elapsed since the publication of the White Paper, have been so referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal and how that number compares with the number in the previous 12 months?
Lord Elton: My Lords, your Lordships are concerned with the miscarriage of justice. It is a proper answer to say that the Home Secretary will be more ready to refer cases, which appear possibly to fall within that category, to the court to decide. Your Lordships would not expect the Home Secretary to decide these cases; he can only act as the filter between the cases and the court. As to the number of cases in the past 12 months, I regret that without notice I cannot give the noble Lord the answer but I shall write to him.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why discovery of this monstrous injustice took so long to bring about? Is that not in itself another reason for having an inquiry into this case? It would be interesting to know what submissions were made on behalf of this unfortunate man and what was the history of the treatment of his case in the Home Office. There will be grave public concern about his matter.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the case was brought to notice because, of the two offences to which Mr. Foster had given entirely convincing admissions of guilt, one was the subject of a subsequent admission of guilt by another person which proved to be wholly credible and which was accepted. When that came to the notice of the police, they referred it to the Director of Public Prosecutions. When it was brought to the Home Office, the Home Office immediately reviewed both cases. But the second of the two cases convincingly admitted to was in no way touched in the context of
880
the confession made by the second person and it did not, therefore, fall to the Home Office to review it.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, on that point, I should like to ask the noble Minister whether it is not a fact that Foster was originally charged with three offences, two of which were proceeded with and the third of which was left on the file? When it became known that some other individual had, beyond any doubt, committed two of the three offences, why did it take the Home Office two years before it occurred to them that it was conceivable that he might be innocent of the third? I am the last person to wish to put the Home Office in a bad light, but it would be interesting to know the answer.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I entirely understand the noble Lord's interest and also the delicacy which he has expressed as regards this matter. There were, in fact, two cases to which Foster admitted guilt and one of those was touched by the confession. As to the final proceedings in this case, of course they arose from an appeal, following the grant of a Royal Pardon in the first case.

Sex Discrimination: UN Convention
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: 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 progress has been made towards ratification by the United Kingdom of the United Nations Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we hope to announce a decision on ratification before long.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her very helpful reply. Is she aware of the very great interest in this convention on the part of individuals and non-governmental organizations, especially in the light of the World Conference of the United Nations Decade of Women to be held in Nairobi in 1985?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. A number of individuals and NGOs have written to the Government. We are conscious of their wish to see the matter settled.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, if this convention is ratified, will it mean that hereditary powers and titles will in future descend to the eldest child, irrespective of sex?
Baroness Young: My Lords. I cannot give an answer to that question, but I will write to the noble Lord on that particular point.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Baroness the Minister led the British delegation to the Copenhagen Conference in 1980 when this convention was agreed, does she not share the concern that it is taking the British Government so long to ratify this convention? Would she not agree that the Answer which she has given today is very similar to previous Answers that have been given in both this House and in another place since December 1981? Can the noble Baroness assure us that "before long" does mean before the end of the decade conference in 1985?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, the convention is broad in scope and government departments have been considering its provisions in the light of our existing law and practice. Because we take our obligations under the convention seriously, this is time-consuming, but the process is at an advanced stage. Perhaps I might remind the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that it took four years to ratify the International Convention on Human Rights after we had signed it.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, as the question asked of the noble Baroness by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, is obviously of great interest to a vast number of Members of this House—probably more than half the membership of your Lordships' House—and not merely to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, alone, is it not totally inadequate for the noble Baroness merely to promise to write to the noble Lord? Will she be good enough to arrange for a Question for Written Answer to be put down? If she has any difficulty, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and I would be happy to oblige.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has actually answered his own question.

Iraq-Iran Conflict
2.51 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will immediately commence endeavours at the UN, EEC and NATO to bring about the termination of the war between Iraq and Iran.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have taken every suitable opportunity to urge Iran and Iraq to end this wasteful conflict and to settle their differences by peaceful means. Following the recent series of attacks on shipping in the Gulf, we have made efforts both through the European Community and at the United Nations to prevent further escalation and to bring an early end to the conflict. We welcome the acceptance by both sides of the United Nations Secretary General's appeal to stop attacking civilian centres of population.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I am most grateful for that full and exacting
882
reply, which shows that the endeavours of our Government have been of a very high calibre? However, is she further aware that there is a possibility that this war could spread, that it could engulf the entire Middle East, and that it could have serious repercussions for the rest of the world?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I have already indicated in the reply to the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has raised, we view this as a very serious matter.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that one of the lessons of Lebanon was that the European countries should have acted together instead of being drawn in one by one and then leaving one by one? First, what action are the Government taking to prevent this happening in the Gulf? Secondly, are the Government proposing to raise this matter at tomorrow's meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Western European Union?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as regards the Community, the Ten, including ourselves, delivered messages to the Iranian and Iraq authorities on both 20th and 21st May urging restraint and emphasing the need to preserve freedom of navigation in the Gulf. We were pleased that on 1st June the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution calling on all states to respect, in accordance with international law, the right of freedom of navigation. So far as NATO is concerned, events in the Midldle East do not come under the purview of NATO, but naturally we are in close touch with our main NATO partners over developments in the Gulf. I cannot say whether this matter is an item on the agenda of the Foreign Ministers' consultations tomorrow; but it is naturally a matter which has been discussed and is continually discussed between our own Secretary of State and the Foreign Ministers of the Ten.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether any concrete proposals for an initiative on the Iran-Iraq conflict resulted from the Summit meeting? Secondly, can she tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government are concerned about the safety of British tankers in the Gulf? What action is being taken in respect of British oil tankers at the present time? Also, can the noble Baroness say whether British nationals are in any danger in the area?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will know that the Gulf war was discussed at the Summit conference, and we hope of course that a solution to it will be found by diplomatic means. On his specific point about shipping, we issued warnings to British shipping on both 16th and 23rd May about the heightened risks of operating in the upper Gulf. After the first warning the General Council of British shipping announced that the war-risk zone in the upper Gulf had been considerably extended.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, must we take it from the reply of the noble Baroness that there is no understanding between the European members of NATO about intervention or non-intervention in the Gulf or related questions?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I believe that it would be premature to talk about any kind of military intervention. We hope and believe that the crisis can be managed by diplomatic means.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness acknowledge—as I certainly acknowledge—the endeavours made by our Government to bring a cessation to the hostilities in this appalling war? It seems that the Iranian forces do not even hesitate to use young children. In addition to the danger facing all mankind and in so far as this country is a member of the Security Council, will the noble Baroness give an assurance that, in view of all that has been done up to now, we shall continue our endeavours, both at the United Nations and in the EEC, in a more robust manner?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for his remarks. We shall of course support any serious attempt at mediation aimed at ending the conflict between Iran and Iraq, especially through the good office of the Secretary General of the United Nations. However, there is still no sign that the Iranians are ready to accept offers to negotiate a peaceful settlement.

INMOS
2.56 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follow:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, and if so when, they plan to privatise INMOS.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the British Technology Group and INMOS are at present exploring a number of options for transferring the company to the private sector.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister tell the House whether it is the case that, in the instance of INMOS, the Government invested public money in the development of microchips in this country when the private sector was not prepared to take the risk, that the Government have invested £110 million in this company, and that the company has now started to make a profit? If that is the case, is there any excuse for passing over these profits to the private sector? Should they not be kept in the public sector on behalf of the taxpayers who have paid this money, and thus retain within Britain the development of this important electronic device for the development of wealth production in Britain, rather than risking its going abroad?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord will find a full history of the INMOS story in the Fifteenth Report of the Public Accounts Committee for the Session 1983–84. Although it is a matter of satisfaction—and indeed relief—that INMOS is now trading at a profit, in other respects its performance has fallen far short of expectations. It is important to
884
bear in mind that this was not a public enterprise in the ordinary sense of the word, or a nationalised industry. It was set up by three individuals, two of whom were Americans. The part played by the British Government was to provide the initial finance, and now that the company is trading at a profit, the right course is for it to develop further in the private sector.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that during the 18 months which his right honourable friend Sir Keith Joseph spent dithering as to whether or not the INMOS enterprise should be supported, it was perfectly open to private capital to invest in what was then considered to be a risky venture? Is the noble Lord aware that, largely due to the taxpayers' money being invested in it, the enterprise is now becoming successful? In those circumstances, would it not be a fraud on the taxpayers to deprive them of the benefits that have arisen largely through the injection of their funds?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be at all surprised that I do not agree with any of the conclusions he reaches. In the course of negotiations for the relaunching of this company into the private sector there are three considerations that the Government will bear in mind. The first is to secure continuing access to the technology by British industry; the second is the development of the activity in the United Kingdom: and the third is to secure a price which adequately reflects the taxpayers' past investment in the company. Apart from that, I really would advise the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, before he plunges further into these matters, to read the Fifteenth Report of the Public Accounts Committee, because that report deals not only with the qualified success of INMOS but with the unqualified disaster of NEXOS.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, does not the PAC report also demonstrate that the lion's share of any employment created, and still being created, by this investment by the long-suffering British taxpayer has in fact occurred in Colorado? In view of that fact, would it not be wise that we should be prepared to accept any offer to acquire the capital of this company which offers a respectable return on the investment which the taxpayer has made, whether it comes from the United States or elsewhere?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, so far as the first point made by my noble friend is concerned, it is stated in the report by the Public Accounts Committee:
"In October 1983 there was actually 844 staff in the United States of America and 584 in the United Kingdom".
So far as the disposal of the Government's interest in the company is concerned, the considerations to be borne in mind are those which I have stated.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind the answers that the noble Lord the Minister has given to the previous questions, may I ask him whether he is aware of the article in the Guardian of, I think, last Saturday, which stated that the giant American telecommunications company, AT & T, had confirmed that they were still talking to the British

885
Government regarding the purchase of INMOS? If those talks were to be fulfilled, would it not be the fact that we were disposing of our seed corn which is necessary in order to keep us in the forefront of high technology in the future? Would the noble Lord the Minister consider using his good offices to prevent the Government from taking any such precipitate action?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, a number of propositions are at present under consideration, and they will be evaluated in the light of the three considerations I have mentioned, which I am certain are supported by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. The first is to secure continuing access to the technology by British industry. Perhaps I might divert to say that there was an imported transfer of technology from the United States to this country, and that kind of transfer of technology is something we wish to continue. The second requirement is the development of the activity in the United Kingdom.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, when the noble Lord gave the figures that he has just quoted from the report, was he not aware that on only last Wednesday, in another place, his right honourable friend the Minister for Information Technology gave totally different figures, including the figure of 800 employed in Newport and 70 in Bristol? Is he further aware that there has been a report that the American AT & T company has had its offer actually on the agenda of a Cabinet committee and then removed by the Minister for Trade and Industry? Does the noble Lord not see the danger that if this company is either given or sold to the private sector, particularly abroad, this could break up the team of designers which is at present working on the important developments of the transputer for the late 1980s?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord's speech contained a number of interesting points. So far as the first point is concerned, I was quoting from the report of the Public Accounts Committee, which is of course an impeccable source and an authoritative one. There has been an increase in employment in this respect in the United Kingdom since October 1983. There has also been an increase in employment in the United States of America. There are still more people employed in the United States than there are in the United Kingdom; and the total employed falls far short of the original estimate of 4,000 which was given at the time that this venture started. Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee in fact refers to:
"INMOS's failure to secure the original targets for employment, profits, import savings and exports".
So far as the noble Lord's speculations about the internal workings of Government are concerned, I do not propose commenting on them save to say that a number of propositions are at present under consideration, and the criteria to be applied are those to which I have referred.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, would the noble Lord answer my question on the transputer, which is an important question for the future of microchips in this country?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the transputer is an interesting and new piece of technology. It was for this reason that I referred specifically in the criteria that I mentioned to the maintenance of technology in this country.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening.
Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

GLC Petition
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from the Greater London Council, sealed with the seal of the Council, which prays that your Lordships do not proceed with the proposal to cancel the 1985 elections in London.
I am certain, my Lords, that it also represents the views of the other five metropolitan counties so far as their elections are concerned.
Petition presented.

Business of the House
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, on behalf or my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Trefgarne to be taken before the Video Recordings Bill on Thursday next.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Urban Parishes Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This short Bill of only 11 clauses is designed to pave the way for the fulfilment of another of the Government's major manifesto commitments on

887
local government—the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. As its Title suggests, it is an interim measure—and I want to stress that. It does no more than prepare the ground for the main abolition Bill which we shall be putting before Parliament in the next session. It essentially makes advance and entirely provisional arrangements for those matters which, if the main legislation is passed, must be in place before abolition can be achieved.
However, before describing the main elements of the Bill I want to begin by considering the background to it. Let us examine for a moment just what the GLC and the MCCs actually do. One thing must be clearly understood: despite all the noise, the campaigns, the publicity, and the propaganda produced by those seven authorities, the fact is that in no sense can they be said to run our major cities.
The GLC may profess to be "working for London", but whatever else it may do, the one thing it does not do is run London. Let it be made crystal-clear, beyond any doubt—virtually all of the local services which are essential to everyday life in London in fact are not now provided by the GLC. The GLC is not responsible for education for most of London; it is not responsible for personal social services; nor for hospitals or the ambulance service; nor for refuse collection; nor for street cleaning and environmental health; nor for water and sewerage; nor for libraries, cemeteries and crematoria; nor even for swimming baths. My Lords, all these services are now, currently, run by other bodies.
The stark reality is that in London the main providers of local services are already the borough councils. They are smaller, closer to the people, and run from the local town hall, rather than from a remote and capricious County Hall. Most of the GLC's housing responsibilities have already gone to the boroughs, as has much of its planning role. Moreover, your Lordships' House is currently considering the Bill to establish London Regional Transport. Following a recommendation by a Select Committee in another place, this will take away yet another of the GLC's few remaining responsibilities.
Once transport has been removed, the GLC will be responsible for less than 16 per cent. of the total expenditure on local services in London. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the need for the GLC has been seriously questioned? There simply is no remaining justification for an upper tier. It no longer has a real local government role. Inevitably, therefore, it finds itself interfering with the functions of the boroughs and inventing other, unnecessary, things to do.
The GLC claims to be a voice for London. Some voice! It is a voice which speaks out on foreign policy, on nuclear policy, on police matters, on issues which have nothing whatsoever to do with it. All this demonstrates quite clearly how superfluous the GLC has become. The harsh reality is that it just does not have enough to do. It is thrashing around trying to find a role for itself and creating an enormous bureaucracy as a result.
Although there are differences, much the same is true of the MCCs, which, in their case, are responsible for only 26 per cent. of the total expenditure on local
888
services in their areas. They, too, are not responsible for health services, nor for water or sewerage: nor for libraries. It is the metropolitan districts which run education, housing, social services, refuse collection, and other key services.
It is an established fact that in these seven metropolitan areas the boroughs and districts are already the effective primary local government units. They are responsible for most local government expenditure and, as was the case in the past, they are big enough to carry fuller responsibility for more local services. But although the seven upper tier authorities are very much the junior partners, they still employ large numbers of people. Leaving aside ILEA staff and the uniformed services, there are over 30,000 staff involved. The pay bill for those staff alone must be of the order of £300 million a year. Are we really to be told that out of all this there are no staff savings to be made?
I want to say that there are many able and conscientious people in these authorities. I also acknowledge that the MCCs and the GLC spend money on useful activities. They support the arts, they support valuable voluntary groups and projects. It is not my style—indeed, it would be quite wrong—to say that they do no good. In these councils there are indeed many worthy people doing worthy things. If I thought or said otherwise, I should be misleading your Lordships. I do not want, I do not need, to distort an overwhelmingly powerful case in that way.
But latterly these authorities have brought great discredit on themselves by the excessive spending on their anti-abolition and other campaigns. It may or may not be ultra vires or illegal, but it is certainly irresponsible, and I ask your Lordships whether it is right that so much ratepayers' money, amounting to millions of pounds, should be spent in this way. The GLC has already committed a massive £3 million to its campaign, the strategy of which is described in a confidential TUC document as being,
"to block, delay and impede the Government's legislative proposals wherever possible."
The fee which it is paying to its professional advertising agents alone is reported to be worth a third of a million pounds a year.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister has mistaken the Bill which we are supposed to be discussing today. We are not discussing the Bill for the abolition of the GLC. We are discussing the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. I wonder whether the Minister, if he would be so kind, could possibly address himself to that Bill, as we are most anxious to hear the Government's case on it.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Baroness might well be confused by the fact that the advertising and all the rest that goes with it—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bellwin: I am quite prepared to sit down and listen if any of your Lordships wish to speak standing up rather than from a sedentary position, but in the meantime I think that I might be allowed to present the case which is so overpowering that I can well

889
understand the concern which is being expressed by way of the noise on the other side. It is slightly reminiscent of another place, if I may say so—
Lord Molloy: My Lords—
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I will not give way.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I should remind you that in just three years during which prices will have risen by less than 20 per cent. the GLC's spending has doubled from £463 million to £936 million. When the average rate increase in England has been less than 30 per cent. the GLC's rate has gone up by a staggering 102 per cent. But it is quite extraordinary how responsible it can become when its very existence is under threat; it seems to have concentrated the mind wonderfully. All of the MCCs and the GLC—
Lord Kaldor: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I think I am entitled to present this Bill in the way I always have done. I see no shortage of speakers—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think it would be in accordance with the traditions of this House if my noble friend could make his case and then noble Lords opposite can make their cases. What is happening at the moment is not the way we usually conduct matters here. I know feelings run very strongly on this on either side and I would think that the whole House would appreciate it if we could treat this matter in the way that we normally treat legislation.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, all the MCCs and the GLC, as I said before, are proposing rate rises this year of under 10 per cent. Tyne and Wear and the West Midlands are proposing no increase at all; and, lo and behold, the GLC is suddenly able to turn an increase of nearly 15 per cent. in 1983 to a reduction of 71/2 per cent. in 1984! The case for abolition is overwhelming. The noble Baroness is concerned that I refer to it now. I have not the slightest doubt that most of your Lordships who will be speaking will be talking on this same point later. I am entitled to introduce the Bill and, indeed, to set the proper background to it, because without that a proper understanding would not be there.
The fact is that the functions of the GLC and the metropolitan counties do not justify a separate tier. The claim that we are acting out of political malice is hardly worthy of rebuttal. The GLC and many of the metropolitan county councils have been Conservative-controlled. Last time around, five out of seven of those authorities were Conservative-controlled, and, as the pendulum swings, doubtless in due course they would be so again. One could get the impression from all the campaigning, from the ritual posturing of the Opposition and from some local authorities, that
890
nobody had ever questioned the existence of the GLC and the metropolitan counties before we made our manifesto commitment. Yet all of us who have been concerned with local government in recent years know that this is not so. Many London boroughs and metropolitan districts have been pressing for the abolition of these upper tier authorities for years.
The Labour Opposition, who are making such a noise this afternoon, do not know which way they are facing on the issue. Labour's programme for 1982 said:
"The main difficulties of the present system are clear enough. There is an irrational split of functions between the two tiers compounded by a confusing overlap of responsibilities".
More recently, at the Labour Party's local government conference in February 1983, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, then the official Opposition spokesman on the environment, said:
"We shall, therefore, legislate to create unitary district authorities which will be responsible for all of the functions in their area that they can sensibly undertake … we shall set up no more inquiries. We shall legislate".
Moreover, one leading GLC councillor said this in a debate at County Hall on the Marshall Report:
"I do not believe that you need two tiers of local government, and I very much regret that Mr. Cutler has not been the really ruthless Tory that he likes to project and come forward with the biggest axe of all and axed the whole appalling show".
That councillor, as some of your Lordships will know, was none other than Mr. Kenneth Livingstone, the current leader of the GLC.
That is exactly what we are proposing to do. In the main, we are giving responsibility for such remaining functions, such services as they have, to the boroughs and districts. They will discharge those responsibilities either individually or acting together in three joint boards. In London there will be just one joint board for the fire service. I think I am entitled to ask therefore: why the cries of anguish, why the pretended outrage?
It has been said that our proposals do not now command support and that this is proved by recent opinion polls, which show support for the GLC in particular. On this I would just say two things. First, the polls no doubt reflect, at least in part, the huge, expensive public relations publicity campaigns, full of distortion and gimmickry, which I have already condemned: the most basic, of course, being that Whitehall will be taking over all services from the elected representatives of the people. What breathtaking disregard for the truth! But in spite all the misinformation, there is growing evidence—I will amplify it in my response if I am called to do so—that thoughtful people are beginning to see what an opportunity for strengthening local government abolition will provide. Secondly, it is inevitable that opposition will be taken up by those groups which are already in receipt of patronage by courtesy of the ratepayers. They are bound to do all they can to keep in being the donors of the money they have received.
But there is the evidence of last year's general election. Our manifesto contained a clear commitment to abolition. Not only did we get an increased majority nationally, but we won 56 of the 84 seats in Greater London. Those electors welcomed our proposals, because they knew that they would mean

891
more decisions being taken locally. This remains our firm intention.
It has been alleged that we are presenting this Bill before Parliament knows our plans for abolition, but this is just not so. Our proposals were set out very clearly in the White Paper—in much more detail, I may say, than in the White Paper preceding the 1974 reorganisation. This remains the basis of our approach. As your Lordships know, following consultation we have made some changes, such as those concerning the arts, historic buildings, voluntary bodies and sport, which have been reported here. These changes include the proposal that there should be direct elections to the successor body to ILEA.
As to the ultimate disposition of such as refuse disposal, archives, scientific services and other minor functions, which though relatively small are, I readily acknowledge, most important and of much concern to those involved in them, the final decisions and arrangements for their future home is currently being resolved. I know that matters such as these are of concern to your Lordships, although, of course, the final location of services falls properly under the main Bill, and I am confident that the House will ensure that these matters are fully examined in that context. Meanwhile, we are paying the closest attention to views expressed on our proposals and will continue to do so.
As I suppose might also have been expected, the abolition authorities have been claiming that services will suffer as a result of our proposals—another of the myths. The boroughs and districts will receive additional rate support grant to help fund the services they will inherit. In future, these funds will be redistributed among the boroughs and districts. The difference will be that they will decide on the priorities. Democratically elected councillors will decide how that money should be spent, not Whitehall. I cannot repeat this too often, as it is the same distortion we have had over the Rates Bill. The elimination of the upper tier will bring local government closer to the people; decisions will be taken by those who are closer to local needs.
Let me say a word about the voluntary sector. Possibly we shall hear something more of this today and when we come to debate the main abolition Bill. Much of the propaganda put out by the GLC has focused on what will happen to the voluntary organisations on abolition. True to form, they have been spreading scare stories about these bodies coming to a sticky end. As a result, very understandable fears have been aroused about a possible reduction of support.
This Government are powerfully committed to the work of voluntary bodies, and their record is there for all to see. It is second to none. They give 150 million a year to the voluntary sector. I recognise that there is concern about what will happen when the GLC (and, to a lesser extent, the MCCs) go. But, as I have just said, the key point is that the money which the Government already give through rate support grant and separate grants will continue to be available. This surely demonstrates the strength of our belief in the continued role of the voluntary bodies. Because we
892
know that there is a particular worry about worthwhile organisations which serve a wider than local area, there is to be a special, statutory scheme for collective funding by the boroughs of the voluntary sector.
It has been claimed that we should not proceed with abolition until it has been proved beyond doubt what the size of the savings will be. It has even been suggested that there will be no savings. There are bound to be transitional costs. But can anyone doubt that the elimination of a whole tier of government will not lead to savings: that there are not savings to be found from stopping the work that arises merely because these authorities exist, as well as from the removal of duplication and overlap between these authorities and the lower tier? We believe that the new unitary authorities—
Lord Diamond: My Lords, will the Minister give way?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, may I finish my sentence? We believe that the new unitary authorities will be more economic because they will be closer, more responsive and more accountable to those whom they will serve.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. The question I want to ask him is whether he does not consider that his spending 19 minutes on the wrong Bill is an abuse of the sense of responsibility which, in this House, noble Lords and noble Baronesses always apply to their own speeches. The Minister has spent 19 minutes, and we have not yet reached the main issue.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords. if the noble Lord will tell me that no one on his side will refer at all to the background to this Bill, then I will be impressed by what he has just said. We have all been bombarded with estimates of savings. Is the noble Lord suggesting that no one will refer to the issue of savings under this Bill?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, does the Minister not realise that his having taken 19 minutes—I do not know how many speakers there are, but there must be something like 30—will mean that many of your Lordships will want to respond?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, this is the 26th Bill that I have had the pleasure of introducing into your Lordships' House. I do not recall that any of them took less than 25 to 30 minutes to introduce. This is a very important Bill which has great interest for many people.
Certainly, I have seen more estimates showing savings than estimates showing costs. Most importantly, provisional but careful assessments by some of the metropolitan districts—that is, the authorities which will actually run these services—show that abolition will lead to some considerable net savings. No one can say for sure and by precisely how much what scale of savings has been achieved until the handover has actually taken place. I simply do not accept that this is, somehow, a shortcoming of the policy. However, I am glad to

893
repeat the assurance which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave in another place that we will keep Parliament fully informed on the likely position on costs and savings of the reorganisation as later estimates become available.
As to the Bill—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I think you would want to have the background. First, I want to refute strongly the claims that have been made that this Bill is in any way unconstitutional. I know that much concern has been aroused by its provisions. Let me make one point clear at the outset. We shall not implement the provisions concerning the suspension of elections until the principle of abolition itself has been debated and approved in another place. Should the main abolition Bill subsequently fail to pass into law, then this same Bill, in Clause 1, contains a built-in mechanism for restoring the status quo.
Some have suggested that there is no need for this Bill now; that we could have included its provisions in the main Bill or introduced them in a separate Bill once the main abolition Bill had completed at least some of its stages through Parliament. But this Bill is essential now if abolition is to be achieved on 1st April 1986; 1986 is the earliest date by which it is feasible to give effect to our determination to streamline the administration of our cities. The provisions cancelling the elections cannot wait for the main Bill but that Bill, I say again, my Lords, will not become law until after May 1985 when the elections are due to be held. So these provisions will be brought into effect by order. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has given a clear undertaking not to make that order until after the Second Reading of the main Bill in another place. As I have already said, the Bill itself provides the safeguards which will ensure that its provisions have effect only if abolition goes ahead. It unequivocally ensures that the suspension of elections and the arrangements for transitional councils will come into operation only when the commencement order is made; so I hope that that point is fully understood.
As I hope that I have already made quite clear, this Bill does no more than its Title says. It makes interim arrangements. Therefore, Clause 1 provides the mechanism for repealing the interim provisions and for restoring the present position if abolition does not go ahead. The clause also makes clear that the election provisions do not take effect immediately. I say, yet again, they come into operation only when a commencement order has been made.
Clauses 2 and 5 deal with elections to the GLC and metropolitan counties. They also provide for the membership of those councils in the final year of their existence. On this, too, there should be no misunderstanding. These transitional councils will consist of democratically elected members appointed by the borough and district councils which will inherit most of the upper-tier services after abolition. The terms of office, the period for which the existing GLC and MCC councillors were elected, are due to expire on 7th May 1985. Since their successors will find themselves in office for less than a year in practical
894
terms, there really would be little point in going ahead with elections to the GLC and the metropolitan counties in 1985. The Bill therefore provides that they will be suspended.
I should like to point out that, despite the posters and the lavish campaigns, cancelling elections is not unprecedented in peacetime. That is simply not so. It is fully precedented in previous reorganisations. The 1963 Local Government Act and the 1972 Local Government Act both cancelled all elections (other than pending by-elections) to the authorities to be abolished. And that is what is proposed in this Bill, though there is, of course, an important difference. In the previous reorganisations, the successor authorities were not in existence at the time the elections were cancelled. So the term of office of serving councillors was extended to cover the period until the new authorities came into being. In this reorganisation, however, we have the considerable advantage that the successor authorities—the boroughs and districts—are already in existence. They can begin straight away to prepare for a smooth transition.
We considered particularly carefully how best to constitute the councils for the 11 months after May 1985. The choice lies between extending the term of office of serving councillors and drawing members from the lower tier. But as I have just pointed out, serving councillors have no mandate beyond May 1985. The logical and sensible option—of drawing members from the lower tier—has one enormous benefit. It gives the boroughs and districts the opportunity to prepare for their new responsibilities. We concluded that this provides the right solution. The Government also had to take into account that the alternative of extending the terms of office of the existing authorities would, in view of their avowed determination irresponsibly to obstruct the abolition policy, have had to be accompanied by such a severe circumscription of their powers that the sensible administration of the remaining functions of the GLC and MCCs during their final 11 months would have been unnecessarily centralised. We therefore took the view that it would be preferable, indeed logical, to hand over the running of the authorities to those who, as the successor authorities, had a genuine interest in securing a smooth handover of the services.
Furthermore, we also need to bear in mind the role of the transitional councils. What will they be doing in their short 11-month lives? Clearly, their main functions will be to keep things in good order and to prepare for the handover of responsibilities. Can we really expect the present GLC and MCC councillors to co-operate wholeheartedly in this task? A look at the record so far gives a pretty good indication of what to expect. Does anyone seriously suggest that Mr. Livingstone will work with the successor authorities to ensure a smooth handover? Even now, they are actually expanding their staffs, taking on new people. I trust that they are making their new recruits fully aware of our proposals for the abolition. But in any case, is it responsible for them to plan a continued rise in staff numbers as their responsibilities decline? Is it not astonishing that the current GLC budget, for example, contains provision for nearly 1,500 more posts in this financial year? That is an increase of 7 per cent., or an extra £17 million for London ratepayers to

895
fund. If anything underlined the need for this Bill and for transitional councils to comprise not these but responsible people who will have to live with, and in the future answer for, the decisions made in the 11-month transitional period, it must be decisions of this kind. As confirmed only this last week, the metropolitan county councils are flatly refusing to co-operate with the lower-tier authorities to ensure a smooth changeover of power. What reason do we have to assume that they would take a different approach in 1985–86?
Let me again remind your Lordships, that the boroughs and districts are powerful and democratically elected bodies and that it is they who in the main will inherit the powers. And it makes a significant difference that the boroughs and districts actually have a vested interest in making reorganisation succeed. It is right that they should get in early to prepare for their new responsibilities. The Bill therefore proposes that the borough and district councils should nominate their democratically elected councillors from within their own ranks, to run the GLC and Metropolitan County Councils for the final 11 months.
I wonder if the hoo-hah that we have had about the transitional councils would have been so were it not that, for the 11-month period, political control will change at the GLC. Much has been made of this. Some have even accused us of gerrymandering. I refute this entirely and I ask your Lordships to consider three short and important points which are germane to this question. First and foremost is the matter of the task which will be left to the transitional councils. As I have already said, this is primarily care and maintenance and keeping services going while preparing for handover. These are primarily organisational matters. They certainly do not involve the development and implementation of new policies. In this context, political control as such has much less significance than some have tried to argue.
Secondly, out of the seven authorities concerned, at only one—the GLC—would a change occur. If there were any substance to those unfounded suggestions, we would hardly be proposing arrangements which in the transitional 11 months, produce six out of six Labour-controlled MCCs—and Labour control of the ILEA.
Thirdly, the change at the GLC occurs because the borough elections (which were held more recently than the 1981 GLC elections) returned more Conservative-led boroughs than Labour ones. Given that—for the reasons I have carefully explained—it would be undesirable to extend the term of the existing upper-tier authorities. The only way to retain Labour control of the interim GLC would be to allow the minority of Labour boroughs to nominate the majority of the GLC seats. That would obviously be absurd.
Finally, some have said that abolition of the upper tier will deprive 14 million people of the right to vote. This is just not so. Democracy is not about having two layers of metropolitan government, if one will do. In future, electors in the main metropolitan areas will have one vote for the one body, a powerful, effective, all-purpose authority. Did the electors of Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds feel deprived
896
before 1974, because they had only one tier of local government for which to vote?
The provisions in Part II are designed as a whole, to ensure that the transitional councils can make the most use of their 11-month term, and to safeguard the great majority of responsible councillors from the possibility of irresponsible disruption by a few. With their record, could one seriously believe that the Livingstones of this world would work exclusively by that rule—or that the scope for serious mischief would not be there?
The Bill also provides the mechanisms for repealing the interim provisions and restoring the original situation as quickly as possible. And that is all that it provides. There is no question of giving the Secretary of State powers to cancel elections anywhere, for whatever reason, as has been suggested. I want to stress that point. I cannot I am sure repeat too often our pledge that the operation of the provisions of this Bill—the fate of its provisions—is entirely dependent on Parliament's decisions on the main Bill. If that fails, we will restore the status quo. Many staff employed by the GLC and the metropolitan counties have expressed anxiety about the arrangements for their future employment. That is why the Bill establishes, in Clause 6, a staff commission. I am sure that that will be welcomed by your Lordships.
It is vital that, during the transitional period, the successor authorities are able to prepare properly for their new responsibilities. Clause 7 provides for the borough and district councils and the Secretary of State to have guaranteed access to the necessary information. Clause 9 requires the GLC/MCCs to consult the boroughs/districts before determining the 1985–86 expenditure and the means of financing it, while giving the borough/districts the right to object at the audit of the GLC/MCC's accounts for 1983–84 to 1985–86. Finally, Clause 8 makes a number of minor amendments to existing legislation.
We shall doubtless have long and detailed debates on the main abolition legislation when it comes before your Lordships in due course. I have given the background to this Bill and the underlying reasons for abolition. Today we are discussing an interim Bill, a paving Bill, and it is very right that we should discuss the details of that during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. For all the arguments which will be put in the debate, this Bill, while it is essential for the reasons that I have given, is dependent upon the Bill which will follow. If the substantive Bill falls, or if at some later stage abolition does not go ahead, these interim provisions will be repealed: the mechanisms to do that are in place in Clause 1.
I have dealt at length with the provisions for the suspension of elections, and for the make-up of the transitional councils during their final 11 months because these require careful understanding. I recognise and respect the concern which has been expressed about these clauses. I trust that my full and careful explanation has demonstrated the justification, the practical good sense, and the fairness of our proposals.
The Bill has been carefully drafted so as not to preempt Parliament's decision on the principle of abolition. But it underlines our firm determination to

897
press ahead with our manifesto commitment to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. This is the way to bring decision-making closer to the local people and to secure simpler and more accountable local government in our major cities. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bellwin.)
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, "That the Bill be now read a second time" at the end to insert:
"but this House regards this Bill as a dangerous precedent in that it seeks to give to non-elected bodies the powers of properly constituted councils; notes that it was not in the Conservative Party's election manifesto; and regrets its introduction before Parliament has decided whether or not to abolish those councils."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, unlike many of my noble colleagues in this House, I greatly admired the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. After all, if a Minister is entrusted with the introduction of a bad Bill, what better parliamentary tactic is there than to talk about another; and from his confession to us that he had previously introduced 27 Bills into this House, he might have talked of any one of them. They are printed there for us to read but he chose to talk about a Bill not yet printed and not yet introduced about which, if we are in this place and he is in his place in a year's time, we might hear.
The noble Lord might reflect on these matters. The alleged irresponsibility of the Greater London Council is no justification for irresponsibility by the Government. The provocation which he set out in detail might be given as a reason for the over-reaction of the Government, but it cannot be a justification for it. If in fact Mr. Livingstone talks nonsense on a variety of subjects—as the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, opined—that might be a very good reason for not electing him to the GLC, but it is no reason for replacing him by a nominated member.
I have put down this amendment in its final form after fairly wide consultation because I believe that the introduction of this extraordinary Bill has grave and wide implications both for the country and indeed for your Lordships' House. It is my view that from this debate and the vote on this amendment the country will be able to judge how effective, if at all, is this House as a modifying and balancing factor against the unwarranted exercise of power by what has been described as "an elective dictatorship". In certain circumstances—of which this Bill in my judgment is one—your Lordships' House has a clear constitutional duty to take appropriate steps to cause the Executive to reconsider their position and the full implications of what they are doing. What has been doubted in many quarters is whether your Lordships' House is now sufficiently free from party and political manipulation by the Executive, of whatever political colour, to perform any such function effectively.
If one looks at the first paragraph of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum accompanying the Bill, one reads that it,
"makes interim arrangements for the Greater London Council… and the metropolitan county councils… pending"—
note the words, my Lords—
"a decision by Parliament on whether or not those councils are to be abolished."
I doubt whether any of your Lordships have ever before seen that form of words accompanying a Bill in this House or any other House with the term,
"pending a decision by Parliament on whether or not"
to do something.
Immediately, the question must have sprung to your Lordships' minds: why not let Parliament decide whether or not those councils are to be abolished first, and then make the necessary arrangements for the change-over of power; as has always been done in like situations in the past?
It seems to me that there are four very serious, basic criticisms that can be made of this Bill. Each of them separately is a cause of disquiet; when taken cumulatively they must be a cause of very grave disquiet. They are as follows: (a) There is no precedent for what it is sought to do in this Bill, and, if passed, this Bill will itself form a very dangerous precedent; (b) It seeks to do something which is constitutionally unacceptable; (c) The Government do not have, and have never sought, an electoral mandate for this particular Bill; (d) It goes against the whole spirit and convention of parliamentary practice as we have known it in this country. The result in the other place was to provoke an all-party attack on this Bill, and many of the most senior and respected members of the Conservative Party took part in the Second Reading. Nevertheless it passed, and now it comes to your Lordships' House.
It is as good an example as can be found of the manipulation of the system by an elective dictatorship. I have already referred to, and the Minister has set out, the provocation which the Government feel they have incurred from the GLC. Nevertheless, we are not concerned with the understandable reactions of provocation; we are concerned with what the Government are now trying to do and how they are trying to do it.
The term "elective dictatorship" is a term which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has very much made his own. I have refreshed my memory, he will be pleased to learn, by reading again his Dimbleby Lecture of 1976, which was of course delivered under that title. He then said—and I quote here:
"We live under an elective dictatorship, absolute in theory, if hitherto thought tolerable in practice".
He went on to say later:
"Until comparatively recently, Parliament consisted of two effective chambers. Now for most practical purposes, it consists of one".
It will not surprise your Lordships to know that the one he was referring to was not your Lordships' House. Later, when discussing the specific role of your Lordships' House, he said this—and I quote again—
"I am not, of course, in the least suggesting that the House of Lords is useless, or that its influence in modifying the details of legislation is without value, or that the effect of its debates in moulding public opinion is negligible. But I do say that it is not an effective balancing factor and cannot in practice control the advancing powers of the executive".
He then went on to discuss what he described as the wholly unconstitutional doctrine of mandates and

899
manifestoes. He went on to point out that after an election the party activists would call for a redemption of all pledges and (and here again I quote):
"It follows that the majority in the House of Commons is then free to impose on the country a series of relatively unpopular measures not related to current needs, using the whole powers of the elective dictatorship to carry them through. In doing so it is not effectively controlled by any second chamber".
The judgment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor must be correct. We cannot effectively control the Executive from this House. Even if we could, there would be serious constitutional reasons advanced as to why we, as a partly nominated and partly hereditary House, should not do so. However, I do suggest that on a Bill of this kind it is our duty to make the Executive pause and think again, and we do that by exercising our influence as a brake. Your Lordships' House is hardly justified solely on the basis that we improve legislation, and nothing else.
What we can do, I think, is to exercise this influence by passing such reasoned amendments as I have put down here. This amendment is not a wrecking amendment, which I could have justified on the basis of the precedents of the Conservative Opposition in this House in 1975. It is not a delaying amendment, which also could be justified by recent precedents. What it is is an amendment calculated to make the Cabinet think again—to save it, in a way, from itself. If the House did that, then at least the House would show that it still has the power to exercise effective influence on the course of the Executive—not to control it but to exercise influence over it. If your Lordships' House fails to exercise that influence and if it fails on a Bill of this kind to show that it has the will to exercise that influence, then it is difficult to see any justification at all for the continued existence of your Lordshps' House.
Your Lordships should be quite clear—and, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, he did not make this clear—what exactly Part II of this Bill does. It is Part II of the Bill to which we object and it is to that part of the Bill that I want to direct my remarks. It suspends elections to these councils. Of course, the noble Lord is quite right. There is a precedent for this in the 1963 London Government Act and in the 1972 Local Government Act. But he should have added that the existing councils were then allowed to continue until the changeover. There is no precedent at all, and the noble Lord knows it, for what follows in Part II, which provides that the borough and district councils are then under a duty to appoint members of the GLC and the MCCs.
Let us bear in mind that these councillors in the boroughs and districts are councillors elected in fairly small constituencies to fulfil the functions of district and borough councillors. They were not elected to run the GLC or the MCCs, and many of them will have been elected some years ago. It is not as though they were elected this year or last year—they were elected years ago. And they are to be nominated to do what?—to exercise the functions of the much larger councils. There is no necessity for this at all.
We have had a number of changes in local government in this county over the past century and there are abundant precedents to be followed. The old
900
councils have continued until the new arrangements have been brought into effect. Here the Government could have allowed the existing councils to continue until the changeover. I read in this morning's Times that the Minister responsible will not contemplate this course. But there is an alternative, obviously. In the alternative they could allow elections to proceed and allow the newly-elected councillors to take over next year and to continue until such time as Parliament has approved properly considered measures for the transfer of power to new bodies. They could appoint a day, for example, from the time of the passing of the Bill for changeover, say, two years hence and so on. There is no difficulty whatsoever about it.
The overall administration of London and the metropolitan counties, which, I am told, represent about 17 million electors, is being handed over to nominated district councillors, who will be exercising powers for which they were not elected. They will be exercising powers originally granted by Parliament to democratically elected councils of the GLC and the MCCs. It does not seem to me to matter a fig whether those councils, for example, run the municipal swimming bath, or whatever they do. They were elected to exercise the powers that Parliament gave to them.
There would have to be, for this change from tradition in these matters, the most persuasive justification. I would have thought, for the House to pass this Bill—not a 33-minute speech of which at least three-quarters were spent in attacking the GLC and justifying a future Bill. The truth is that no justification has been forthcoming. If this Bill is passed, surely it establishes a most dangerous precedent for the Executive to follow in the future. Imagine, my Lords, a future extreme Left or extreme Right Executive trying to change the political complexion of a council of which it does not approve: what better precedent could there be than this Bill? So that is my first charge.
My second charge is that the practical result of the Government's proposals is constitutionally unacceptable in that it opens them up to the charge of the most blatant political chicanery in recent times. In London, for example, they will be substituting for the elected majority of one party the nominated majority of another party. As Sir Ian Gilmour said in another place on the Second Reading of this Bill on 11th April 1984, that must be consitutionally unacceptable. Using that term "constitutionally unacceptable" leads me to point out that we have an unwritten Constitution and there are no written constraints on the power of Parliament. Parliament is sovereign: it can do what it likes. What is constitutionally unacceptable is what right-thinking people feel is going over the border. That is what it amounts to. It is one's reaction. This is going too far. It is an imposed change of political control. In the same debate, in perhaps more extravagant language, Mr. Edward Heath used the words that "a parliamentary diktat" would impose change of responsible party in London's local government.
But let me pose a question to your Lordships. Is there any excuse whatsoever for the administration of London and the metropolitan counties not to be in the hands of directly elected persons? What is more, it

901
seems quite clear to me that these nominated bodies, though they are supposed to run their course for only 11 months, will probably have to control their respective areas for quite a long time. It is not administratively sound to think that there can be a changeover to new bodies of all the powers, however restricted they may be, of the GLC and the MCCs in that period of time. The timescale allowed, and hoped for, by the Government is not sound administratively. Almost certainly there would, therefore, have to be enabling Acts to enable the nominated councils to continue with their course and to administer those areas. So, in practice, we are not talking about a limited period of 11 months, That is my second charge.
My third charge is that the Government have no mandate from the electorate to bring in this Bill, as it was not included in the Conservative Party's election manifesto. I subscribe broadly to the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in a Dimbleby lecture, that a party is not obliged to carry out every jot and tittle of its manifesto and that the mere fact that a proposal is within a manifesto does not necessarily mean that the Government formed by that party later have to carry it out. He used the memorable phrase,
"and the measures proposed in the manifesto often include the impossible, the irrelevant and the inappropriate."
However, I always think that the noble and learned Lord is so much more clear-sighted when he writes these things when in opposition than when he comes to look at what his own party is doing when they are in Government—
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of SaintMarylebone): My Lords, the noble Lord cannot expect me to write when I am in office.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I would accept that. But what is more, I would expect that when he is in office he would write rather differently from what he writes when he is in opposition. However, when a Government seek to introduce an unprecedented Bill, which has important constitutional implications and which flies in the face of accepted parliamentary practice, and when there is not so much as a hint in the manifesto that this is the intention, then they certainly have no mandate for it.
Let me remind your Lordships that in 1964 the late Lord Salisbury described the attitude of the Conservative Opposition in this House to the Labour Government who operated from 1945 to 1951—and it was that practice which set the tone for our practice in this House now, that we do not oppose a Second Reading, that we do not normally have wrecking amendments and so on—when he said this:
… "it was therefore possible for us who belonged to the Opposition to make it our broad guiding rule that what has been on the Labour Party programme at the preceding General Election should be regarded as having been approved by the British people. Therefore … we passed all the nationalisation Bills, although we cordially disliked them, on the Second Reading and did our best to improve them and make them more workable on Committee stage. Where, however, measures were introduced which had not been in the Labour Party Manifesto at the preceding Election, we reserved full liberty of action."
Your Lordships will find that in Hansard of 4th November 1964 at col. 66.
902
In no way is it possible to argue that the broad mandate given to the Government for the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, which they undoubtedly have, included the kind of proposition which is in Part II of this Bill. It is not correctly described as a "paving" Bill. This Bill is in no way necessary to pave the way for the eventual Bill which will seek to abolish the GLC and the MCCs. The normal arrangements for handover or takeover should be included in the main Bill, on the precedent of all previous local government reorganisations.
My fourth charge is that the introduction of this Bill goes against the whole spirit and convention of parliamentary practice. It is arguable that this is the same kind of point, in other language, as that which was in my second charge, that it is constitutionally unacceptable, but there are subtle differences of emphasis on this point. The assumption is made in this Bill that next year both Houses of Parliament will agree to abolish the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils. That is a fairly enormous assumption to make in a democracy.
I entirely agree with the views of Mr Francis Pym as expressed in the other place on Second Reading, that Parliament's view of the main Bill might well be determined on how it is proposed that these councils should be abolished, what will replace them, and what arrangements are to be made. After all, the Government's own White Paper Streamlining the Cities has not even been debated yet in either House of Parliament. We know that these proposals have attracted very considerable criticism from Conservative councillors and Conservative-controlled councils, as well as others, and even the Government have already indicated that they have modified some of their views as expressed in the White Paper.
It is an affront to Parliament, I submit to your Lordships, to introduce such a Bill as this before Parliament has actually decided whether or not to abolish these councils. The decision to abolish or not, if we are a democracy at all, will surely depend upon approval of the alternative arrangements which have not yet been made. The proposal is quite contrary to sound and accepted parliamentary practice. Our elective dictatorship has reached the stage where it is now assumed that the House of Commons and the House of Lords will inevitably reach decisions favourable to the Government on propositions which have not yet been formulated and the acceptability of which has not yet been tested.
No one has suggested that we can simply abolish the GLC and the metropolitan councils without making alternative arrangements. Indeed, there is so much disquiet among the Government's own ranks in Parliament, in local government and elsewhere that it might be—I am not saying that it will be—that by next year the majority will decide that the manifesto itself was "impossible, irrelevant and inappropriate". But I am not going to express any view as to the merit or otherwise of abolishing the GLC and the MCCs, as that, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is not the issue before us. Furthermore, I do not know what your Lordships think of an Executive which gives an undertaking that this Bill will not be brought in by order until the other place has approved the Second Reading of the main Bill.

903
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that the Minister had given an undertaking that the order would not be brought into effect until the other place had approved the broad principle of abolition. But this Bill which we are considering says:
"pending a decision by Parliament on whether or not those councils are to be abolished."
Are we now taking it that this Government are saying that the sovereignty of Parliament no longer means the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament, and that the sovereignty of Parliament now means the sovereignty of the House of Commons and nothing else? Is the Conservative majority in this House, by its vote today, to accept that a Minister can really say that parliamentary decision is from now on to be taken as being the decision of the House of Commons on the Second Reading of a Bill? That is what it amounts to. I do not happen to believe that your Lordships should abdicate your position so easily in this way.
That is my fourth point, but I want to develop this a little further by referring to a debate in your Lordships' House on 11 th November 1975, which your Lordships will find at col. 1742 of Hansard, when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, dealt with the question of how far it was right for this House to use its power of delay under the Parliament Act. He said:
"In our system we have hitherto taken the view that the will of the elected House must in the end prevail, but that there should be a second House which has the opportunity—in rare cases, perhaps —to enforce a delay in which there can be a reassessment by Government, by Parties and by the people of this country of the rights or wrongs of an issue. If now we decide to use that very limited power, we are not thwarting the will of the people for, in so far as it is represented by the House of Commons, it will and must prevail in a comparatively short time. We shall be using those powers for the purpose for which they were given to us—that is, as an opportunity for further consultation, for second thoughts before this legislation inevitably reaches the Statute Book and because we did not want the Second Chamber to be associated with what the Government are doing".
The noble Lord was then justifying wrecking amendments to some of the Labour legislation of 1975, for which there was undoubtedly an electoral mandate. Two Bills were smashed in this place by wrecking amendments and they had to be reintroduced the following year. In a moment I shall give the reference to those Bills. I obtained the information—as the Chief Whip is obviously surprised, if not alarmed, at this disclosure—from a paper prepared by the Public Bill Office headed, Opposition to Government Bills: Practice and the Parliament Acts. The Chief Whip will there find the reference to these Bills. The three Bills referred to were the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill 1969, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill 1975, and the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill 1976. The Chief Whip will find the words of his noble friend, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, in that column of Hansard to which I have just referred. It may well be that the views then expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, have been modified, since we know that these two particular Bills were reintroduced the following year in a somewhat amended form, and then passed.
I have not sought to introduce a wrecking amendment in accordance with the precedents
904
established on the other side; nor have I sought to delay further consideration of this Bill. But what I do say to your Lordships is that, having appreciated the full implications of the Bill, your Lordships should deem it quite wrong to give an unqualified Second Reading and that our duty requires us to qualify the Second Reading with this amendment.
In his chapter on the House of Lords in his book, The Dilemma of Democracy, published in 1978, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor-I am today giving him a great write-up for his works—wrote:
"but, over the last 10 years, the situation has become increasingly intolerable, at least for Members of the House of Lords. Again and again the House of Lords has sought to intervene to restrain the excesses of the ministerial majority in the House of Commons. Again and again they have been proved right, which is not surprising, since the accumulated wisdom of members of the House of Lords and the level of discussion within the chamber, are infinitely higher than in the Commons. The calibre of members of the House of Lords and their experience of public life and public affairs generally are superior. The conduct of debate is infinitely more orderly and courteous"—
At least, it was until earlier this afternoon. So far we can all agree, I am sure, with the noble and learned Lord.
"Nevertheless,"—
he goes on to say—
"with the exception of a number of important, but relatively minor instances, the House of Lords has been frustrated again and again in its legitimate desire to perform its constitutional duty".
Here we must distinguish between what we cannot do and what we will not do. What we cannot do is to control the Executive. What we can do—and this afternoon's debate is a test of whether we will do it—is to exercise influence over the Executive: make them pause and think again. This is one of the few justifications for the second Chamber. It is a great justification.
I subscribe to most of the views which have been expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the lack of constraint upon an elective dictatorship. However, there is no way in which we should shirk what I submit to be not only our clear constitutional duty, but also our constitutional right, which is to grant this Bill a Second Reading in accordance with the traditions of this House as they have been established since the war, but to subject that Motion of approval to this reasoned amendment. It will then be for the Government, in accordance with what I believe to be constitutional convention, to pay heed to what this House has done and to think again. That is what we are asking them to do, and that is what they should do. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, "That the Bill be now read a second time" at the end to insert:
"but this House regards this Bill as a dangerous precedent in that it seeks to give to non-elected bodies the powers of properly constituted Councils; notes that it was not in the Conservative Party's election manifesto; and regrets its introduction before Parliament has decided whether or not to abolish those Councils."—(Lord Hooson.)
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Bill before us today was finally described by the Minister, when he got round to it, as important, but for those who care about

905
the health of local government and for the mutual respect that should be the basis of central and local relationships the Bill before us today can only be described as both bad and dangerous. It is bad that the Government believe it to be necessary; it is bad that it erodes still further the system of local government in our cities; and it is bad that it proposes only administrative confusion for some of the hardest pressed areas of our country. The Bill is dangerous, since it represents a negation of the democratic process and it is dangerous because it jeopardises the standing of Parliament. If Parliament takes away people's democratic rights by disfranchising them and thereby reducing their control over their own lives, this can only diminish respect for Parliament.
The Bill is based on the assumption that the six metropolitan counties and the Greater London Council must disappear and that they must disappear in 1986. On that central assumption is built the whole edifice of these interim arrangements. If, as the Government say, April 1986 is to mark the start of something new, why not hold elections for the existing authorities in 1985 or, as some Conservatives have argued in another place, and as The Times argued in a leader today, extend the life of the councils by one year beyond the four-year span that they will have served? Certainly neither alternative is impossible and neither would result in the dire consequences that will flow from this Bill. Yet we should rather be asking ourselves another more basic question: what is so immutable about the year 1986?
Today it is not appropriate to discuss what changes may or may not be needed in local government structure, but it is appropriate to question whether this Bill is needed at this time, in this form. It is this Bill that we are discussing today—not the abolition of the Greater London Council or the abolition of the metropolitan councils. It is the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill which is leading to these consequences. That Bill is before us, and it must be discussed today very thoroughly.
If a reorganisation of local government were scheduled for 1988, or even 1987, would we be spending time on makeshift arrangements like these? I think not. It would appear to be the Government's obsession with evicting certain councillors from their elected positions at the earliest opportunity that is the root cause of the measure. It is that unfortunate obsession which leads them to choose 1986 as the date from which abolition must operate. This then leads them, unfortunately and ill-advisedly, to the concoction of a package of makeshift and unworkable arrangements and to consequences that have rightly been widely described—not only by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who described them in a very clear and dramatic way—as unconstitutional.
We believe, as, I think, do many noble Lords in all parts of the House, that the provisions of this Bill set a dangerous constitutional precedent. Never before in the peacetime history of this country has a specific election been cancelled without a democratic alternative to replace it. The franchise will be withdrawn from 13 million electors. Directly elected councillors will be replaced by nominated members. This is not democratic election. In London political control will pass from Labour to Conservative by order of the
906
Secretary of State at midnight on 6th May 1985, without a vote being cast. When introducing this Bill, as the second leg of the Bill to abolish the GLC and metropolitan counties, the Minister said that there was nothing gerrymandering about this procedure. If it is not gerrymandering, then what is? We should have some other examples.
My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones will deal in more detail with the constitutional implications of this Bill later in the debate. I certainly do not intend to give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor any more publicity for his own written works—whether in or out of office. I will only say at this stage that these measures amount to unprecedented parliamentary action. They have caused deep concern among all parties and have provoked severe criticism from many of the Government's own supporters—as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, pointed out. The former Prime Minister, Mr. Edward Heath, commented on Second Reading in another place that the natural progression of democracy has been from indirect to direct representation. This Bill seeks to reverse exactly that process and goes from direct to indirect. Mr. Heath went on to say that indirectly-elected bodies cannot be equated with democratically-elected bodies. I would have thought that this was common ground, to which all of us in this House subscribe.
We believe that only the most compelling grounds could justify the cancellation of democratic elections. When Ministers undermine democracy for their own political convenience, they are playing with fire. The Bill raises issues of serious concern to Parliament and to this House. The manner in which the abolition proposals are being put forward by the Government threatens to pre-empt the ultimate decisions of this House on the abolition legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, pointed out, the White Paper Streamlining the Cities has not even been debated in either House. I will not go into the details of the pending decision of Parliament because the noble Lord has already covered that point admirably—but I will underline the fact that we in this House are being asked to approve the cancellation of elections. We are being asked to approve the enactment of interim arrangements, which presuppose that a decision on abolition has already been made.
My friends and I on these Benches do not consider that it is sufficient for the Secretary of State to say, as he has done, that no order to cancel the elections will be made until after the main Bill has received a Second Reading in another place. I do not apologise for repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has already said on this point because it is something which should be emphasised again and again during the debate. This pledge ignores the judgments which your Lordships may wish to make on the main Bill. The view of this House on the question of abolition will effectively have been pre-empted, since the order to cancel the elections will have been made weeks, if not months, before this House debates the main Bill. Furthermore, that order will apply only to Part II of the Bill; elsewhere the Bill proposes specific provisions on information and staffing matters which presuppose that abolition will proceed, and these measures will

907
come into effect immediately on the enactment of this Bill.
The Bill is not essential to the Government's abolition proposals. There is no reason—other than political policy—why the main Bill due in the next Session should not itself include a limitation on the term of office of elected councillors once abolition has been approved. There is no justification for the Government's proposals. Indeed, the means they are choosing to employ threaten to destroy what they say are their legislative ends; namely, the well-being of local government and the institutions on which it rests. When such indefensible means are proposed, it is very difficult to agree that the ends themselves, when put under very careful examination, have any merit.
This is the first stage of a major local government reorganization—but, unlike all previous reorganisations, there has been no public inquiry of any kind. There has been no Royal Commission and no tribunal of inquiry. There is no consensus for this proposal. Indeed, when we attempted on the Rates Bill to persuade the Government to set up an inquiry into local government finance—and even into the rating system—all we received was a blank "No" and resistance. Yet this type of legislation is brought before US.
The Government have refused to release the full reponses to public consultation on the White Paper—although they have acknowledged that the overwhelming proportion of those who replied oppose their intention. The only objective analysis of the costs and possible financial benefits of abolition, conducted by the well-known accountants Coopers and Lybrand, showed that there was no basis for the Government's claim that savings would result. In these circumstances, what credence can the House give to this Bill, which presupposes an abolition scheme supported by so little evidence—economic or moral—in its favour?
All the evidence that does exist serves to undermine the Government's case for abolition. As a result, more doubt is thrown on the need for the interim provisions now before us. The seven authorities responsible for crucial areas of public protection and major strategic functions for 18 million people will, in 11 months' time, lose most of the councillors having any experience in the financing, control and management of city-wide services. In his speech, the Minister said that more resources would be available and that everything would be kept running in good order. But those responsible will not have the experience necessary.
The devastating effect on staff morale is already being felt—certainly in the metropolitan counties outside London, where an even more difficult situation will arise. For every two county council seats abolished by this Bill, one district councillor will be nominated instead. Those lucky-or, rather, unlucky—councillors will be required to add to their existing responsibilities the duties of two presently-serving county council members. Further, for the first time in local government history, nominated councillors will effectively be delegates who can be
908
replaced at will by the lower-tier authorities without any election whatsoever.
This so-called paving Bill is paving the way not for rationality, simplicity and cost-effectiveness but for chaos, poorer services, and the loss of morale all round. Whatever the aruguments for long-term change, the administration of the important services provided by the councils affected will need to continue. Their work is not simply routine, to be tackled in the odd half-day between meetings of the lower-tier authorities and the demands of individual councillors' everyday work and of their families. These proposals display, if nothing else, an abysmal ignorance of the work done by councillors and a contemptuous disregard for the practical difficulties that will have to be faced in unscrambling the local government arrangements of our major cities. The purpose of local government is to serve the electorate. These measures—which threaten the stability of local government and the services it provides—must also threaten the interests of the local populations for whom these councils were created.
Yet, the worst feature of all is that we have no guarantee of the shape of the main proposals. Nor do we have a guarantee that the interim proposals will cease in April 1986. It would be intolerable if nominated representatives were to hold office indefinitely. The real basis for this concern is that there must be considerable doubt that such a major breakup of local government can be carried through in 11 months. In these circumstances, can the Minister give a guarantee that the term of these non-elected councillors will not be extended to two years? I shall be grateful if he will answer this point when he replies, because it is a matter of great importance.
This Bill is a dangerous and weak measure unsupported by solid argument. It has aroused widespread unease and considerable public opposition—despite the Minister's apparent belief that people are coming round to it. In fact, all the evidence shows quite the reverse. A poll conducted by the MORI organisation two weeks ago showed that, in London, 69 per cent. of those interviewed were opposed to the cancellation of the elections, while only 13 per cent. were in favour. This level of public antipathy transcends normal patterns of party allegiance. The plain fact remains that support for the Government's policy has been dropping month by month as their proposals have become clearer to the electorate.
It is ironic that these measures have perhaps created a greater interest in local government than there has been for some time. But what a price to pay! There is a clear message for the Government here, of which they should take note: withdraw this Bill and you will be more popular. These measures are unprecedented and represent a threat to the standard of government and public administration on which so much in our society depends. We have to look at the wider and deeper implications of this measure which we are discussing today.
The cancellation of elections and the manipulation of political control strike at the roots of our democratic traditions and cannot be condoned. We must be highly critical and we must strongly protest when the

909
Government of the day use their large majority in another place to disregard the democratic process. Not only the well-being of local government but the very fabric of our society is at risk if we lose sight of basic democratic principles. The Government have made a serious error of judgment, to put it at its lowest, in launching this Bill. They have moved with haste and with clumsiness; they have united their opponents; they have dismayed their friends; they have undermined their own public support and they have heaped opposition on their heads.
The issues raised are separate from the question of abolition, which will be debated later. We are today concerned with issues of democracy, the well-being of local government, the authority of this House and the authority of Parliament. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in the formulation of which we on these Benches were closely involved, therefore has the full support of the official Opposition. I trust that as the debate develops it will have the support of many other noble Lords. The amendment is one of the most important that has been discussed in this House. Many argue that one of the main justifications for a second Chamber is its role in protecting the citizen against abuse by the Government of the day. Tonight this House should say to Her Majesty's Government, "On this occasion you have gone too far. Go back and think again."
4.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of London and Southwark it falls to me to take part in this debate because one-third of my diocese is in the Greater London area. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield will be speaking later with reference to the metropolitan counties in the North of England.
We on these Benches are normally reluctant to become involved in a discussion on Motions and amendments that refer explicitly to party political matters, manifestoes and the like. Any Member of this Bench who finds himself speaking between the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, knows that he must not proceed "lightly, unadvisedly or wantonly". I must therefore make it clear at the outset that I am supporting the last clause of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, because, like him, I regret the introduction of this Bill before Parliament has decided whether or not to abolish the GLC and the other metropolitan councils. The reason why I regret this action is because the leaders of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and the Free Churches in London are united in their opposition to the removal of a body able to take an over-view of Greater London. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London will himself want to explain to your Lordships later in the year, when the abolition Bill comes before Parliament and to which I feel bound to refer today, the response of the different denominations in London to the White Paper entitled, Streamlining the Cities has been remarkable in its concern and in its unanimity. Submissions have been prepared by the Roman Catholic Archbishops of Westminster and Southwark as well as the Anglican Bishops of London
910
and Southwark and their six suffragans. The Methodist Church, the United Reformed Church, the Churches Group of the London Voluntary Services Council, as well as the social responsibility councils in the diocese of London and of Westminster are all united in their opposition.
The main points emphasised in these submissions are that the disadvantaged groups and areas of London will be those most adversely affected. Borough councils on their own will be unable, even if they are willing, to shoulder important community responsibilities which at the moment are carried by the GLC, because the experience of the Churches is that the boroughs have a poor record in dealing with groups such as ethnic minorities and those in particular need such as the homeless.
At the moment there is a considerable partnership between various Church-based organisations and the metropolitan authority in providing resources and help for the community. Many of the grants made to over 130 groups linked with the various Churches to help the homeless, alcoholics and young people predate the present GLC administration. As the Minister has himself acknowledged this afternoon, the partnership of voluntary and statutory bodies in the service of the community is one of the cornerstones of our society in this country. In Greater London, where all the Churches together have one and a half million members, they support 3,500 full-time workers and, in addition, many thousands of Church workers who are heavily involved in the voluntary sector.
The Roman Catholic Archbishops of Westminster and Southwark have expressed their special concern about the effects of the proposals on voluntary organisations, especially those serving London as a whole. They are also uncertain as to who in future would have an overall view of London's employment needs. They are particularly concerned about the absence of any mention of the homeless in the White Paper. The Anglican Bishops in London, North and South of the Thames, also feel that it is imperative to have a facility for the over-view of London because of the massive policy implications which cannot be confined to borough boundaries. They seriously doubt whether this over-view could be provided by voluntary inter-borough co-operation, because inevitably members answerable to borough constituencies would tend to have parochial priorities.
As your Lordships would expect, the Methodist Church is concerned with justice, community and stewardship. After widespread consultation in the Methodist districts in London it has come to the conclusion that the proposals would reduce meaningful participation in decisions which affect people's lives. They also fear the loss of a sense of common identity and purpose. I am bound to say they consider the transitional arrangements to be unbelievable, and indeed sinister.
In over 40 years' experience of inter-Church cooperation, most of it in London, I have never before known the Anglican, Roman Catholic and Free Churches to be so seriously roused over a matter of concern to the whole community, or so united in their view that the present proposals are ill-considered and untimely. I therefore venture to hope that if your

911
Lordships pass the amendment, it will prompt the Government to take seriously the views expressed in this second Chamber of Parliament, where, by long tradition, we have the role not of impeding action by the Executive but of ensuring that a Govenment take sufficient time over the formulation of their plans to ensure that the long-term interests of the whole community are properly and responsibly served.
Meanwhile, I have to say that the leaders of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and the Free Churches in London find this Bill offensive as a parliamentary procedure, offensive in the context of our traditional democratic way of life and offensive to the conscience of many Christians of all traditions.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate who has just resumed his seat has, I think, made a speech of a characteristically vigorous political character at a pitch of intensity hardly reached from the Episcopal Bench since the late 1890s, when my episcopal grandfather made a speech which helped to defeat Mr. Gladstone's last Home Rule Bill. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate, for whom I, like the whole of the rest of the House, have enormous respect, seems, if he will allow me to say so, to have swallowed hook, line and sinker the propaganda being put out at the expense of the ratepayers by the Greater London Council.
Let me take just one point that the right reverend Prelate made. He said that the boroughs, upon which under the new system a great measure of responsibility will fall, had a poor record in looking after the disadvantaged. With respect, he ignored the fact that that record, if it be a poor one, was one which was achieved with the existence of a superior authority—the GLC—not only exercising responsibilities in that way but raising the funds to do it from the same ratepayers as will be called upon in the future. Therefore, if he will allow me to say so, it is grossly unfair for him, with all the prestige, standing and respect of one of the greatest Prelates of the Church to which I happen to belong, to denounce the lower tier local authorities for inadequate action when the circumstances are wholly different from what they will be when the changes have taken place. After all, the same rateable value will be there in Greater London. Indeed, there is every reason to hope that less of the rate product will be wasted.
It is really, I think, grossly unfair to these very public-spirited people who act on the social service side of the London boroughs, particularly the London boroughs in the poorer areas, simply to assume, as the right reverend Prelate appeared to do, that, with the GLC and its work gone, those boroughs will do no more than they do at present. The right reverend Prelate has no justification for that, and I myself have no reason to believe that the care of the disadvantaged in large numbers in many parts of London—and I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the problems are enormous—will be any the less efficient under the new system which is foreseen. It is really very wrong at this stage—and I say this with some feeling—when the main Bill is not yet before us, to cause alarm among the less fortunate of our fellow citizens, and among
912
those who care for them and look after them, by making suggestions of this kind, which I do not believe are true and which I hope and believe the right reverend Prelate will live and continue in this House to be able to acknowledge were wholly wrongly foreshadowed.
I come now to the reasoned amendment—that is the technical term one must give it—of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I could not help having a slightly cynical feeling both during his speech and during that of the noble Baroness. Lady Birk, at the enormously important role they attribute to this House in the most generous terms, although sometimes from that side of the House we are told that because we are unelected we really ought not to have much of a say in anything. But come a measure of this kind, come a measure on which noble Lords opposite feel strongly (and I understand their strength of feeling), then the whole story is the opposite. The story then is that this House has very important functions to perform in checking the legislation of the Government.
May we look at the terms of this really quite extraordinary, reasoned amendment? It comes from the Liberal Benches although the noble Baroness, I gather, has admitted at any rate partial parentage. It recalls to me—and I think it may recall to the noble Lord. Lord Stewart of Fulham, who is to follow me—a remark made by the first Earl of Birkenhead some 55 years ago in the Oxford Union in response to another emanation from the Liberal Party. He said then (and I recall his words clearly): "It has all the characteristics of a Liberal joke. First of all, it is not funny; secondly, it is not true; and, thirdly, it is calculated to give offence".
Let me take all three parts. First, we are asked to affirm that power is to be handed over in London to non-elected bodies. This is not true. The representatives of the London boroughs who will be appointed to exercise the powers previously exercised by the GLC are all elected persons. They are members of elected bodies which have themselves chosen them; and, indeed, they have the advantage (I do not know whether the noble Lord realises this) of having been elected more recently than the GLC councillors they will be replacing. It is therefore quite untrue to seek to put on the record that this proposal would put nonelected persons in the role of elected persons. These will be London borough councillors, more recently elected than GLC councillors and just as responsible to their constituents as anybody else who has been through the process of election.
Secondly, we are told that this proposal was not in the Conservative Party's election manifesto. Once again, that is not true. The election manifesto is perfectly plain: that we intend to abolish the GLC and the other metropolitan authorities which have been shown, says the manifesto, to be wasteful and unnecessary. That is a part of the policy—whether noble Lords opposite agree with it is neither here nor there—on which the Government were elected; and of course that policy involves adopting the best means you can to implement it. Who wills the end wills the means. Therefore, we now come—and I suggest that this will cut the debate down to size a little—to the practical question as to whether, given that this is a manifesto commitment which the Government are faithfully carrying out, they are using the best method to do it.

913
The noble Baroness, in particular, said, "Why not leave the whole thing until you have carried the abolition Bill, and then come along with the other arrangements that have to be made?" That has two enormous disadvantages. First of all, it delays the changeover. Whatever view your Lordships take as to whether the changeover should happen at all, there is very little to be said for delaying it. It increases the period of uncertainty for officials and, indeed, for elected members of all the authorities concerned. There is a longer period in which proper long-term planning is not possible, and once it is decided that it is necessary to make this change, then from every point of view—and I think regardless of one's political ideas—the quicker it can be done, the better. What the noble Baroness suggests would add at least a year to the process, and that cannot make sense.
What, then, is the right thing to do about the GLC members whose term of office ends next May? There could be another election; I understand that it costs between £ 3 million and £ 4 million. They would be elected for only a few months. Clearly the election would be entirely concerned with the proposed changes. No one standing for election for a maximum period of 11 months could sensibly put forward any constructive, helpful or practical policies. There would simply be a dispute about that, and then 11 months of ineffectiveness for those who were elected.
Alternatively, as I think one noble Lord suggested, you can extend the current term of the present incumbents. That, again, is subject to the criticism that they were elected for one period of time and that it is a very dangerous precedent—a precedent, incidentally, adopted by Hitler—to extend the term of office of elected persons. But it would be possible.
There again you can do what the Government are proposing to do, and that is to see to it that the representatives of the bodies which are going to take control come in and act in the interim. I think that to most of us with practical experience in administration that seems to be the commonsense approach. The representatives of the London boroughs will be people who are going to have the responsibility of running the whole machinery of local government in London in the future. They will have every motive and reason to see that it starts successfully and practically. Therefore, it seems to me that from the point of view of the citizens and ratepayers of London—of whom, in modest degree, I am one, though having received my latest rate demand I think that I can almost drop the word "modest"—the practical proposition is to secure that the incoming authority's representative takes over interim control and prepares the way. Surely it is in that way, too, that we shall get the best co-operation from officials.
All this would be arguable—I can see this at once—but for one factor. That factor is the attitude of the GLC. They are not showing the slightest willingness to discuss future arrangements. They are not permitting their officials to provide information, except when compelled to do so.
They are not only adopting this highly expensive propaganda campaign, which has apparently taken in so many people, but are also engaged—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer a question on that point?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, surely, my Lords.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to be suggesting that anyone who is a critic of this Bill is a critic only because he has been bamboozled by the GLC's propaganda campaign. Will not the noble Lord realise that that is a particularly unworthy suggestion?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it would have been if I had said it, but I did not. However, if the noble Lord asks me that, having listened to some of the speeches, I would say that there were some indications of a susceptibility to the virus of this propaganda which a perhaps cynical, perhaps not inexperienced, eye might detect.
I return to the question of the attitude of the GLC. We have seen it in their support of every organisation of every kind, however disreputable; organisations such as Gay Teenagers and London Prostitutes Cooperative, and an organisation for lesbians. I recall that when I mentioned this point during our discussions on the Rates Bill, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, (who is not present) who followed me in the debate, went out of his way to say that he knew much more about these subjects than I did. I of course concede that to the right reverend Prelate; but it has not been a very good picture.
There are two additional points which are indicative of the attitude that the GLC are now taking which I shall ask your Lordships to consider. One is that quite recently the GLC's director of supplies sent to some 8,000 business suppliers of the GLC a form of petition, which they were asked to return, asking the Government not to proceed with this Bill. If your Lordships can think of a more improper form of commercial pressure than that, I am afraid that I cannot.
The other matter that has been publicised in the press but not mentioned today is the action of Mr. Peter Pitt, the chairman of the GLC's Arts and Recreation Committee, in announcing that if the 17-year-old South African runner, Zola Budd who was to run—and, I am glad to say, ran successfully—at Crystal Palace the other day, did not make a denunciation of apartheid, he would see to it that the financial support for Crystal Palace from the GLC ceased. For a great organisation to use its wealth and political pressure to try to extract a political statement from a girl of 17 is, I think, an act that has not been equalled since the days of the medieval Church.
I think that again indicates the utter intolerance of those who run the GLC. Therefore it seems clear that if over this matter we were to adopt the expedient of letting them run on until the abolition Bill was through, we would secure no co-operation; we would secure an aggressive attitude on every question, be it practical, important, or detailed, and the only sufferers from this in the long run would be the ratepayers and the citizens of London.
I realise that the Government's decision is not an easy one. I realise that touching anything to do with elections touches a most sensitive nerve, though I

915
think a good deal of constitutional nonsense has been talked on that same subject. But I realise it is not an easy matter. I think for that reason the Government are to be congratulated on coming forward with this Bill and I hope that they will firmly and courageously proceed with it.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, seven heads of Government met recently at a summit conference. In their communiqué I noticed the following phrase:
"We believe in a system of democracy which ensures genuine choice in elections freely held."
It says, "in elections". One would have thought perhaps that our own British representative at that conference might have added an amendment to say,
"genuine choice in elections, except in so far as the date of these may be inconvenient to the Government of the day",
because that is, in effect, what is happening here. That was what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, did not seem to begin to understand. His prepared speech for the subsequent Bill that we are to expect had so absorbed his attention that I do not think he really grasped to what it is we are objecting.
To take someone who has been elected as a borough councillor and go through a process of saying, "You are now a member of the GLC, subject to the rather remarkable requirement that at any time the borough likes, it can haul you back", does not amount to an election and cannot possibly be called an election. What we are objecting to in this Bill—I wish the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, had understood this—is that the Government have adopted a thoroughly undemocratic procedure instead of the normal one of election. If we want democracy to work, it is important that we have rules and that we respect them. We should depart from them only where there is the most powerful argument for doing so. I want to consider whether there are any arguments that justify the Government's use of this remarkably undemocratic procedure.
One argument might be that what they want to do—the abolition of the councils—has such overwhelming support that one is justified in dispensing with the technicalities of elections. In the First and Second World Wars we dispensed with parliamentary elections until the wars were over, but one could do that because quite clearly that was what the overwhelming majority of people in the country wanted one to do, and they would have regarded it as very silly if one had done anything else. But can we possibly say that there is anything like that in the way of a demand to abolish the Greater London Council and the other metropolitan councils?
We have heard speeches, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, attacking particular things that the Greater London Council has done. I would say this. If Londoners think that Mr. Livingstone's administration of the GLC is bad, the way in which they would show that would be by voting against him at the next election, not by abolishing the body on which he sits. To say, "This authority has a bad administration; therefore we will abolish the authority", is an
916
argument that can lead one into almost any kind of nonsense.
Could it possibly be said that there is any overwhelming demand for the abolition of these councils? The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, really did come as near as makes no matter to suggesting that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester had been bamboozled by Mr. Livingstone. He may think that, but is he really suggesting that most of the religious leaders in London—as I understood it, the right reverend Prelate was not speaking for himself alone but for other religious leaders—have all fallen into the same trap?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me?
Lord Stew art of Fulham: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall the saying in Holy Writ:
"the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light"?
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords. I recall the saying, but I must say that it takes me a little longer to grasp its relevance to what we are arguing about.
Can it really be said, in the light of what the right reverend Prelate has told us, that it is an overwhelming desire of people in this country to abolish these councils? I am not going to argue the merits or demerits of the councils. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that that is not what this debate is for. We will have that debate later on. I am merely going to say now that surely we must all accept that the question whether or not these councils should be abolished is a question on which sincere and well-informed peole are to be found on both sides. Therefore, one has not the plea of overwhelming public demand to justify tampering with the elections. So that argument, that they were justified in tampering with the elections because there was an overwhelming demand, will not stand up for a moment.
Can it then be justified on the ground that there was no alternative? One alternative that was open to the Government, if they were so anxious to abolish these councils. was to start the whole process a year earlier. Then they would have had their new councils all ready, and all the arrangements made, before the electoral term of the present GLC ran out, and there would not have been all these difficulties. It was their own slovenliness in that respect that has landed them in this position.
Can it be said that this process is justified on the ground that it will give one efficient government? What one is going to do is appoint people who have no experience of the GLC's problems. They are going to be appointed for about 11 months, or possibly less. They are going to have no possibility of really handling the government of the Metropolis during that period. One thing is quite certain—the government during those 11 months, if these proposals go through, will be slovenly and ignorant. One could not possibly justify messing about with the elections on the ground that it gives one an efficient result.

917
I would suggest, therefore, that the burden of proof is on the Government to show that they have a good reason for departing from the normal process of elections in local government. They are departing from that process. They have not shown us any good reason. There is neither a massive consensus of public opinion, nor is there an argument of efficiency, nor is there an argument that they have no alternative.
Finally—I am speaking as briefly as I can—there is this extraordinary position that the stamp will be put on all this when a Second Reading is given in the House of Commons to the abolition Bill. That is being interpreted to mean the consent of Parliament. I am not noted particularly as a champion of the rights of this House as against the other, but in this as in all constitutional matters one ought to know what are the rules. It has been well understood in this country for a long time that the body that is sovereign is Parliament, and a resolution of the House of Commons, even on the Second Reading of a Bill, is not a decision of Parliament. The attempt to make it so in this Bill is merely an addition in the unconstitutional process of what in the first place was a thoroughly undesirable Bill.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, several times a day recently the newspapers have told us that, faced with issues of high importance and sharp party contention, Cross-Benchers have falling on them a measure of special responsibility. If I may recall a phrase of my late noble friend Lord Robbins, unlike party loyalists, we on these Benches cannot take refuge in what he called the mystic joys of tribal unity, although before the night is out the Chief Whip may wish there was more tribal unity on the Tory Benches.
Since the outcome could be decided by uncommitted voters, I would venture to invite my noble friends on these Benches to dwell on what seem to me two central questions posed by this Bill and by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. Despite the barracking that was directed at the noble Lord. Lord Bellwin, I persist in arguing that the primary issue before us is whether the GLC and the six metropolitan councils should be abolished. Indeed, if I may say so with respect, the right reverend Prelate devoted his speech entirely to that one issue, and many other votes will be cast without any regard for this Bill because opponents of the abolition of the GLC will wish, in any event, to strike down the Bill. For those who, like me, answer to that primary question, "The sooner the better", there arises a second question, which is whether this Bill is essential to encompass that objective.
On the first question, I do not see that we can avoid some reference to the issue of abolition without rehearsing the full case. Suffice it to say that from my own reading it is quite clear that it is not only members of the Conservative Party who have come round to the view that local government would be more effective if the top-heavy upper tiers were removed. We have heard that the GLC has strictly circumscribed functions on a whole range of activities, and we were told that for a rag bag of its main duties at the present time there could be other arrangements by specialist
918
agencies that exist or they could be devolved to the borough councils.
I want to tell Members on the Labour Benches, who so easily regard all this as a pure party matter, that some years ago my mind was decided on this issue by an old friend of mine, and perhaps of some of them—a man called Oliver Stutchbury, who was a Greater London Council Labour alderman. He was the first to launch the campaign against the Greater London Council in 1977, when he described the GLC as, "a ruinously costly edifice". If there is time before voting tonight for some noble Lords to look up the source in the Library, I strongly commend his book published in 1977 and called, Too Much Government.
What puzzled me, looking at the background, was why were these upper tier councils invented in the first place by a Conservative Government? I poured over a great deal of second-rate Tory publicity until I came across a most rewarding quotation from the Conservative side, which was as follows:
"They were created in the enthusiasm of the 1960s and the 1970s and it has become clear over the years that they result in friction and duplication of effort".
I could not help shouting, "Bravo!" and "Hear, hear!" when I read that admission from a Conservative source. I would only say that if the Labour Party were as ready to confess errors, we should have a field day getting rid of dozens of trendy laws passed in the vanished 1960s and 1970s that still clutter up the statute book.
So far so good. If the dismantling of the superfluous upper tiers is desirable, then the question presents itself whether the Bill is necessary, and is necessary at this time. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has pointed out, plainly some Bill is required to prepare the way for the takeover of the continuing functions from the doomed authorities in 1986. If you envisage an execution, then it would seem prudent to make advance plans for the disposal of the body.
So we turn to the matters complained of in the amendment, which shrinks from directly challenging abolition. Instead, with typical Liberal half measures, we have the weasel-worded approach of, "yes, but ", which seeks to assemble support from wherever it may be found for a wrecking amendment, artfully propped up on three unequal legs. The least substantial leg is that the Bill was not in the Tory manifesto. It was not; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, since the abolition of the GLC and the MCCs was in the manifesto, this consequential measure raises no great constitutional innovation. As the noble Lord said, if the electorate wills the end, who are we, the House of Lords above all, to deny the Government the necessary means?
The second wobbly leg of the amendment is that the Bill is being introduced before Parliament has decided about abolition. The Government have a dilemma in this respect because the final execution can only take place after a full public trial which will be staged, no doubt, with due solemnity, when the abolition Bill is brought before us next Session. Meanwhile, the safeguard for the fainthearts on the Liberal Benches, as the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has pointed out, is that this transitional Bill will not come into operation until the abolition Bill has been given its Second Reading. If I may mix metaphors, the requirement of a special

919
order in Clause 1 is, in effect, a self-destruct mechanism to prevent the start of burial arrangements unless the execution looks like proceeding.
Accordingly, those who accept abolition but who are tempted to flirt with the equivocating amendment, are left perching on a single leg; namely, that the Bill sets a dangerous precedent by giving non-elected bodies the powers of properly constituted councils. I make no bones about it: I think that this is the most substantial of the elements of this amendment. But, since it is generally acknowledged that some interim provisions are essential to the main objective, we are left inevitably to choose how to deal with the GLC and the MCCs between the expiry of their natural term in May 1985 and their final abolition, which has been timed for March 1986.
I think that there is no dispute in this House that there is no ideal solution. The Labour Party do not have an ideal solution and nor do I, because there is only a choice between three makeshift expedients in this situation. The Government could have allowed the empty paraphernalia of elections to new councils with a little more than a few months to prepare for their own demise. A simpler alternative—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, implied—would have been to prolong the lives of the existing councils. I wonder whether, if the metropolitan county councils were Conservative controlled, rather than all six of them being Labour controlled, and the Government had come forward to prolong their lives, it would have been greeted by the Opposition as gerrymandering? Nevertheless, I must say that I strongly favoured that makeshift arrangement of prolonging their lives until I looked more closely at the political realities of the situation.
Thus we come to the device chosen by the Government, which I agree, on the surface, is the least attractive of the three options, as it means cancelling the elections. As we have heard, there has been a precedent for that, but, instead of prolonging the tenure of the doomed metropolitan councillors, they are to be replaced by transitional councillors nominated by democratically elected councillors, but nevertheless indirectly elected.
The Government's justification for this device is that the success of the interim arrangements for the handover of functions depends absolutely upon the co-operation of the bodies to be superseded. I find that a rather persuasive argument. The decisive question upon which this wrecking amendment might be judged is whether we can visualise people like Ken Livingstone collaborating in arrangements for their own funerals. The answer of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is that the GLC and the MCCs are already refusing to co-operate, even forbidding their officials to supply information required to ensure a smooth transition. I thought that that was a very powerful point gained for the Government's proposals. The noble Lord then went on to emphasise what to me was the clinching argument; namely, that the borough and district councils, which will control the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, are the very people who, irrespective of their party allegiance, have the strongest interest in making a long-term success of reorganisation. That, for me, is the decisive argument
920
against this opportunistic and partisan amendment, which I hope my noble friends will join in rejecting.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Molson: My Lords. I can confine my remarks to a short time because it is my intention to confine them to the Bill before the House at the moment and not to go into the general question of whether these various local authorities should or should not be abolished. I do not wish in any way to criticise, even by implication, my noble friend Lord Bellwin, nor, indeed, the Front Bench speakers on the other side who found it necessary to give, to some extent, the background against which this Bill has been brought forward. But it will be advantageous if the rest of us can confine our remarks to the Bill at present before us.
I speak only because I wish to justify my action in voting against the Party to which I belong, on the amendment which has been proposed to this Bill. We are not voting against the Second Reading of this Bill. I should not do that. As was established by the late Lord Salisbury, it has become a constitutional custom that when the other place has passed a Bill we do not vote against the Second Reading. We do, however, preserve the right to ask the Government in this place to consider amendments and to make alterations. I am glad to recall that on several occasions recently they have shown themselves willing to do so. Our duty is to give the other place an opportunity to think again, and to give the Cabinet the benefit of quite independent views, as expressed in this House, where members of all parties adopt an independent line such as was never possible for those of us who served in another place. Indeed, the joke has been made by one of my noble friends that the members of the Labour Party here are inclined to attach greater importance to the opinions of your Lordships than their colleagues in another place.
As I say. I am not voting against the Second Reading of this Bill. I am not voting against the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. How could one do so at the present time when the Bill has not even been published? I am voting in favour of drastic amendment of this Bill during its Committee stage here. I do not approve of nomination by borough and district councils elected in 1982 for different purposes in order to appoint representatives to take the place of these higher councils. The proposal that members of a large local authority elected in 1981 should be replaced by the nominees of smaller local authorities elected in 1982 to discharge entirely different duties in their smaller local areas is in my opinion so irrational and so undemocratic that I doubt whether it will survive critical scrutiny in your Lordships' House. If the Greater London Council is so generally unpopular—and I have no sympathy whatever with it—there is something to be said for letting it proceed to another election. It might well be that the people of London would take the same view of it as I do, and reject it completely.
As has been pointed out by previous speakers—the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and the noble Lord. Lord Stewart of Fulham, in particular—this raises a very important constitutional issue. It may be ironical that your Lordships' nominated and heritary House should

921
be called upon to defend the principles of democratic election. But in point of fact that is the issue which we face today. Without making any commitment, I have every intention of supporting my noble friends on the Government Front Bench in the abolition of these authorities. Of course, a great deal will depend upon what it is proposed to put in their place, about which we have no reliable information at the present time. I would only say that in several very important respects—planning in particular—it is essential that very different policies should be adopted from those which have been indicated as being in the Government's mind at the present time.
However, the issue is the constitutional one as to whether or not we are justified in passing this Bill today without entering the caveat—because that is all it is—that your Lordships may think it suitable to carry amendments against the Government unless indeed the Government are prepared to meet public opinion in advance. Therefore, I think it is important that the Government should be given this warning. I think that today one is justified in supporting the amendment which has been moved with so much constitutional learning and wisdom by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and I hope that it will be carried.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken said that today he was not voting against the abolition of the GLC. He is quite right; none of us will be doing that. In fact, the next time that we discuss the abolition of the GLC, the event will already have occurred, because the Government believe that the will of Parliament is contained inside the House of Commons and, therefore, after this Bill we shall no longer have an opportunity to discuss the real issues about the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.
I should like to explain the question which I tried to put to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, at the end of his speech. It was: did the noble Lord have anything at all to say about, or did the Government have any comment to make upon, the very powerful arguments put forward in 1972 for a directly elected authority to look after the affairs of counties such as Merseyside on a county-wide basis; and, if in fact they did have a comment to make upon those powerful arguments put forward by a commission appointed by Parliament, were we now to assume that the arguments were no longer relevant to those areas, and that we should reject completely the idea of Redcliffe-Maud? That would have been the question. From my experience of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in local government, I rather suspect that he would have been hard put to it to stand in this House and deny the rightness of those assumptions. On the other hand, it may be that he would have denied the rightness of those assumptions.
However, there is a very clear indication, even in the title of the so-called Bill to streamline the cities, that no longer do the Government regard as a right subject for democratic discussion and decision the affairs of an area such as Merseyside or Manchester, or Greater London. I place them in that order because the reverse order of the GLC and the metropolitan counties has been referred to too often. Other people are involved
922
besides the GLC, and London is somewhat different from Merseyside and the other metropolitan counties because it happens to be the capital of this nation.
In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to draw the Minister's attention to what Merseyside thinks about this paving Bill. In expressing that opinion, it will of course be impossible for Merseyside to express an opinion upon that Bill without expressing an opinion upon the abolition Bill which will follow, which demonstrates quite clearly to any reasonably-minded logical person that there should have been one Bill, and that both matters should have been considered at the same time.
When Merseyside heard about the proposals, it did not take them lying down. It did not just say that the Government must have their way, that the party caucus of the Conservative Party operating in the House of Commons must be right. It did not say that. On Merseyside they have a history of operating on a Merseyside basis. It is not an organisation that has been superimposed upon us by some commission; it has not been forced upon us by a Government. It is an organisation that grew out of the needs of the area. The needs of the area can be summed up by saying that the dominant feature of Merseyside is the river Mersey and the international trade that came to the river Mersey and upon which its whole future would depend. The tragedy is that international trade has gone, and now more than ever we in Merseyside need a directly-elected authority not only to deal with those problems which affect Liverpool, the Wirral, Southport, St. Helens and other places, but to deal with Merseyside problems on a Merseyside basis. They cannot be solved in any other way.
Perhaps I may use a small example of the ludicrousness of trying to streamline cities within an area where the problems are so great that they are not embraced in just one city. It is easy to demonstrate that Liverpool City Council had the tremendous task of encouraging the arts in Merseyside because the orchestras and other places of arts and culture resided in Liverpool, but was it right that the Liverpool City Council should take all the burden? Was it right that they should give all the resources? Of course not, and Merseyside recognised it. That is why Merseyside was one of the first areas to act together to establish a Merseyside area arts council, and we did it long before anyone else.
The Government have just spent countless millions of pounds in trying to rejuvenate Merseyside with an International Garden Festival. An International Garden Festival is not related to Liverpool, it is related to Merseyside. If the costs of keeping that international festival in good shape have to be borne by anybody, they should be borne by Merseyside—or perhaps the Government will consider taking them over. However, I doubt very much that they will.
We set up our own Merseyside authority. We organised our own passenger transport authority long before the MPTAs came into existence, but the Government had to step in and impose their own organisation upon Merseyside. It has not worked. It never really got the confidence of the people because the Government insisted on having nominees on the board when we were already doing it. Eleven local

923
authorities got together and organised it and took the decision to have an integrated transport system. Each local authority gave up its sovereignty to the whole in the interests of all.
I am minded that this Bill is not just a Bill about local government. This Bill is really a question of where power resides in our so-called democratic society. Since 1945 local government has had its powers eroded in one form or another until, practically speaking, it is now left with just a rump. The real power rests down here in Whitehall. I specifically say "Whitehall". It does not rest in Parliament.
Sovereignty in this country in regard to affairs that should be administered locally rests with the bureaucrats in Whitehall. We move slowly but surely to a centralised, bureaucratic state. It was a Member of this House, Lord Hewart, who wrote a book and quoted Kipling. He was talking about despotism and tyranny of an old king when he said:
"All we have of freedomall we know of law.
This our fathers bought us long, and long ago. Ancient rights unnoticed as the breath we draw".
There were plenty of them. And they have all slowly but surely been eroded and gone to Whitehall.
Now we do not talk really about the sovereignty of Parliament. We talk about the sovereignty of civil servants acting on behalf of Ministers in their own particular way. This Government do not care much about it. We debated the Transport Bill in this House. Someone said that the Government were always amenable and reasonable, and that they would listen to reasonable amendments. We know that on the transport Bill, because of the Conservative party timetable, they rejected utterly and completely every reasonable amendment moved in your Lordships' House. If ever there was an example of power and arrogance, that was it. And it gets worse.
There was no mandate for the Tory party to bring in the abolition of the metropolitan counties, unless they mean a mandate because they won most seats, and that is not what really counts in a democracy. Perhaps there is the mandate that the noble Lord referred to, but it certainly is not a mandate of the number of votes. When any party acquires power in a democracy such as ours it behoves it to pay regard to the fact that it did not get a majority of votes.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but is the noble Lord saying that he is now a convert to proportional representation?
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, no, I do not want proportional representation. I am just about to come to that point. What we see is an example of the party caucus having its will in Parliament regardless of what the Opposition say. Some people will say, "What is wrong with that?" Some people said "What is wrong with a candidate in an election putting on his ballot paper the party he represents?" I will tell you what is wrong about it. By that simple act Parliament recognised that political parties have a powerful role in our democracy, and that has led to this Bill.
For the first time in our constitutional history you will find that there is a Bill in front of us that gives
924
power to parties laid down in statute. It instructs the other authorities, when making nominees to the interim body, to pay due regard to the party representation on that council. That is legalising party caucus and I abhore it. because I abhore secret decisions taken inside party caucuses. Every right-minded man who thinks of democracy as a product of the people will think the same.
Where have we got to? I was asked whether I believed in proportional representation. No, I do not. There are two things which should be sacrosanct in our society. One is the individual, and the right of the individual, when elected, to represent all of his constituents, regardless sometimes of party loyalty. Therefore, I will always oppose any Bill that brings party in.
Time is short, and I have already exceeded my agreed time, but there is one point on which I want to finish. It has nothing to do with local government at the moment. I came into local government, as is well known, and perhaps in my day people could have called me the Ken Livingstone of Liverpool. I moved on to a city council on which there were numerous aldermen, and I wanted to abolish the lot. When 1972 came along I spoke against the abolition of aldermen. I said that it was an institution which had grown up—like the House of Lords—in which the moderating influence, the reasonable point of view, could be used to temper the steel of the rebels, and that we had a good system of local government.
No one listened, so we abolished the aldermanic bench. Today, because of the point made in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, we are effectively abolishing the House of Lords. The Government are saying, "You can talk. You can have your say, but as soon as it is through its Second Reading in the House of Commons this goes into effect". You may ask what does that mean? It means that we are stooges. That is what it means we are. We are like the stooges on the other side who sat still and never opened their mouths when this subject first came into prominence.
Anyone who is honest knows why this subject came into prominence. It came into prominence because somebody said, "We will abolish rates." Somebody should have taken the Prime Minister to one side and explained to her that in a naive way, because of her lack of experience in local government, she was saying something that was not tenable. But they did not. In effect what happened was that because they could not abolish rates we got this Bill, and all the venom and spite against the GLC and Ken Livingstone came out in the first 15 minutes of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. It is that kind of arrogant power that leads to some awful situations.
Let me conclude on this note. One of the things that have struck me in my political career of some half a century was watching Dr. Bronowski on television kneeling in a pond in an extermination camp. He ran the water and dust of that extermination camp through his fingers and said: "This was not caused by gas. This was not caused by wicked men. This was caused by arrogance; the arrogance that says, 'I am right', without any test of reality, without listening to the opposition; 'I am right, I am to have my way'." I paraphrase the words of Cromwell, omitting some, and say to the noble Lord opposite, "I beseech thee,

925
just for once imagine that the Government may be wrong."
5.41 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I expect many of your Lordships were as surprised as I was by the view of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, that having won a large majority in the House of Commons at the last general election, the Government nevertheless have no mandate for their legislation. That is a proposition which must have appeared very strange to his Front Bench.
Lord Sefton of Garston: With all due respect, my Lords, I did not say that they had no mandate. They have a mandate of some sort based on seats. I said they have no mandate on the votes of the people.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I think we must leave the facts to speak for themselves with regard to that. If I may say so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, really hit the nail on the head when he said that there is no ideal solution to this matter. In the background of the decisions that we have to take is the timetable with which the Government were faced and with which another place was faced. The timetable, in the briefest terms, is this: that the Conservative Party won the last general election and again formed the Government in June 1983; that unless something be done the metropolitan councils and the Greater London Council will have to face elections in May 1985; and it is proposed that the changes envisaged as a result of this manifesto commitment shall take place with effect from April 1986. That is a very tight timetable. We are faced with a situation which has never previously arisen. A tier of local government is to be abolished, and such functions as it has are to be performed by existing councils which are not to be abolished.
Of course, there is the possibility that those councils should take over no functions at all until 1986; but if that were to happen and the GLC were to continue in existence after a further election, they would exist as a council—and this would be true of the metroplitan county councils as well—for only 11 months. During that limited time their main task would be to cooperate in transferring their functions to the borough and district councils, and in effect "digging their own graves". What a prospect for them! So this kindly, helpful and thoughtful Government are going to save them from that gloomy fate and have decided—and they have the backing of the House of Commons in doing so—that there would be no point in holding those elections in 1985 and it would be better for those who will be taking over to have a hand in running things meanwhile.
When we vote tonight, however, as I understand it, we shall simply be voting on the amendment moved with such fluency by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in which three arguments are used. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his most admirable speech, has dealt with those three arguments, and that enables me to shorten what I have to say but to add just a postscript. The first point is that we are asked to regard the Bill as "a dangerous precedent". That is an inappropriate expression, I suggest, in these
926
circumstances. If it means that it is a precedent binding on Parliament when we are legislating in future, it is of course no such thing—and, indeed, I think the noble Lord, in the course of what he said, conceded that point—because of our unwritten and flexible constitution.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am not using the word "precedent" in the legal sense. What I am saying is that if Parliament passes this Bill the fact that we have passed it will be used subsequently as a justification for action of a similar kind.
Lord Renton: My Lords, that is a fair enough point to make, except that we have to bear in mind that the circumstances with which we are faced today have never arisen before and may never arise again. If they do arise again, the sensible decision which the Government have taken might conceivably also be taken by another Government in similar circumstances, which I would have thought are extremely unlikely. But clearly of course we are always abandoning our own precedents whenever we amend legislation; and if, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, suggests, it is "a dangerous precedent" on which Governments could rely in future rather than Parliament, then it comes to the same thing because all Governments are answerable to Parliament.
Secondly, the amendment says that this paving Bill was not in the Conservative election manifesto. Of course it was not, but the reason for it was stated plainly enough. May I say that I fought and won 10 general elections for a seat in another place, and I do not remember party manifestoes ever doing anything except claiming things for a party's record, perhaps attacking their opponents, doing a bit of propaganda, and stating the policies. I do not remember the legislative machinery for carrying out policies being mentioned in manifestoes, and one would not expect that to happen. In fact, no party has indulged in that practice. This is just a paving Bill.
That brings me to the last point in the amendment, because it regrets the Bill's introduction before Parliament has decided whether or not to abolish the councils. On a superficial view—but I stress "on a superficial view"—that might seem to be a good point, but there is a strong and clear answer to it contained in the Bill itself. Clause 1 says that Part II of the Bill—which is the effective part under which elections would be suspended and borough and district councillors chosen—will not come into operation until the Secretary of State makes an order (which has, by the way, to be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses), and he will not do that, as has been made clear, until after Second Reading in another place next Session. This paving Bill is therefore merely an enabling Bill. I do not see anything "constitutionally unacceptable" in that. Indeed, I find that this is honesty manifest, that there should be a Bill of this kind.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I wonder whether I might—
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am very anxious—the noble Lord spoke for quite a long time; I think half an hour—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Over half an hour, my Lords.
Lord Renton: Yes, my Lords, over half an hour. There are 28 more speeches to follow mine and I am anxious not to take up more time having arguments with the noble Lord.
If any of your Lordships are worried about this paving Bill being brought into operation before we in this House have passed the main Bill, I must point out that we are not likely to get the main Bill through in time to cancel the elections which would have to take place next May. Such would be the parliamentary timetable that we could not expect to see the main Bill before Easter. If Mr. Livingstone were by some mischance to be elected meanwhile, he would no doubt go on bribing the people with their own money, gaining friends—I must confess that as president of MENCAP I have been very grateful for the—
A noble Lord: Oh! my Lords.
Lord Renton: Bribing the people with their own money, my Lords.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, surely an accusation of bribery against a named person is going a little far, is it not? Bribing people with other people's money? Will not the noble Lord think it proper to withdraw that slanderous and defamatory observation?
Lord Renton: My Lords, if it is merely a matter of words shall I say, "pleasing the people by using the money that is raised for them by the rates of the Greater London Council in order to please them"? The noble and learned Lord with his long experience can put whatever parliamentary interpretation he pleases on that process.
A body of which I am president has been a beneficiary of such money and maybe the beneficiary of still more. Another body of which my wife is president has benefited from the Greater London Council in the same way. Of course we rejoiced. But I feel bound to add that in the case of MENCAP we have never received so much money from any Government as we have received from this Government, and this Government have said that the voluntary bodies will not suffer as a result of these local Government changes. I am prepared to take the Government's word for that.
Although it was an impressive speech until one looks more deeply into it, the three points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in his amendment are, I find (others will disagree), unimpressive and I say they should not influence your Lordships when it comes to voting this evening.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I rise to welcome this amendment with some warmth. I must needs declare an interest because, alone in this House, I work for the GLC, which makes me feel frightfully close to the front line where I am standing. However, a declaration
928
is usually followed by my prophesying doom for the arts. Your Lordships will be relieved to know that I do not intend to do that today, partly because we have a short debate in nine days' time and partly also because recent Government announcements on what would happen to the arts in the event of abolition have varied so dramatically and so happily from what was written down in Streamlining the Cities that I feel I must pay some tribute to the noble Earl, the Minister for the Arts.
When the Government published Streamlining the Cities they asked for comments; but it is not every Government and every Minister that take much notice of comments and certainly not such rational and generous notice as has been taken of those on the arts. I could have wished that some of the noble Earl's colleagues had behaved in the same way. Indeed I have hopes that they may yet, but certainly in the arts the world is better now than it was a little time ago.
However, never mind how understanding and how generous the reaction of a Minister, that cannot actually be an excuse for abolishing a whole tier of local government, let alone abolishing a whole democratic process, which is what is before us this evening: especially not to do so when there is such a demonstrable weight of public opinion against it. Public opinion is of the essence, it seems to me.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, quoted the now legendary pro-abolition speech of Ken Livingstone. Let me give him two other quotations. This is the first:
"In a democracy like ours change can only be carried through if we carry the people with us".
The second is this:
"The change we resist is change for change's sake; change born of the ideology of an elite which says that it knows better than the British people as a whole, which asserts a right to impose its ideology on our nation, however coarsely it may cut across popular commonsense opinion".
The first of those remarks was made by Mr. Patrick Jenkin and the second was the noble Viscount, Lord President of the Council.
It is fair to say that they were uttered in 1980, that is some four years ago and long before the measure before your Lordships' this afternoon had come anywhere near us. But I cannot help feeling that they have somehow come home to roost. The difference surely is that Mr. Livingstone in that much quoted speech was wrong: whereas I am sure your Lordships will agree Mr. Jenkin and the noble Viscount, in what I have quoted, were right.
Much has been made this afternoon of opinion being changed by the expensive propaganda put out by the Greater London Council. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, managed somehow to suggest that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester had been got at by it and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, managed to suggest that it was that alone that was responsible for the public opinion which, I am glad to see he acknowledges, runs quite against his own party.
It will not do. To start with if an authority is threatened with sudden and unilateral dismissal it cannot but be expected to defend itself. And there is no such thing as expensive propaganda as if there were a kind of luxury propaganda that is persuasive as opposed to a cut price propaganda that is not. It

929
simply costs money to publish, and unless you publish, no opinion can be spread abroad. I do not for a moment believe that it is simply the GLC's campaign which is responsible for public opinion. I think that holds the opinion of the public of this country too cheap by half. After all, when there is a general election the whole country is inundated with propaganda—propaganda of an expensiveness which makes the current GLC campaign look like a jotting pad. Yet nobody assumes that it is only the propaganda that wins or loses an election.
Much has also been made of the mandate. It is clear that this precise measure before us this afternoon was not in the election manifesto, and therefore technically there is not a mandate for it. I find it questionable whether merely putting an item into an election manifesto and winning a large majority also constitutes a mandate. Whatever the technical explanation for it, for me a mandate is when something has been declared openly before the nation, debated by the nation, argued out, and some conclusion has been reached upon it.
Whatever may be said about the election manifesto, that line about the abolition was never a great plank of any election campaign. Until the public has been allowed the debate that we are having in your Lordships' House today and to see the rights and wrongs of it, I do not believe in the mandate.
Furthermore, let me say from my experience on the GLC that not only do the arrangements proposed for the interim year seem to be undemocratic, but they also seem to be less than helpful and sensible. What I think no one has quite realised is that, if one takes London for a start, London is to be administered in that year, it seems, by the elected representataives of 32 borough authorities: either two or three, or in three cases four of them. Boroughs have enough trouble running their own boroughs with their membership. The running of the GLC is an enormous task and to face 32 boroughs with the task of staffing it for a whole year with people, most of whom will have no knowledge of the workings of a metropolitan authority and very little taste for it since they were elected especially to represent the interests of one particular borough, seems to me to be a recipe for disaster.
Let me make a reference to another part of the Bill which may not be much debated tonight because, I suppose, by its nature it is secondary to the big constitutional issue before us. That is the staff commission. I raise it because in the Bill it stands there to safeguard the interests of the staff who work for the GLC and the six metropolitan authorities—and, goodness knows! their interests do need protecting, not merely because some of them are in danger of joining the already tragically swollen ranks of the unemployed, but because so little heed is paid to them. So much thunder there is upon the political Benches; and when you think of it there are, anyway, short of 100 councillors in London and similar numbers in the metropolitan boroughs. And in even this House and another place are a tiny number of people by comparison with those who work for the GLC and for the metropolitan boroughs.
When I first joined the GLC, coming from an entertainment world where numbers were small and
930
camaraderie almost obligatory, I felt that the GLC, with the numbers that it employed, could scarcely have any kind of esprit de corps or any kind of camaraderie. How wrong I was! In the four years that I have been there, I have never known a more dedicated bunch of people—and this is true right throughout the North of England as well as in the GLC. These are men and women who do not take part in the trench warfare of politics to which we are daily accustomed. They are people who do often humble but responsible duties and do so with enormous and unswerving cheerfulness and dedication.
Let me finish by quoting some lines written by Kipling on the subject of another underestimated profession:
"Let us now praise famous men—
Men of little showing—
For their work continueth,
And their work continueth,
Broad and deep continueth,
Greater their knowing!"
6.3 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the House has listened with special attention to the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and if there is one other noble Lord to whom they will also listen with special attention it is the noble Lord who is to follow me, the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, who was the Leader of the Conservative Party in London Government. I shall be very brief, partly because I have been requested to be very brief and partly because I am not so insensitive as not to be aware that there are 25 other speakers at least to follow me. I can only express the hope that anyone who reads my observations will not think that their paucity indicates any lack of concern. The issue today has been well spelled out from this point of view—it seems to me, the one, true democratic point of view—in the first place by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and then by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and other speakers. I am not going to say anything more about the main democratic issue except that I endorse every word that they and others have said.
I would use up these very few minutes, however, in reply to something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, about the voluntary sector. He held up a kind of assurance that all would be well. I see no reason to suppose that that is so. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that he takes the word of the Government. Well, of course; he is a Conservative and it is a Conservative Government and he is entitled to believe that every word they say will be honoured in the event. I do not doubt that the Government would like to do a lot for the voluntary sector. I am not sure that when they do it they would want it to be called bribing the electorate with their own money. That is apparently how the noble Lord sees any generous provision. Those were the words he used. I do not know whether he replies or does not reply when the admirable society over which he presides with so much distinction, MENCAP, draw the money. Is that bribing MENCAP with their own money? I thought, frankly, that the phrases were less happy than the happy ones which usually fall from the noble Lord.
I will say a few words about the voluntary bodies. The truth is that the voluntary bodies are full of very

931
deep concern and the concern will not be alleviated by what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. According to the information supplied to me, the GLC—and I hope that nobody who has any information from the GLC will be accused of being corrupted by it; because otherwise I do not see how we could advance in political discussion—has become a major funder of voluntary organisations, of some 2,000 organisations, in 1984–85. The important point that I make here in these three or four minutes is that almost all the organisations funded by the GLC are against the proposals. Now, one might say, as was once said by a notorious lady, "They would, wouldn't they?" But it would not be necessarily so; if they believed they were going to get as much or more from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, or the noble Lord, Lord Renton, they would just be happy with the change. But it is rather interesting. Something that I did not know before (and I do not think that it is going to be disputed) is that almost all the organisations not funded by the GLC are against the proposal. GLC funding appears to make no difference. If any noble Lord should ask how that can be, then, of course, it is because the help given by the GLC helps the homeless and the elderly and the poor; and everybody concerned in voluntary work is in favour of trying to help those people.
As the House has heard me say, perhaps once too often, I am the chairman of the New Horizon Youth Centre which receives generous assistance from the GLC, as do so many other organisations, and practically every Member of your Lordships' House is concerned with at least one of them. There is the Matthew Trust to help the Mentally Disordered, and I could go on and on.
Everyone is aware that it is very unlikely that the boroughs will step in. To take that organisation, the New Horizon Youth Centre, nearly all the people come from outside London. We are actually in Camden, which is a generous borough as boroughs go; but who supposes that if the GLC is simply abolished we shall get anything like the assistance we get now? Our population are not Camden people. They come from all over England and Scotland. That is just one small example of why we are quite confident that we shall lose, but 90 per cent. or so of the voluntary organisations appear to be convinced that they also will lose.
That really is all that I have time to say now. Some 22 years ago a number of us, led by Herbert Morrison, and including one or two on these Benches—the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton—did our best to fight the Bill to abolish the LCC. Feelings were pretty strong at that time. I was taken to see an alderman of the LCC, a man then dying of cancer of the throat so that he could only scribble on a slate. He was an old alderman of the LCC. He could just scribble on his slate: "I think the Minister ought to be castrated". Those were believed to be his last words. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, ought to be castrated, but I do say that anyone who has any sense of democratic feeling will believe that this Bill ought to be castrated—which, I know, is the purpose of those on this side of the House.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord the Minister, my noble friend Lord Bellwin, for the way in which over the past few weeks he has courteously answered my requests for information. In past years we have soldiered together in local government and, to coin a phrase, we were worthy people doing worthy things together. I am sorry that I have to disagree with much of what he has said today. One of the difficulties of opposing this Bill is that there is a danger that one might be thought to be supporting the actions of the Labour Party at County Hall and the expensive spate of propaganda which has flowed from there. Their lunatic and wasteful policies have been, and are, an abuse of authority. Again and again, there has been an arbitrary use of power by a political authority in areas where they have no authority.
The sharp increase in rate levels imposed by the Labour-controlled GLC has had, and is having, a serious effect on the life of the capital city. Indeed, it can truly be said that the GLC has forced the Government to take action just as it was necessary for the Government to introduce rate capping which, for the benefit of the Whips, I loyally supported together with the reform of ILEA. Looking at the absurd decisions made over the past two years makes one believe that this militant majority party in control at County Hall is hell-bent on causing the maximum disagreement and thus the destabilisation of the area. But there is a very great difference indeed between reform and abolition, and due to the inverted way that this paving Bill is being introduced, I feel that the broad effects, if it is passed, must be examined at the same time.
Abolition sounds a neat solution in an election manifesto. How it was to be done and what new administrative system would take its place was never spelt out and in the short period since publication, in my opinion, not even carefully thought out. I have no doubt that the administration at County Hall has been an abrasive irritant to the Government, but so have others been, even my own; yet this does not mean that there is now no need for a second tier in Greater London.
There has been a second tier in London of one kind or another for 130 years. As the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London said in 1960:
"The factor common to all our enquiries was its unique position as the capital city and the fact that it was by far the largest concentration of urban development in the country".
One-third of the population of England work and live within Greater London and a short distance beyond, so what is decided in London has a considerable influence far beyond its boundaries. I am in fact in favour of the widest possible devolution of powers to the London boroughs, but if this Bill is passed London would be the only major capital city in the world without a city-wide elected authority.
While I was leader of the GLC for six years, which makes me, I suppose, the longest serving leader so far—and now it seems that I am likely to keep this record—I did my best to devolve those responsibilities given to us by Parliament to the boroughs which were clearly more suitable to them, and there was more to

933
be done. It was important to make this cumbersome authority work in a practical and efficient way. It was `clear that the council was over-staffed, as was the ILEA, and very considerable reductions in numbers were achieved without affecting basic services. But one also became aware time and time again of the disagreements among the boroughs over any major matter except perhaps the size of the rate support grant. Indeed, they could not even agree among themselves as to what responsibilities they should take over from the GLC, although we were pressing such responsibilities upon them.
How then are these 33 units to reach voluntary agreement on contentious issues? The London Boroughs Association is a voluntary body with no statutory basis. It is currently split politically, with most of the 13 Labour boroughs having left to form their own body, the Association of London Authorities. If the GLC is abolished, without some small London-wide replacement body, it will mean more central Government control—and, my Lords, it is true that the man in Whitehall does not know best about local government matters.
In the light of my experience, I am convinced that there remains a need for a directly elected separate London assembly with tightly drawn spending powers and severely restricted authority, if decisions on contentious London-wide issues are to be reached democratically. As regards the future of the ad hoc committees which it is proposed shall take over various functions (and I accept that some of these can easily be devolved to the boroughs) I have grave reservations that it will be possible for a committee of London boroughs successfully to agree on such matters—I shall mention just two—as the continued building of seaside country houses for the elderly and the allocation of vacancies to them. This is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, can probably confirm, a very difficult problem and has always been so.
Another is waste disposal, a growth industry; not very popular for social conversation, but to leave this to ad hoc arrangements between boroughs which may not agree with their neighbours is to invite chaos and an increase in costs. As the Royal Commission concluded:
"A unified organisation is necessary to earmark and safeguard the land required for tipping, to direct a positive programme of land reclamation, to organise transportation and to ensure that the collecting authorities conform to this programme."
As time passes this will affect more and more of the Home Counties and at the same time large-scale incineration and sorting depots to service large areas will be required. I could go on and mention others, but the opportunity will no doubt come at the Committee stage.
If the Government are to abolish the GLC I submit that they have a very great responsibility to ensure that the substitute system will work and, if possible, will improve on the previous one. There is absolutely no evidence that this will be so, and as late as last week it was clear that the Department of the Environment has still to work out in detail what system will be substituted in some instances. At the same time, there is no guarantee that there will be financial savings by the passing of this Bill. The principal source of savings
934
would be through changes in GLC policy, which could easily save £200 million a year without affecting basic services.
The borough councillors who are to man the ad hoc committees will be briefed by their individual councils, which is not a recipe for strategic thinking. They will presumably hold their meetings during the day if they are not to clash with borough meetings which they must also attend. This is not easy, as I know to my cost, when one is also trying to earn one's living. Has anybody discovered whether competent volunteers are available on this basis? How will these borough representatives in the short 11 months available be able to master their new role and serve a useful purpose?
When the GLC and the new London boroughs were set up in 1964 the elected representatives had a whole year without executive power in which to organise themselves and, of course, those same elected representatives took over in 1965. The system proposed in this Bill has not had a precedent in Greater London. But, although the present GLC has been able to abuse its powers and waste ratepayers' money, I find that the way the Bill proposes to abolish this council and to transfer its functions to non-elected bodies and then to chothe them with the powers of a properly elected and constituted council to be repugnant.
As the London Standard says tonight, this Bill should be condemned as it stands because of,
"distaste for the means, and deep doubts about the end result".
The proposals in this Bill are in a way an attack on democracy. I find this very strange in a week when a declaration of democratic values has been agreed by the Heads of State and Governments meeting in London.
Previous speakers have argued the case much better than I am able to do. Sadly, I have to say that this is a bad Bill—bad for London and therefore, in its wider influence, bad for the country. It has been hastily assembled and not thought through. I am sure that it will in the long run be bad not only for Parliament but, for that matter, for the Conservative Party if the precedents established are used in the wrong hands in the future. Because I think that changes should be made, I shall, with the greatest reluctance, vote for the amendment—in the hope that changes will be made.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I shall take a very short time in which to speak. Since 1979 the Government have introduced into the local government field draconian measures which have failed to achieve the objectives intended and which, if introduced by Labour, would have shocked the Conservatives and sent the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, to the barricades to defend local government against the measures that are doing us damage today and which, indeed, have separated him from almost every leading local government figure, many of them his erstwhile colleagues. But this Bill adds a further dimension to those actions, and it is also opposed by many Conservatives.
It is a bad Bill, paving the way for a worse Bill—a Bill that we are not allowed to see. It makes way for the

935
abolition of the metropolitan authorities, including the GLC. It cancels the 1985 elections and substitutes for them indirect elected authorities of an entirely different political complexion. It is a Bill which I believe takes steps which are entirely unprecedented. On a number of occasions the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place have held that there are a number of precedents for the action which is being taken by the Government. On 4th April, in answer to a Question, the Secretary of State said:
"The precedents are perfectly clear. If the honourable gentleman refers to schedule 3(b) to the London Government Act 1963 and to schedule 3(12) to the Local Government Act 1972, he will find precedents that are very close indeed to what we are putting before the House". [Official Report, Commons, 4/4/84; col. 947.]
But there are no precedents for the thoroughly retrograde proposals in this Bill to cancel direct elections and to move to indirect elections. In 1962 and 1972 elections were cancelled, but the existing councillors continued until the changeover, and that is the proper way to deal with this matter.
This legislation is administratively bad because those who are appointed to the interim authority will have no experience at the level of, say, the GLC. Furthermore, the responsibilities which, in the GLC, are in the hands of people from all parties who know what local government is about will be passed to nominated temporary members with, in the main, no experience at this level at all, and then passed on (if the Bill is enacted) to a new system. All this is to happen within a period of three years, and I believe it is a recipe for chaos which will be both costly and confusing.
Worst of all is the change in political majority from Labour to Conservative which Parliament is being asked to bring about and which will change a Labour majority of four into a Conservative majority of between 14 and 23. The doubt about the size of the Conservative majority is inherent in the terms of the Bill, which provides for each borough to have two representatives. There will be problems with a borough like Fulham, which has 28 Conservatives, 28 Labour and two SDP, so that no one knows what the political persuasion of the borough representatives will be.
This action has been called by Mr. Edward Heath the biggest and worst piece of gerrymandering in the last 150 years. But it is clear that the Government are afraid of the verdict of the people at the polls, which, especially in London, has shown itself to be overwhelmingly opposed to their policy of getting rid of the GLC. However, it was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who let the cat out of the bag about the Government's real motivation when he said:
"The GLC is typical of this new, modern, divisive version of Socialism. It must be defeated. So we shall abolish the GLC.".
Perhaps not all of us agree with Mr. Livingstone in everything he says or does, but in a democracy he ought not to be politically extinguished by a diktat of Parliament; and I believe that gerrymandering of this kind only reflects on those who use it and strengthens those against whom it is used.
The Secretary of State has rested much of his case on the fact that this was a manifesto commitment,
936
inferring that somehow this made it sacrosanct and protected it from all opposition. But, of course, this conflicts with the view of the Lord Chancellor, who said that:
"Doctrines of mandate and manifesto were…wholly unconstitutional.".
He also said:
"It is, of course, right and proper that when the parties go to the country they should explain in broad language what they consider the situation requires in terms of general policy and what measures they propose to carry out if entrusted with a majority in Parliament. But, in practice, while before the election the manifesto is written rather in the style of an advertisement for patent medicines, after that election it is treated as a pronouncement from Sinai, with every jot and tittle of that unread, and often unreadable, document reverenced as Holy Writ".
But I believe that we must also reject the doctrine that because a measure is included in a manifesto it would be improper for this House to use its delaying powers. This is an almost total rejection of the role of this House in delaying measures to enable the Government and the other place to think again, although I think the power should be used with great circumspection.
It is paralleled on this occasion by the assumption that this is a one-House Parliament and that the actions of this House can be taken for granted or ignored—because this is the effect of the Bill. What happens if this House rejects the new Bill? By then the whole system will have been destroyed and a new one put in its place, despite what the noble Lord has said this afternoon. If the Bill should be rejected on Second Reading by the House, as the Government assume will not happen, all the upheaval will have been for nothing.
The saddest thing about the last 20 years is the wasteful and destructive way in which legislation has been hashed and rehashed on many matters: on industrial relations, the organisation of the Health Service and in other areas such as local government. These have been time-consuming, confusing, expensive and divisive. The Government have wisely dropped their claim, in light of the Coopers and Lybrand Report, that the abolition of the metropolitan authorities will save some £120 million.
If there is something wrong with the structure of government in London or elsewhere—and the Secretary of State indicated the many criticisms which had been made of the GLC, including that of Mr. Livingstone himself; and bearing in mind his own comments to the Marshall Commission when he said:
"We have got progressively to return to the concept that the GLC is a strategic authority"—
then the right way is not to act unilaterally but with a real concern to get agreement on the changes necessary. Consensus or agreement is not weakness or some soft option, although it is often very difficult to achieve. It is the means by which we achieve political co-operation and real progress in securing the public good with the minimum of conflict.
I hope that the House will support the reasoned amendment; that the Government will abandon this Bill and the thoroughly bad precedent it establishes; and that they will undertake a proper consultation with the intention of securing agreement about change—an exercise in which we can all join—to make it unnecessary for the whole matter to be rehashed by some other Government in 10 years' time.
6.29 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, it was said of one of my predecessors that when he received a letter from Downing Street inviting him to go to the See of Wakefield, his first and very prudent action was to go out and invest in a gazeteer in order to discover where Wakefield was. Your Lordships will of course hardly need to be reminded that it is the administrative centre of what in the past 10 years we have learned to call the Metropolitan County of West Yorkshire, though there are many in my part of the world who still regret the passing of the Ridings. But 10 miles down the road from us you will find a particular jewel in our diocesan crown, which is the town of Barnsley, where are located the offices of the South Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council, which is somewhat unkindly referred to in our local press as "The South Yorkshire People's Republic". Over the past few years I have seen the work of the two Yorkshire metropolitan county councils at first hand and I have got to know many of the councillors and many of the officials.
Like so many of your Lordships I, too, have been disturbed about the constitutional implications of this Bill, which empowers the Secretary of State to cancel the elections to the metropolitan authorities next year—a power which in this Bill as it is worded is not dependent on the successful passing of the abolition Bill. I think we are in danger of going down a rather slippery slope, if we are to create precedents in Parliament entrusting Ministers with such far-reaching executive powers—and, in this particular instance, the power to cancel elections affecting one-quarter of the English electorate—before the appropriate measure itself is laid before Parliament. We do not yet know what the abolition Bill will contain, what its detailed consequences will be or whether it will be passed. Surely, as a matter of principle, powers entrusted to the Minister should be contained in the appropriate measure, and the abolition measure itself, and not enacted in advance of it.
I also feel anxious about the intention to abolish the metropolitan county councils without a preliminary inquiry into their working and their effectiveness. To me as a layman and observer it seems that the basic problems are: what is the right relationship between central and local government, how is local government to be financed—particularly in these difficult days of economic recession—and what are the best and most appropriate structures for local government? For it does not necessarily follow that, if you abolish the metropolitan county council tier, the existing metropolitan district councils, as they now stand, will be the right bodies to exercise these functions or, necessarily, the right bodies for the future if you go over to a unitary system.
So would it not be better and wiser to have a careful inquiry into the working, the financing and the structure of local government before such major reorganisation is put in hand? After all, it is only 10 years since the metropolitan county councils were established in 1974, and it is entirely reasonable that after 10 years there should be a review of how the system is working and whether it should be changed. No one is claiming that the present pattern is
938
sacrosanct. No one thinks it is absolutely perfect. No doubt it could be improved.
Yet, so far as we know, the abolition of the metropolitan county councils will not save any money; indeed, the Coopers and Lybrand report suggests the contrary. In West Yorkshire, it has been conservatively estimated that the cost of abolition will be between £20 million and £30 million, and that the extra annual cost following abolition will be in excess of £8 million. It is envisaged that after abolition there will he joint boards for the police, the fire service and public transport, which account for 70 per cent. of MCC expenditure, and there will, too, be a variety of inter-authority committees for the county-wide functions.
But there is a real fear that these boards and committees will be less directly accountable to the county electorate, and also less efficient than they are now. A considerable question mark about the likely effectiveness of the joint boards has been put by the Bristol University School for Advanced Urban Studies. So many of us are worried by this Bill on constitutional grounds. There is the cancelling of the local elections in advance of the main Bill, which seems an unhappy precedent for the future; what will happen following the abolition of the MCCs is likely to be more costly; the joint boards and the inter-authority committees do not so far seem to command much confidence or enthusiasm and it is feared that the county electorate will have less direct access and control.
Already it is evident that the staffs of the metropolitan county councils are going through a period of great uncertainty. They are naturally concerned about their future, where they may have to move to and where they will live, and it is hard for good men and women to give of their best in a period of such uncertainty. Of course, nobody believes that the present set-up is perfect. Many of us accept that there are real problems about the financing and structuring of local government. But surely it is wiser and better to have a careful and thorough inquiry into these areas before such drastic reorganisation takes place. For these reasons, I am very unhappy about the Bill before us.
6.35 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I know that it is unpopular with the Opposition to draw attention to the question of abolition and not to concentrate completely on the Bill in hand. But, before I concentrate on the Bill in hand, I should just like to remind the House of what my noble friend Lord Bellwin said—that the GLC now has only 16 per cent. of the services of Greater London to perform, for which it employs 30,000 people at a cost of £300 million, and that the metropolitan councils now have to perform only 27 per cent. of the services.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, complained that the Bill before us was not in the election manifesto. That is true, but the question of the abolition of the GLC was. A manifesto does not have the sanctity of law, nor of God. It may be three or four years before a manifesto can be put into practice. In that time, circumstances change. When the party wrote the manifesto they could not know how they would work

939
the hand over to the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts, if Parliament should decide that the GLC and the metropolitan counties shall be abolished.
Having said that, I agree that there is a constitutional problem here and there is also a democratic problem. But it must be remembered that one can have democracy in theory and democracy in practice. I think that the Government are correct in their transitional plan, in that they are carrying out democracy in practice, though perhaps not in theory, because, during the interim period of 11 months, they will be handing over the duties of the Greater London Council—if Parliament agrees that it and the metropolitan counties should be abolished—to properly elected councillors in the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts who have had great experience in local government. That may not be strictly democratic in theory, because they will be nominated, but if the GLC had behaved in a reasonable manner there would have been no need for that. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, the GLC has not given any help at all to the Government as regards information or figures to prepare the way for handing over to the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts, if Parliament decides that the GLC and the metropolitan councils will be abolished. I quite agree that it would be far simpler to extend the life of these authorities for the interim period of 11 months, but, if they are not prepared to co-operate, there will be absolute chaos. Therefore I believe that the Government are right in their decision to hand over responsibility to their nominated candidates in the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts during the transitional period.
I have said before that the time has come for a written constitution. If we had had a written constitution, none of this would have happened. Our unwritten constitution has served us extremely well in the past, but times have changed and, with due respect, the type of politician has changed. Everything changes. I hope that in the near future the Government will get together with all the parties and the learned people of the realm and work out, apart from a complete reform of local government, a written constitution—though perhaps I should not put a written constitution in the same bracket.
I was interested in what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. He referred to the fact that there had been an opinion poll among the GLC electorate and said that either 59 per cent. or 69 per cent. of the electorate—I cannot remember which—were against the abolition of the GLC. I am not sure about the position in the metropolitan county councils, but two-thirds of the electorate of the GLC do not pay rates. Naturally, therefore, they wish the GLC to be retained, and especially Mr. Livingstone, because he is very liberal with other people's money. The extraordinary fact is that at County Hall in the 1970s Mr. Livingstone made a speech in which he said that he was in favour of the abolition of the GLC. Now that he is leader of the GLC he has obviously changed his mind!
940
I shall support the Government in the Lobbies. It is the only practical course to pursue in the circumstances, should Parliament decide that the GLC ought to be abolished.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, this has been a sad day for Parliament and a particularly sad day for this Chamber. I welcome Bills which develop the clash and clang of politics. Political issues exercise democracy, because they stimulate. But this is a foreign Bill. It is an authoritarian measure which is opposed by all of our political parties, at all levels. It is the product of a majority of one small part of our political set-up, the Cabinet. The Cabinet is important, but not even a majority there should be able to produce a Bill of this kind. If, therefore, I had been selecting somebody to stand by me to oppose this measure, I should not have hesitated to call upon the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. But, alas! his speech today would have been ruled completely out of order in another place. He is experienced in local government, but regrettably he has given a helping hand to raping our constitution. He has assisted in the outrage which has been performed and which is being debated today. I deeply regret that he has deserted the yeomen and joined the cavaliers.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester had swallowed hook, line and sinker the propaganda of those opposed to this measure. The fact is that the majority of the Cabinet have swallowed hook, line and sinker totalitarian, authoritarian manoeuvres. That is not a particularly nice thing to have to say. However, one must have the courage to say what one thinks of a measure which, right across the political board, is recognised as something which, if not fully authoritarian, is cloaked with authoritarianism by Conservatives, by the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, the Social Democratic Party and the independents.
But the Government say that they are all out of step and only the Government are right. But not all members of the Government say that.
Edmund Burke, the founder of the Tory Party, warned us—though I say this in relation to the massive majority in the House of Commons which the present Government have—that the greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse. We have seen a number of abuses, but this is easily the most detestable. This measure is alien to British reason, and it should not be given the force of law. There is a great principle that to govern is not a property but a trust. The majority of the members of this Government's Cabinet have abused that principle.
Furthermore, the love of liberty is, by and large, the love of others. The love of power is the love of ourselves. The party bosses of the Tory Party have put themselves before not only all others in their party, but before all people in all other parties and before all people in no party. I believe that it is the most disgraceful measure which has been introduced in any British Parliament during the past 100 years. But tonight we have a choice.
Once again I quote Edmund Burke, the founder of the Tory Party. He said:
"It is not what a lawyer"—

941
I would say a Whip—
"tells me I may do, but what humanity, reason and justice tells me I ought to do".
That, I hope, is what will prevail tonight. When Members of your Lordships' House make up their minds tonight, I hope they will realise that this is by no means a normal party issue. We are concerned about the good name of democracy, the good name of this Chamber, the good name of all of our political parties, including the Conservative Party.
I should like to call in aid a verse from our great National Anthem. Tonight I hope we shall all join against the majority in the Cabinet and that together we shall confound their politics and frustrate their knavish tricks. I say that not for any particular party advantage, but to preserve the age-old dignity of this Mother of Parliaments, whose name, if this measure were to be successful, would be stained forever. I hope that it will not be. I beg all noble Lords who are free to do so to impose upon the Cabinet majority not defeat, not banishment—that would be ridiculous—but the wisdom of second thoughts and a chance to recognise the dignity of Parliament. If they can do so, instead of degrading Parliament, they will allow Parliament to triumph and aid the good name of British democracy.
6.49 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, this is a difficult debate in which to speak. I presume to do so as one who has worked in local government for nigh on 20 years, four years of which were spent with the then London County Council. I have been involved in three reorganisations. In case your Lordships should think that I am biased in favour of local government, I should also add that I have spent many years as a civil servant.
In this debate, I seek to speak on change; change in the structure of local government. Change there must sometimes be—but if there is to be change, it must be unhurried, based on firm and agreed foundations, and lasting. The process of change in the reorganisation of local government is disturbing and dispiriting to staff. Worse still, it diminishes—at any rate for a time—the service to ratepayers.
Perhaps I may speak first of metropolitan counties. There is a very real division of opinion in the country. The district councils, to whom the work would be devolved, are of course in favour. But I should say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that many of us have received letters and reports from constituents in the metropolitan authority areas, and these have been in line with those received by the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Rochester and Wakefield.
In 1976 another Administration disregarded the recommendations made in the Redcliffe-Maud Report for unitary authorities, despite the pleas of local government officers—of whom I was one. The calibre of staff in the metropolitan authorities is high. Despite the time spent in consultations, the metropolitan authorities—against expectations, in 1976—worked, and worked hard, to develop a structure of interaction with district councils. This is now to change, only 10 years after they were set up.
I have been impressed by the calibre and devotion of the staff in metropolitan authorities—and, indeed, by
942
the staff of the Greater London Council. I believe that my noble friend the Minister spoke of them all as being able; and the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, also spoke with warmth of their devotion.
There is another factor that inevitably means, and will always mean, change. It is the growing maelstrom created by party politics in local government. In the past 15 years the focal point of local government as it used to be has been swinging in a most alarming, frightening, disturbing and even menacing fashion. No longer is the focal point always wise administration for the well-being of the population within the resources of the ratepayer. Party politics have entered the arena of local government as the central focal point of policy of some councils—in particular (and I say this with great sadness) of the Greater London Council.
Much is done by the Greater London Council for others, but I suggest that it is done to enlist favour with some ratepayers rather than give a service. It was T.S. Eliot who wrote:
"It is the greatest treason to do the right thing for the wrong reason".
Nevertheless, it is surely for the people of London, and not for the Government, to register how they should be ruled and how they should be governed.
The party political element that has now entered some spheres of local government will inevitably, in years to come, mean change—a change of structure. Successive administrations will wish to overturn the policies of previous administrations. When the White Paper Streamlining the Cities was published, I consulted with the law departments of three universitities with which I am connected as to the constitutional position. I was advised that the action being taken by Her Majesty's Government was not unconstitutional, for the simple reason—as my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard has said—that we have no written Constitution. Local government will never be stable and secure, and give a high standard of service, while there are constant changes made by different parties and by different administrations. I would therefore put forward a plea that serious thought be given to establishing a Royal Commission to consider drawing up a written Constitution for this country.
I appreciate that this speech is wide of the interim paving Bill before your Lordships' House today. I shall abstain from voting as I do not feel that I can support this paving Bill—believing as I do that unhurried time should be spent on the formulation of basic, lasting and unchanging principles on which local government should be based. I have come to believe that this can only be achieved by a written Constitution for this country, which would carry with it, as an essential element, a Bill of Rights.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, during the course of this important debate two overriding issues have emerged. The first is the constitutional issue. Several of us feel misgivings on that score. These were very powerfully ventilated and exposed in the remarkable speech made by my noble friend Lord Hooson—during the course of which he quoted the most impeccable source.

943
The other problem about which many of us have misgivings is the practical issue of what is to replace the GLC. We are here concerned with a purely preliminary Bill—the paving Bill. But the word "paving" suggests a certain direction and we cannot realistically give our support to a Bill that is leading us in a direction where many of us have so many misgivings.
The noble Lord, Lord Plummer, with his very considerable experience of London affairs, expressed concern (which I must say I found very convincing) about the lack of strategic thinking which appears to have been given to the successor organisation. It does not seem to me that the problem is solved, in a simplistic way, by saying that, so far as London is concerned, everything should be handed back to the 33 boroughs. As time goes on, it is becoming more and more clear that there are a number of functions which will have to be continually performed on what is generally described as a London-wide basis.
In this connection, I was interested to read a Bow Group paper written quite recently by Mr. Cyril Taylor, who is the deputy leader of the Conservative group on the GLC, on the subject of reforming London's government. As one would expect from such a source, Mr. Taylor is not in favour of the present administration at the GLC. Also, he favours the boroughs being given the maximum degree of autonomy. Nevertheless, he concluded in great detail that there are a large number of functions—in fact, he listed no fewer than 19—which he considers can only effectively be performed on a London-wide basis. Listening to the debate today, I identified three or four issues of that kind.
Now the Government's proposals, as they are so far emerging, are to deal with these particular issues on an ad hoc basis. In the similar debate in another place the Secretary of State for the Environment identified some of these issues. In some cases he proposed that that function should go to another body. In other cases he proposed that he should consider setting up a new statutory institution. In yet other cases he proposed that a committee of the boroughs should handle the matters but that there should be a degree of central funding.
It does not seem to me that this is a very rational way of dealing with the matter. We are likely to be left with about 19 or 20 functions, which were previously co-ordinated in a single authority, being handled in a whole variety of ways. I was very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, referred to waste disposal. It is an activity with which I happen to be connected in a commercial way and I therefore declare an interest. Waste collection is one thing, and that is dealt with by the boroughs; but the disposal of that waste in an effective way is a massive undertaking. Your Lordships may not be aware of the fact that 15 million tonnes of waste are generated in London every year. Unless this is effectively handled on a co-ordinated basis, a great deal of damage could be done. It is only on such a basis that containerised vehicles, which are now being introduced in the interests of public health and efficiency, can be brought in. It is only on such a basis that a proper selection and rationalisation of
944
disposal points can be made. It is only on such a basis that an entirely new way of disposing of waste by converting it into much needed energy can be undertaken; such as the remarkable Edmonton project where waste material is being converted at a combined heat and power plant, and which could lead to other developments of that sort.
Therefore, I should like to say that I, for one, am extremely concerned about where this paving Bill is leading us. I feel that until we have a proper strategic concept of how these London-wide functions are to be dealt with on a co-ordinated and rational basis we ought to hold back and ask the Government, by passing the Motion proposed by my noble friend, to think again.
7.3 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, the comments I shall make in the brief time that I shall be speaking will be concentrated upon the West Midlands County Council. That is not because I do not support the propositions which have been put forward on the GLC, but I feel that as the only speaker from the West Midlands I should be putting that point of view. The West Midlands is predominantly Birmingham, as the largest city, surrounded by many smaller local authorities. The boundary round the whole of the urban area comprising the West Midlands contains no green field site. It is a complete built-up area. What is of great concern in the West Midlands is the collapse of the West Midlands economy, which is on a scale unprecedented in this century. It is the contribution of the West Midlands County Council towards economic development that I wish to single out during this debate, without in any way underestimating the services provided by the rest of the county.
The West Midlands County Council has attracted widespread attention for the vigour with which it has pursued its economic policies. The county has worked in very close co-operation with its districts—with Birmingham City, Sandwell, Wolverhampton, Coventry and, not so closely perhaps, with Solihull. But the co-operation has been also with the trade union movement, the CBI, with chambers of commerce and many others. The whole of the county has put forward a united front in an effort to re-create once again the thriving region which used to be called the workplace of the whole of this country. It was the manufacturing unit which has now got the high unemployment figure of approximately 16 per cent.
If your Lordships will permit me, I shall quote briefly from the report of the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors. It is a report that they are now presenting to the Government. It states:
"The West Midlands situation becomes worse as the rate of dereliction and factory closures outstrips the determined efforts to achieve regeneration.
"The blight and deterioration of this huge industrial asset will continue because of the uncertainty caused by the Government's unwillingness to allocate capital to the infrastructure."
Then follows the important part of the report:
"The appallingly ill-timed reform of metropolitan authorities will, in all probability, make the task of regeneration impossible by delaying it well into the next down-turn in the world economic cycle."

945
That is not a comment from any Socialist organisation. It is in the report that the CBI and the engineering contractors are sending to the Minister.
I shall not dwell on the democratic issues. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, presented those issues very well. I shall go on to suggest that with your Lordships' intelligence, experience and commonsense your Lordships tonight will not be buying the pig-in-the-poke which the Government are recommending. As a former member of Birmingham City Council, to my mind local democracy is about local accountability. Our tradition in this country is to elect councillors to councils, not to appoint councillors for one council to oversee the affairs of another council.
I shall close on the description that many have linked to this Bill. It has been described as a "paving" Bill. I would add a further adjective to that and call it a "crazy paving" Bill.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, used the following words in discussing the role of the London borough councillors. He said, "The borough councillors were not elected to run the GLC". Of course, we must then inquire what does running the GLC entail and what is the GLC? Like many other speakers, I shall find it quite impossible to produce Hamlet without the prince. So if I use the word "abolition" from time to time I hope I shall be forgiven and that your Lordships will understand.
Some of your Lordships may be aware that in 1977 I was asked by the Greater London Council to undertake a review of its role. I was very careful to choose—because I chose—the 13 assessor advisers to help me. I was very careful to preserve a political balance and spread in my assessors. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was one of those assessors who I chose to help me. I regret of course that the opposition at County Hall at that time took a conscious decision not to give evidence to my inquiry or to have any official contact with it.
We had to do the best we could, and we had to gain by the back door the evidence that we should otherwise have got openly. That, I thought, was a very justifiable thing to do. I need hardly say that the question of abolition was not included in my terms of reference, though in my report I said that, supposing it had been, I would at that time have been against it.
I published my report in 1978, possibly unfortunately, after 13 months, and I had 13 assessors. When I look back at the report now, some six years later, I try to relate it to conditions as we see them in 1984, for since then the world has moved on. Six years ago I concluded—and these are the words of the report—that,
"the Greater London Council has failed to make its role understood in London …has found it hard to identify the job it was supposed to do …it has forfeited the confidence of the people it serves because it has not been able to demonstrate its relevance to their lives".
I thought that it seemed to many ordinary people an expensive irrelevance. I concluded that, in general, too big a share of people's hard-earned income was being swallowed up by County Hall, and the town hall, for
946
that matter, which gave far too little in return. I expect that very many Londoners feel exactly the same today.
I felt that many executive functions, such as housing and certain planning functions, should be handed down and devolved from the GLC to the London boroughs, and I so recommended. I also said that there should be a devolution of powers from central Government to the GLC—resource allocation was one of them—to achieve what I thought would be an enhanced influence for the GLC as a strategic authority, but I realised that there would need to be a Government willingness by way of legislation, or amendment of existing legislation, to make that possible. I regret to say that the Government of the day displayed no interest in what I was trying to do and showed no willingness to legislate to make things better.
After all, I was trying to restore to the Greater London Council a responsible and worthwhile role. I wanted to end delay, to end overlap, and to end duplication. I sought greater value for money. I suppose I attempted to arrest what I thought was the in-built obsolescence I detected from its inception and the Herbert Commission. I tried to restore a worthwhile role. I have not changed that view, but I recognise that this approach has been flatly rejected by all major parties. I greatly regret this, but it is the plain fact.
The Alliance parties have not promised to strengthen the GLC, for one very good reason: it is obvious that they wish to abolish it altogether. Their 1983 election manifesto said that their proposals for regional government,
"would inevitably involve the eventual abolition of the Metropolitan Counties and the GLC".
I detect no great enthusiasm among the public of this country for regional government.
As for the Opposition party in another place, in 1981 its local government spokesman said that the Greater London Council had,
"a dubious role to play".
and that,
"we shouldn't regard the existence of the GLC as sacrosanct".
He said that to his own local government conference in February 1981. Is it really likely that Parliament will ever think differently?
It is also worthy of note that it was not my party, but an all-party committee of another place which unanimously recommended that London Transport should be removed from the direct control of the Greater London Council. That is not all. Since I wrote my report, the GLC has lost—some of them because of my recommendations—its housing responsibilities, I believe quite rightly. It has gained no new functions. The Inner London Education Authority—where I am delighted to say my advice was accepted—is to be retained, and I had so recommended. It will soon be directly elected. This, I think, has been warmly welcomed by your Lordships, but it means that the GLC, even if retained, would lose even its nominal authority over education in inner London.
I realise that there now seems no possibility of any Government, of any political colour, strengthening the GLC in the way I should have liked. Again, I have to

947
say that I greatly regret that, but it is the fact. The question is whether any party intends to retain an authority which has had its powers and functions so progressively eroded and emasculated and which has few, if any, prospects of reversing that trend. The GLC is not responsible for the police, nor for the personal social services, nor for education in the outer boroughs. It is due to lose its control over education in inner London, It is not responsible for the health service. It has already lost the ambulance service. Housing and certain important planning functions, on my recommendations, have been largely devolved to the boroughs, and London Transport will soon go. In these unhappy circumstances, I am sorry to say that it seems like a hollow vessel, where every whisper seems very much like a shout.
It is surely kinder, and, I should have thought, more sensible, to face facts and to make the best arrangements we can for devolving the few remaining functions to the boroughs. But we must, I think, look to the future—a future where, if a forum were ever needed to deal with otherwise insuperable problems of a London-wide nature, a Minister for London would be no more fitting an alternative than would a grand committee of London parliamentary Members.
Let me say right away that I do not propose to deal with the constitutional legality regarding cancelling elections of authorities about to be abolished. That happened in the two previous reorganisations; but I welcome the assurance of my noble friend the Minister that the elections will be immediately reinstated if the main abolition Bills falls at any stage. The real choice is not whether the elections should be suspended; it is whether to allow the present GLC and other metropolitan councils to run on for an extra 11 months, or whether as authorities they should be run by borough and district nominees, respectively, during this quite short transitional period.
The democratic principles have been amply argued on all sides of the House. They, I think, are fairly finely balanced, and a good deal has been said about democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, spoke about aldermen. I thought that he was going to complain that the point about aldermen was that they were not elected by the electorate. Instead, he said that they were a levelling and a civilising influence. The fact is of course that aldermen were never democratically elected and many a council exercised a majority in council by reason of its ability to appoint aldermen in excess of the opposition parties. Some councillors did not allow any opposition parties to have any aldermen at all. This is how many councils retained—with their eyes open—control against the wishes and the votes of the electors.
A good deal is spoken about democracy, but let us see how democracy affects the Inner London Education Authority. For 20 years the Inner London Education Authority has been made up of indirectly elected members—that is, members of the GLC and members of the London boroughs, who are democratically elected as such but have then been appointed by their borough or their council to sit on ILEA. There is no direct democracy about that and yet that state of affairs has obtained for 20 years. When, indeed, in the Act provision was made for a review of the Inner
948
London Education Service which should have been put before Parliament by 31st March 1970, that provision was removed by the Government of the day in 1967. So nobody in that Government had any qualms about democracy.
Let us see what has happened since. It is a very miserable story. Local government has had the following functions removed from it, from under its very nose, by Parliament. These functions are no longer run by democratically elected members. It has had the gas removed; it used to run all or most of the gas works. It has had electricity removed. Health has gone. Water has gone. Transport has gone to the PTEs. The police have gone to police authorities. The ambulance service has gone. I cannot tell you which Government wins the prize for the number of quangos it has set up in the life of one Parliament. But of course it is well known to all that people who sit on the boards of those functions that have been removed from local government are people who owe their loyalty to the person who nominated them. They do not owe their loyalty to the electorate because they were not elected. They owe their loyalty to the Minister who appointed them. So be it, there is probably nothing new in that, but sometimes when we speak about democracy and get hot under the collar, and emotive, and perspire on a nice hot day like today, we seem to forget that democracy is a very emotive term, very hard to define, very hard to live up to.
The Government have argued that the GLC and the metropolitan county councils should not have their terms of office extended for an extra 11 months. I do not know of any means whereby the present legislation would allow an election for the Greater London Council for a period of 11 months or for the metropolitan councils for a period of 11 months. It would have to go the whole term, and, if not, of course one could say that they were not elected, they had no mandate.
On the other hand the Opposition argue that there are precedents for extending their term of office. But they will also recognise that in previous reorganisations there was simply no alternative. There is no alternative now. In this reorganisation there is this alternative, because the successor authorities, the districts and the boroughs, already exist and they are powerful and democratic bodies in their own right. If the democratic argument is finely balanced it is surely right to look at practicalities, and I think these are decisive. I think it would be naive to expect the majority of party members of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan councils to be ready and anxious to co-operate in the exercise of the transfer of powers to the districts and boroughs. I feel they would be more likely to be inclined to frustrate the wishes of Parliament at every conceivable turn. By contrast, the boroughs and the districts have a vested interest in making the transitional period a success. They will want to make the changeover work. They will face the consequences of their actions, for they will answer to the electorate.
I conclude that there is no great constitutional argument against this. I am confident there are sound practical reasons in favour of taking such a course. I am not impressed by any allegation that this and that was not in a government mandate. I do not believe it

949
is right to look at the fine print and say, "Ah, that was not in the mandate". One cannot put everything in the mandate. Every tittle that you can conceive cannot go in the mandate. Just because you did not see it in black and white that there was going to be a paving Bill to make the necessary sound, sensible arrangements for the smooth transition to the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts—just because that was not there—I do not think this is something about which one can be too critical.
I shall certainly vote against the amendment. I shall do so for the following reasons. The amendment regards this Bill as a dangerous precedent. I believe it is not the first precedent. It says the Bill seeks to give non-elected bodies the powers of properly constituted councils. I say, what about ILEA? It notes that it was not in the Conservative party's manifesto. I have dealt with that. It regrets its introduction before Parliament has decided whether or not to abolish those councils. I ask your Lordships, is there a hope in hell that any political party will wish at this stage not to abolish those councils, in view of what I have said? In those circumstances, I shall vote against the amendment and I ask my colleagues to do the same.
7.28 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, like many of your Lordships who have spoken today, there are many things in this Bill which I do not like, but as there are 35 or more speakers and most of those who have spoken have already given the outline of almost everything—and I am quite sure that those who are to follow will complete the task—I do not intend to detail my dislikes. However, I suspect that I differ from most of those who have spoken against the Bill because neither do I like the amendment. Indeed, I think it should be opposed. It is a way round a convention, which is the convention that we do not vote against the Second Reading of a Bill which has been passed in another place. I know the movers of this amendment recognise this, but, all the same, it is a way round it. I do not think that your Lordships should support such circumlocution, such circumnavigation, or whatever is the appropriate word.
Your Lordships will recall that recently a similar device was tried in the case of the Rates Bill, but before that it was not a usual practice. Indeed, it was extremely rare except when it came to the question of a Private Member's Bill. In my belief we in this House should be very careful before we start adopting such a procedure as common practice. By all means, in a Second Reading debate let us bring forward all the objections that we have to a Bill, but we should stop at that and not muddy the waters—because that is what this amendment has been doing—when the real purpose is to consider what are the objections to the Bill.
The proper and effective way to deal with these objections and dislikes is at the Committee stage or at other stages of the Bill. I understand very well the anxieties of the Churches as expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester; but I believe the Churches are misguided to support the amendment rather than working to get things changed at a later stage. I know there is considerable anxiety about Clause 1, lest in some way or another it
950
derogates from the powers of this House. I believe these fears are misguided; but if they have any force the way to get it right is by amendment at the Committee stage and at subsequent stages of the Bill. To support the amendment does not achieve this purpose, for it has no real power or force.
I fear it is unrealistic to expect that those who have put down the amendment will reconsider their position, having made their point, and not press it to a Division. But it is very much my hope that if they do force a Division they will reconsider in future whether it is really a desirable practice; whether it is a tactic which we in this House should use. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, argued—I have his words here—that the way for this House to exercise effective influence and to make the Government pause and think is by passing the amendment. No, my Lords. The way to have effective power in this House and to have the Government pause and think is at the Committee stage and other stages of this Bill.
To those on the Cross-Benches I say, therefore: "Do not vote for the amendment even though you may dislike some parts of the Bill". I am quite clear that this amendment procedure on a Second Reading is distracting, inappropriate and unworthy of this House. It is (dare I say it?) too clever by half.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, attempted desperately to hide from his supporters the real issue of this Bill. He tried to frighten them with the name of Ken Livingstone. We on this side of the House have many doubts, which today we share with many Conservatives, over the policies and attitudes of Mrs. Thatcher. According to the logic of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, we should be trying to legislate to abolish the House of Commons. Rather, it is our intention to persuade the electors to reject her in an election.
The central issue, and the only issue, in this Bill has nothing to do with the actions of the GLC or Ken Livingstone. Speaking as one who has experience in Manchester, in Tyne and Wear, and in Yorkshire, I want to say that the central issue of this Bill is the proposed disfranchisement of 17 million people in the capital and in the metropolitan counties; and nothing else counts, either in this Bill, or in the vote which will take place tonight.
Over the last 150 years there have been two strands in Conservative history; and I speak specifically to the Conservatives and, indeed, to the Cross-Benchers. The first has been benevolent, perhaps patriarchial, but caring. The second has been brash; it has been mercenary; it has been insensitive. It is the first of those strands which was described by Lord Tennyson, from my own part of the country, when, speaking of this land, he said:
"Where Freedom slowly broadens down, From precedent to precedent".
It is that strand which has assisted and developed the wider enfranchisement of the people of Britain since 1832—in 1867, in 1884 and 1885, in 1918, and in 1928; and we believe that it is that strand that is affronted by this Bill. The precedent that has been established over the last 150 years is one of extending

951
the right of franchise, extending it from simply property to people. This Bill would take away that right, would disfranchise 17 million people.
My Lords, we are unelected. We, the unelected, surely cannot reverse this historic trend and set a new precedent which may very well be followed by people of whom nobody in this House would approve—a new precedent for disfranchisement.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I have listened with great attention to this interesting debate and I should like to add a few words regarding my own feelings about it. I see this paving Bill as a necessary piece of machinery in preparation for the main Bill in the next session; and, incidentally, the Government have a clear mandate for that Bill. Therefore, as I see it, if the Government proposal to abolish the GLC and metropolitan counties is justified, the paving Bill is also right.
I shall not speak about the metropolitan counties in the few minutes that I wish to take. For me, the main issue is London. I confess to having serious heart-searchings about this matter. For nearly 20 years I had a close relationship with the GLC and, before it, with the LCC. I was chairman of the Standing Conference for London and South-East Regional Planning, which was an advisory body elected by the local authorities, including London. It depended for its effectiveness on mutual confidence and friendly relations, with mighty London at the centre. In those days old Ike Hayward was the leader. Although there were various changes of political leadership there and in Westminster, we always had friendly relations and the machine worked extremely well in an advisory capacity.
Naturally, after a very long and happy period of working with them, my first reaction to my colleagues' proposal to abolish the GLC was to have serious doubt. But I was bound to recognise, as has been said several times this evening, that the functions of the GLC have been reduced in a very major fashion. What remain are relatively minor functions, and probably great economies could be made if they disappeared.
I am bound to say that during the past year or so the ever-increasing bombardment of the PR campaign for the retention of the GLC—full-page advertisements in the national newspapers, posters all over the place, floods of letters addressed to me personally, though obviously written from a central source—has finally changed my feelings about abolition. We have had the spectacle of the GLC conducting a propaganda campaign for its self-preservation, financed by millions of pounds extracted from ratepayers who already are groaning under its penally high rate demands. As we have heard, London industry and commerce have had their rates doubled in three years and are complaining to high heaven.
To expect them to finance this huge campaign, comparable in size with a political campaign by a major party in a general election, seems to show the ultimate disregard for this long-suffering section of the community. I may say that I am not among them. Far from convincing me of the righteousness of the cause, it has convinced me of exactly the opposite. It really
952
has convinced me that the present GLC leadership—and to some extent that of the MCCs as well—will use their vast resources to the utmost in their campaign against the Government at Westminster. Therefore, in the interests of maintaining stable government there is, in my opinion, no alternative but to proceed to abolition.
That brings me to say a few words as regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. The most serious part of it is the charge of replacing the elected GLC and MCC councillors by non-elected bodies. They are elected; but we then come to the alternatives that are in front of us. We either extend the present GLC councillors' tenure for another 11 months and ditto that of the metropolitan county councillors, or we allow the May 1985 elections to proceed to elect councillors for a further 11 months. I recognise that either of those alternatives—although neither is particularly attractive—could be made workable if the GLC and the metropolitan county councils were willing to co-operate. But they have made it perfectly plain that they are not willing to co-operate.
In those circumstances, bearing in mind the Government's intention to go ahead with abolition, it is justified, in my opinion, to make the transition as soon as possible in order to remove the many disturbing doubts and uncertainties in the present situation. In this respect I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Furthermore, I also agree with my noble friend—and this point was also made by my noble friend Lord Marshall—that the appointment of the London borough councillors and the district councillors to the successor authorities is right; they are the right people to appoint for the transition because they have the maximum incentive to get it right for the future good government of their authorities.
In conclusion, I should like to make one point which I accept is not related to the amendment, but which is very much related to the subject. In all the 50 years in which I have taken part in public life in local and national government, I have never before seen local government authorities engaged in an outright attack on the national government at Westminster. If ever my party did so, I should be deeply ashamed of it. Differences of opinion?—certainly; tensions?—yes, often; but always at the end of the day local government has recognised the obligation to accept and work with the policies of the national government at Westminster and in return it has expected, and got, government acceptance of the right of local authorities to have local interpretation.
But in the past five years something quite different has happened. The main local authorities—and GLC and the MCCs—have mounted a major challenge in refusing to co-operate with government financial policies. That, plus the potential large-scale economies in removing a whole tier of local government, is the justification for proceeding to abolition without delay. This paving Bill, therefore, is the essential part of proceeding to that end.
Although this is a major and a tough decision, I see it—far from being unconstitutional—as the obligation of the Government at Westminster to protect their

953
function of government in order to carry out good and stable government in the interests of the whole community. Therefore, my personal feelings about long and happy past associations must take second place to the national interest. The Government's Bill has my firm support.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in this debate—in accordance with the time schedule that has been set—and I rise to speak not about the second Bill that will be before us in the next Session, but about the exercise that is being commenced today. I wish to put my point of view. However it is masked, this is a gross interference with the democratic processes of this country. I am a born democrat and a convinced democrat like, I think—or at least I hope—the overwhelming majority of noble Members of this House. What we are seeing here is an attempt by the Government to interfere with the rule of the ballot box. If democracy does not mean the rule of this country at various levels and by various types of authorities, by the ballot box, then it does not mean anything. That, in my view, is one of the most dangerous propositions that is before us today.
I was a little surprised that in his speech the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin—who I have known a long time in local government—could lightly cast aside a franchise which he had been given in the county elections. The history of the matter—and I was involved at a pretty high level in the old City of Manchester—is that the very proposals that the Government are now dismantling, were forced on the local authorities despite total opposition from all the political parties in local government. Those proposals were rammed down their throats in accordance with what was then the thinking of that particular Conservative government. For the first time in my life I had a county vote. I think that there were between 10 million and 12 million people in the metropolitan area. I am not speaking about the GLC because, unlike some noble Lords in this House, I am not familiar with it. But for the first time I was given the right to vote in a county election. Since my ennoblement last November and since I came to this place, like all noble Lords, whether they are hereditary or life Peers, I have sacrificed the right to vote a representative to Westminster. Noble Lords automatically cease to have the right to vote and to send a representative to Westminster.
So what happens? I have, in fact, three votes: one for the metropolitan county; one for the City of Leeds, where I now live; and one for the European Parliament. But this Bill removes my right to vote in a local Government election. I really wonder whether that case can be sustained. I wonder whether noble Lords opposite realise that they are giving up one of the few democratic rights that they possess. Noble Lords should think deeply about it before they cast it away.
I was rather saddened to hear my old political opponent, (but in a friendly sense) the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, proceed in a rather gentle way to try to demolish the case for the GLC. I have to revert to a previous statement which I made and say that I was with the noble Lord when he was at Leeds. I was one
954
of the most fervent opponents of the proposal to set up the metropolitan county.
I was motivated to take that view because Manchester was the biggest centre of influence in that part of Lancashire and I did not want to see Manchester lose any of its powerful influence. If we look at the six metropolitan counties, there is not one that does not have a large authority as the central stone in its crown.
Having broadened my experience by being sent to another place as a Member of Parliament and having now come here, I will tell your Lordships what will happen when we demolish the metropolitan counties. The even-handedness that the metropolitan counties have applied in the allocation of certain resources will go up in smoke. For example 50 per cent. of the population of West Yorkshire reside in the City of Leeds. What chance will places like Kirklees, Bradford and Wakefield have in a bid for resources? They will have no chance whatever.
I started out years ago as an opponent of the proposals that were then before us. But I must admit that I was wrong, and that they have been seen to work. I can tell your Lordships that even-handedness is being applied among the authorities. But we must not kid ourselves that all the metropolitan authorities are alike, because they are not. There is no even-handedness as regards the district authorities. There is the nonsense of the Manchester City Council, which serves a population of approximately half a million, whereas some metropolitan districts have a population of 200,000 or fewer. What extra duties can we give them, and what resources will they have to carry out functions delegated by this Government?
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, made out a case—certainly, he may have done so unconsciously—for leaving the situation as it is, for having a forum and for seeing what additional duties could be given to the metropolitan county councils and the GLC to replace those of some of the autonomous boards which are answerable to no one. The noble Lord, Lord Marshall, said that there had been a transfer of responsibility from local authorities to central Government. Between 1979 and 1983 I sat on committees discussing Bill after Bill, and the then Government did nothing but almost emasculate the rights of local authorities in one of the few major services for which they had responsibility, which was housing. They totally took away that responsibility. It was not a Labour Member of Parliament in another place who called the Secretary of State for the Environment a gauleiter; it was one of the noble Lord's own Back-Benchers. That is the type of thing that may emerge if we are not careful.
I believe that this Bill is ill-conceived and ill-thought-out, and I hope that tonight this House, as a bastion of democracy, will show the Government that they cannot do just what they want, that they must have regard to the fact that people sent to places like the GLC and County Hall by the ballot box can be removed only through the ballot box by the same people who placed them there.
7.53 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, the purpose of my intervention in this debate stems, first, out of concern for your Lordships' House, and to suggest a way of getting out of the very difficult position in which this House now finds itself in considering not only this Bill but probably more importantly the reasoned amendment. I am sorry to say that I think the Government have put us in a rather unenviable position. From time to time over the years the role and function and, indeed, the very existence of this House have been put in jeopardy and frequently questioned. It is an odd situation that now many of our dedicated opponents suddenly find that they must champion our raison d'être, as the French might say. It perhaps emphasises the unquestionable need for our House in its present form.
Having said that, I think it is agreed by the majority of your Lordships' House that we have an essential and important function to play, not least in the sphere of acting as a safety valve or buffer state, with a powerful elected majority in another place acting in a manner which could be deemed to undermine democracy and the unwritten laws thereof.
For one reason or another, be it successful advertising and campaigning by the councillors on the GLC and other metropolitan councils—unmatched, I regret to say, by the Government themselves, who seem to have been significantly remiss in failing to get their point across to the public at large—or be it press comment, which at times could be deemed to be rather one-sided, or for whatever other reason, the Government have allowed a situation to occur where a very large number of people, not only in London but also, I think, in the country as a whole, have the definite impression that it is most improper to remove the expected opportunity to vote and to re-elect councillors on local government, who represent their interests in a proper fashion, at the normal expected time. As far as I can make out, there seems to be only one good reason for suggesting that the elections due to be held in 1985 should be suspended and for councillors to be nominated by the borough councils. It is to enable councillors from those boroughs, which will inherit or which it is proposed will inherit the functions of the GLC, to run that authority in the transitional year, and it will provide an opportunity for smoothing the changeover by involving the same councillors as those who would have an interest in making a success of such a transfer, rather than retaining councillors who know that the Sword of Damocles is hanging over their heads.
It is also said that there is a precedent in what happened about 22 years ago on another occasion, and that therefore what was done then is all right to do now. I cannot agree with this. Just because a precedent may be deemed to have been set does not necessarily mean that it is a good idea to abide by that precedent; and if the precedent was accepted in the first instance,it does not necessarily mean to say that it is right to accept it in the current circumstances. I simply cannot believe that the Government could not have foreseen the obvious disturbance and ill-feeling that the proposals in the Bill would cause. Therefore, surely they should have tried to get their priorities right in introducing the proposed Bill to abolish the GLC and
956
other councils earlier in order to have obviated the necessity for the 1985 elections and to abolish these councils, if indeed that is what Parliament will eventually decide, before that date.
However, it is no use crying over spilt milk. What is done is done, and we all know that the Bill to abolish these councils is likely to be laid before Parliament in due course, probably at the beginning of the next Session. It is probably best to polarise our thoughts in particular on the GLC, although the principle is the same for the other metropolitan councils as it is for the GLC. In effect, what will happen is that a Labour majority on the GLC will be automatically replaced by a Tory majority. It makes me wonder what would happen if, for some equally apparent very good reason, a Labour Government felt it was necessary to suspend the elections to, say, Surrey Council Council, which has a substantial Conservative majority, and to impose upon that council nominated persons who would transpose a conservative majority into a Labour majority. I think it would be fair to say that, at the least, uproar would ensue.
Worse still, even if it was thought to be a sound idea to have nominated councillors to ease the proposed changeover, this Bill provides only that the Secretary of State may bring in by order the provisions of this Bill after the Second Reading in another place of any future Bill to abolish the GLC and others. I do not know—I may be wrong—but it seems to me that, to say the least, this is rather an arrogant way of conducting business, and, indeed, could almost be deemed to be treating not only another place but your Lordships' House with a degree of contempt. Just because a Bill receives a Second Reading does not necessarily mean to say that it will become law. We all know perfectly well that it is highly likely to become law, because it would be very wrong of this House to overturn something that had been passed in another place.
Nonetheless, it is quite wrong to make presumptions. Anything can happen, and unforesseen circumstances do arise. We are assured that, in the circumstances that we all could have in mind, the Secretary of State could invoke the appropriate clauses in the present Bill to overturn the effects of this Bill. That is only what we are told. It is not in the Bill itself; it is only a promise. Surely to goodness, if this Bill goes forward. which indeed it will—and make no mistake, this Bill will go forward, but it must do so drafted in the right manner—we should not have to rely on presumptions, promises and understandings.
There is perhaps a way out of this dilemma. I apologise to my friends on the Front Bench, for it may be thought I am stabbing them in the back, but I feel very strongly abut this. To clarify the kernel of the problem, it is highly likely that the GLC will be abolished in 1986. It is pointless to hold elections in May 1985 for councillors to serve 11 months. Thirdly, it is as undesirable to have councillors serving who are about to be proverbially shot as it is desirable to have those who will survive serving during the changeover period. It cannot be right for anyone—certainly not for this House—to condone any action to overturn the majority of one party, duly elected, on any council and effectively replace it with a majority of another party,

957
particularly a party of the same colour as the Government in power.
The way out, which I believe might have already been put privately to the Government and which could commend itself to this House is this: let this Bill pass in such a fashion as to cancel the May 1985 elections but to allow the existing councillors to remain in office if the main Bill passes its Second Reading in another place, and if and when that main Bill eventually passes and becomes law the serving councillors will then automatically be obliged to retire and the nominated councillors, on the lines of this Bill, installed. That perhaps could be more acceptable, although I accept that there is still a degree of apparent—for want of a better word—gerrymandering; but perhaps we can go some way towards meeting the two sides of the argument. It would meet the objection that they were being presumptuous, and perhaps meet the Government's wish to have as smooth a changeover as necessary.
If my noble friends on the Front Bench could give some degree of assurance that amendments on these sorts of lines would be introduced at the Committee stage, then I could not, and would not, support the reasoned amendment. However, I feel that the Government must be shown that this House is displeased if they are not going to give such an assurance, and I feel that this reasoned amendment effectively could serve as a rap on the knuckles of the Government to show that we are not going to be steamrollered into doing things which the public at large outside this House would deem to be unconstitutional. Whatever we ourselves in this House feel, and whatever we understand by the constitutional process, and so on and so forth, it is not what we understand that matters—we are preaching to the converted—it is people outside this House who have to understand the basic layman's terminology of "constitutional", and that sort of thing.
This House is widely respected throughout the country for the vital and ultimately important role that it plays in safeguarding our constitutional freedom against a powerful Government in another place. Unless and until it can be seen that the majority of people are satisfied with the proposals of this present Bill, perhaps amended or intended to be amended as I have suggested, your Lordship's House has a distinct duty to try to persuade the Government to change their mind on those proposals. If we fail to do so we should be in danger of undermining the right of our very existence, as we will not be taking the opportunity of carrying out the principal functions and power that we are still fortunate enough to retain.
A further rather unpleasant aspect has occurred this evening. Extreme pressure has been brought to bear on a number of the Government's rather far distant and somewhat irregular supporters. I am not sure that this is quite the way to go about dealing with this Bill. It is known that the Government, for various and probably good reasons, command an enormous degree of support throughout the country. But we are dealing here with something of fairly major constitutional importance, and it would have been far better if we could have all assembled without pressure having been put on us, and been able to feel that we could vote and speak without feeling that we are letting our side down.
958
Outside this House there are certain people who are going to point to this sort of structure of our House, and it could have a danger of undermining our House. I feel strongly about this, as the House in its present form functions extremely well. I am sorry that at times on this side of the House there is a rather automatic majority over the other side; but nevertheless I hope that this majority is used responsibly. I believe that by using pressure today the Government have made a slight mistake, as I am not sure that it is the right way to go about it.
Having said that, I support the Government, and that is why I speak from where I do. But it is because I support the Government that I think they ought to consider the long-term implications for this House of inviting your Lordships' House to allow this measure to pass without comment. The comment we can make is expressed admirably in the reasoned amendment. We should support this amendment because by doing so it will serve as a reminder to this Government, to say the least, that we are not necessarily going to be steamrollered into allowing what appears to be tampering with a democratic process.
If we pass this amendment I hope that the Government will realise that they have possibly made a mistake in the organisation of this whole matter. If they realise that, then in my view there is nothing more honourable than for a mistake, once recognised, to be remedied, and it is dishonourable to do otherwise. If this amendment is passed it will give the Government opportunity to bring in their own amendments to this Bill such as I have outlined.
With the greatest respect to the GLC and the metropolitan councils, at this stage I do not have much concern for them. I have nothing to do with local government, and therefore my remarks are not directed to them; but I have concern for this House. I believe that we shall be acting wrongly, and be seen by the public at large to be so doing, if this Bill goes through without reminding the Government by way of this amendment that they are doing the right thing in the wrong way. I hope that this unelected, undemocratic assembly will act, and be seen to act, and prove its worth in the interests of democracy, and prove that it is still worthy of the place and function it holds in our parliamentary process.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Viscount. I agree largely with what he says. I am sure that he is right to feel—and I hope he will continue so to feel—that he will be more likely to persuade the Government along the path he wants them to take if he joins us tonight in the Division Lobby in support of the amendment. I want to speak briefly, because I have noticed a danger in recent weeks of this House falling into the bad habits of another place in the times it keeps in its debates, and today, above all days, is a day when we should assert our independence.
Nobody can maintain that the structure of local government should be immutable. But the proposals to abolish the GLC and the six metropolitan councils are not before us tonight. Indeed like my noble friend Lord Dean I had reservations about all of them

959
when—and this must be stressed—they were introduced by successive Conservative administrations. The fact however that such proposals were put first in the election manifesto, and form the basis of the Bill now before us, without clearly formulated plans for their successors, is I fear illustrative of the monumental incompetence with which the whole of this matter has been handled. If the Government really knew what they wanted to do we should surely have a different Bill before us now.
It is also a sad comment on the state of our affairs against the background of the enormous problems, international and domestic, that we are facing that the Government should be so obsessed with the minute details of local government when we nave thousands of elected members much more competent to know the wishes of their communities than the "gentlemen in Whitehall". I content myself with two simple comments on this point. I think it is absolutely inconceivable that London should be the only capital in the Western world without a municipal authority to speak for it and to do the global planning that is necessary. I will not enlarge on that point because I could not do it nearly as well as did the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, with his immense experience as the longest leader—and, of course, it may prove to be otherwise; but, so far, the longest Serving leader of the GLC.
Secondly, I would make a point which I think is of some significance in regard to South Yorkshire, the metropolitan area that I know best and where I had the privilege of serving for many years in one of its constituencies. When South Yorkshire was formed there was absolutely unanimous hostility to the setting up of that metropolitan council; but in fact by painful, at times, and certainly painstaking, work in transport, police, fire, the arts and many other fields it has transpired that, just as at that time, a decade ago, there was unanimous opposition to it, today there is unanimous regret at the idea of its passing—and certainly at the idea of its passing in the circumstances that we are now considering.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, made clear in what I thought was a brilliant speech introducing his amendment, the issue before us tonight is the responsibility and duty of this House as a revising Chamber. He recited the precedents with great clarity and I shall not seek to repeat them. I must confess that for many years I was greatly influenced by the late Professor Harold Laski's dictum that a second Chamber that agrees with the first is superfluous and one that disagrees is a nuisance. I feel now, however, after some considerable parliamentary and ministerial experience, that, the volume of business being what it is—although I think we go about our business in a very bad way; and we have made no fundamental changes at all in the way we deal with legislation—a single-Chamber Government would not be satisfactory, and I do not think the British people would want it. And I cannot think of any alternative to your Lordships' House that would not be more likely to fall foul of the strictures of Professor Laski.
What surprises me greatly is the way that this Bill has been brought in. It is an affront to this House. I was surprised that the noble Lord the Minister in
960
proposing it relied on the words in Paragraph 1 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum when he said:
"pending a decision by Parliament on whether or not those councils are to be abolished".
That rests on an assurance—nothing else—of the Minister about a Second Reading in another place. In effect, the first paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill your Lordships are now considering has done what the Left of the Labour Party has not succeeded in doing: that is, to abolish this House as an essential and important part of Parliament; because it is not coming before us at all. My Lords, I think that that is the issue we have to consider tonight.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if I may make a very quick point, before any order is laid under this Bill under Clause 4(4) there must be an affirmative instrument of both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, we are aware of that. But in that case, by a stroke of a ministerial pen—and, surely, some Minister looked at this document before it was sent to this House—it should not have talked about Parliament approving. We are not asked to approve the abolition of these councils in that affirmative order. The affirmative order is only dealing with the minutiæ of the elections. I hope, therefore, that the amendment will be carried because I think that its message is crystal clear. It is quite simply telling the Government to take this Bill away and that if they must play around with the reorganisation of local government, to get on with it; and that when they have made up their minds what to do to bring back the proposals. Then we will have a look at it; but, until they do that, then I think we should not proceed in this matter at all.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, we have had three powerful speeches from 200 miles north of your Lordships' Chamber and, if I may, I will revert briefly to London. This Bill has acquired for itself a very limited welcome. This does not necessarily mean to say that those of us who are critical of this Bill admire in chapter and verse anything that has been done up to the moment by those who run the Greater London Council. [Interruption] There is no doubt that, as a result of this, there has been a good deal of criticism about the way in which the GLC has been run, but this does not mean to say that the provisions inherent in this Bill are the entire solution.
I cast my mind back briefly 20 years to when the Greater London Council was set up. In those times, I must confess, I had a certain amount of reservation for the setting up of the Greater London Council, and especially for the White Paper following the Royal Commission chaired by the late Lord Tangley, because, had the requirements of the Royal Commission gone through, the Counties of Surrey, where I live, and Kent and the other Home Counties would have had very little left. Almost all of Surrey—apart mainly from four towns, Guildford, Godalming, Farnham and Woking—would have gone into London. But that is past history.

961
Now we have the difficulty of the Government seeking to abolish an organisation which they have set up. It may well be that there are strong grounds for replacing the Greater London Council by another body. But I think that there is genuine concern about the interim arrangements of an appointed authority for a period of one year. What worries me, and what worries a lot of people, is the question of what savings this is going to mean. There is no doubt that the GLC, as at present constituted, has on occasions spent money extravagantly. I say this and I say it without reservation. But they were after all elected, even though there was some hiatus over the chairman.
We now have the question: what is going to happen after the 12 months' appointed period? In the terms of the Bill the whole thing is a mystery. The Government may set up in 1986 another authority—and this is what is causing a great deal of concern. I have read the document Streamlining the Cities. My speech will no doubt reveal the fact that my own experience of local government has been limited in the extreme. But in this House we are all taxpayers, we are all ratepayers and therefore we have as much respect for, and as much interest in, local government and the desire to make local government work as has another place and any other organisation.
In this Bill we have, I think an appalling dilemma to face, particularly on this side of the House. I listened with great interest, as I think did the whole House, to the speech of my noble friend Lord Plummer with his unique experience of local government, where he pointed out the difficulties facing some of the services, in particular waste disposal, which is an extremely important service where health is involved.
Time is getting on and the House will want to come to a decision. I come very briefly to the reasoned amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. In spirit I agree with it, but I also take the words of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, with his enormous experience in your Lordships' House as a former Minister as well as a great deal of experience in many fields. I am not at all certain that even on a Bill of this kind, which is unique—because in a sense we are talking about a hypothesis—your Lordships should force a vote.
We are going to have a long and detailed Committee stage without a guillotine, unlike the other place, and in Committee this Bill must be examined ruthlessly—and I mean ruthlessly. But at the same time it must be examined in a practical manner, too, because in 1986 we have to get the thing right. We shall not have another bite at the cherry. I believe—and I speak entirely for myself, as does every Member of your Lordships' House—that this evening is not the time to vote. But when it comes to Committee the Government will be very much up against it unless they make a very detailed study of what has been said in this House and in the media by not merely opportunists in the press, but also people who have had experience in local government. There I rest my case.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Milford: My Lords, we have just had a summit of all the leaders of the Western world and America and the only declaration upon which they all seemed to agree was the declaration of their loyalty to the
962
principles of democratic rights and freedom. The summit is over and today we are discussing a Bill which is one of the grossest violations of democracy that one could imagine. A short time ago this Tory Government were elected democratically. A few months afterwards they have turned round to abolish local government elections in constituencies where they find opposition too strong. This morning on BBC news—and the BBC is not quite an independent organisation—the BBC said that the main aim of the Bill before the House of Lords today was to replace an elected Labour majority by a Tory appointed body. Those are the words of the BBC.
This Government are now scrapping over a century of democratic progress, wiping out the rights of ordinary British people to decide the key questions affecting their local lives. They claim to be a democratic Government, yet they are silencing any opposition they find too strong by abolishing elections. In spite of all the excuses we have heard from the Government Benches today, the larger picture is that this Bill is part of the major Government plan to weaken the power and the voice of the ordinary people, to weaken their organisations, their institutions, and their safeguards. This Bill is part of a many-pronged attack on the people, through transport, the GLC, rate capping, and the determination to crush the trade unions, to push forward privatisation in the interests of big business monopolies, and to build up and safeguard their profits.
This Bill is just a small part of the entire attack that is taking place on the British people. Now the Government want to abolish elections which might make things difficult for them. For the London public the GLC has done and is doing, a wonderful job in the hospitals, in schools, in the voluntary services, and in the organisation this year of a tremendous attack on racialism to try to wipe out that scourge once and for all. The GLC is doing this in spite of the Government's every attempt possible to hinder it.
The only answer that the Government now have is to abolish the GLC and to increase the powers of their own central bureaucracy. But the Ministers opposite do not think of the people. The people are not mentioned in the discussion from the Government Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, attacked the right reverend Prelate, who had a real, human approach to the whole question, and tried to ridicule him. They do not care to know how ordinary people live and how their standard of living will be threatened and affected if this vicious Bill is passed.
It is the principle of the Bill which is the biggest shock to me. Your Lordships may not agree with the GLC or the trade unions, but this Bill is a direct attack on democracy. British democracy used to be the envy of the world. In the forties, after the war, again and again I was asked questions by French and Italians on British democracy and how it works; but today the present Government are destroying our image. It has been mentioned that we are the only country in Europe in which the capital city—be it Paris, Rome, or Brussels—will have no elected municipality. But this debate brings a glimmer of hope, since it is a rare moment when, on a question of principle, party boundaries are broken down, and so democracy might just squeeze through tonight.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, in normal circumstances I think I would feel called upon to rebut some of the statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Milford in the speech to which we have just listened. At this time of night all that is required of a speaker is only the reasons why he or she intends to vote in one or other of the Lobbies when a Division is called.
The title of this Bill, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, could scarcely be, on the face of it, more harmless and inoffensive. The Explanatory Memorandum says:
"pending a decision by Parliament on whether … those councils are to be abolished".
This was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in his earlier speech.
The introduction of this so-called paving Bill is conclusive evidence that the Government have no intention of allowing Parliament to decide. This whole thing is a charade for it is perfectly clear that the "elective dictatorship" of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, to which Lord Hooson also referred, now operates. With an overwhelming and tightly whipped majority in the House of Commons and the strength of the party in the House of Lords, consolidated by the energetic efforts of my noble friends the Leader and the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, Parliament can be relied on to see through the Government's decisions, whatever they may be, in another place.
Tonight we shall see many fresh, young and unfamiliar faces going through the Lobbies and many gouty feet making their way through them. But there is a little local difficulty facing the Government. The object of this Bill is simply to ensure that the abolition of seven major local elected authorities is carried out without the Government having the embarrassment of allowing the electors of those authorities to register their opposition to their abolition at an election due, under statute, to be held in a few months' time.
I feel no call to defend the actions of the GLC or the other metropolitan county councils. In the normal course of events, the electors of those authorities would be able to do so by normal democratic means next April. This Bill deprived them of that opportunity—and why? Simply because the Government know that the result of any election in the seven areas would not represent a political judgment by the voters on the records of those councils, but be a powerful condemnation of the Government's decision to abolish them. Therefore, it is expedient that the voters should not be given that chance.
This Bill, innocuous as it appears, has the most dangerous and far-reaching implications, as has already been brought out in many speeches in your Lordships' House today. In my view, it is morally, intellectually, politically and constitutionally indefensible. It represents a contempt for the tradition of local democracy in Britain, which, after all, has its roots back in history, further back in some respects than parliamentary democracy. It is a classic example of that pernicious doctrine that the end justifies the means.
At this moment when the Government are trying, quite rightly, to persuade the trade unions—and,
964
apparently, intend to support that persuasion by legislation—to adopt the democratic methods of the ballot box in the conduct of their affairs, the rights of millions, 18 million. I am told, of local government voters are being snuffed out for reasons of pure political expediency.
On Friday the Prime Minister signed a declaration, together with other leaders of the Western world (as the noble Lord. Lord Milford, has mentioned), which said:
"We believe in a system of democracy which ensures genuine choice in elections freely held, free expression of opinion and the capacity to respond and adapt to change in all its aspects".
But not, apparently, for the electors of London or the other six great urban industrial areas of Great Britain. The declaration goes on:
"It is for governments to set conditions in which there can be the greatest possible range and freedom of choice".
But not for the electors of London or the other six great urban industrial areas of Great Britain. The right of these electors conferred on them by laws passed by the British Parliament will, by this Bill, be swept away for the simple reason that the Executive, for the time being, knows that if those voters are allowed "genuine choice in elections freely held" that choice will reject conclusively the policies which the Government intend to impose on them.
In my view, all this represents a violation of constitutional propriety and a deficiency in political morality which I never thought I would see from a Tory Government, after 50 years of active political life and membership of the Conservative Party. I would foretell that this party will one day live to regret this Bill bitterly.
But the Bill establishes a precedent which has implications, and dangerous implications, for our whole parliamentary system. If a Government of one party can suspend elections for great areas of Britain by an interim provisions Bill, why could not a Government of another party suspend elections for Great Britain as a whole? I venture to suggest to your Lordships, as my noble friends and noble Peers on both sides of the House have said, that in our consideration of this Bill we should bear in mind that this House has special responsibilities for safeguarding constitutional propriety which surmounts the normal obligations of party.
What would be the attitude of my noble friends on this side of the House if a Labour an Alliance Government were to suspend elections in order to pave the way for the abolition of the county councils; and go further than that, replace the elected county councilors in those county councils forming, in most cases, Conservative majorities with nominees who would, in most cases be Socialist or Alliance, as will be the case the other way round with the GLC? It does not take much imagination to hear the cries of outrage, the accusations of gerrymandering and the appeals for the great traditions of democracy which such a situation would evoke from my noble friends on this side who have spoken against this amendment today.
We are under no obligation to give this Bill a Second Reading. Whatever may be the party obligations of elected Members in the House of Commons, we in this House have a special responsibility in constitutional

965
matters of importance. These, as I have said, override conventional party loyalty.
If the Government claim that a vote for a reasoned amendment is tantamount to a rejection that is their view. It is not correct. If this amendment is passed the Bill will continue in accordance with normal procedure. Your Lordships will have registered your distaste for it, your belief that the Government are ill-advised to introduce it, your anxieties at the implications it has for the democratic process evolved in this country for the protection of freedom of the individual and the rule of law. We would, without derogating from the accepted rights of the elected Chamber, be fulfilling our proper role within the parliamentary constitution which, by inference, was given to us in 1911 by the Parliament Act. That is why I intend to vote for the amendment and I hope that your Lordships will do likewise.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, though perhaps a shade more instinctively supportive of Governments than my noble friend Lord Alport, I do not jump automatically to the support either of my party or this Government, or hardly any other Government, when it comes to local government reform. In my experience, almost all local government reform ends in disaster so I approach the whole thing with caution. Nevertheless, having thought rather deeply about the matter I differ quite sharply from Lord Alport and agree with my noble friend, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am quite sure that the Government are right to pave the way for a sensible discussion of what will be a very much larger measure.
I think that in the admirable speech of my noble friend Lord Marshall of Leeds we had a glimpse of how large and important is that measure. After an enormous study of this area—he probably knows more about it than almost anyone else in this House—he gave us a view of the changes that have already taken place and the difficulty of making the right decision. It is vital that that decision should not be taken in an atmosphere of chaos, which it would be if there were no paving measure and no interim arrangements were made.
We have had a good debate, much of which has been on subjects disparate from the Bill. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester attacked the whole idea of doing away with the GLC and therefore attacked the paving Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, took practically the same line. He did not want a paving Bill; he did not want a pavement. He did not want to walk in that direction, which I can fully understand. To my disappointment, even the noble Lord, Lord Plummer—I was waiting to hear what he would do about a paving Bill—spent at any rate 98 per cent. of his time attacking the major Bill which we are not yet discussing.
I am concerned only with this Bill and with this amendment, and I would suggest two things. First of all, it seems clear to me from this debate that some interim arrangement is necessary. I think it must be necessary. The only speech against an interim arrangement—it was a very good speech—was from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield. But
966
he did not really want an interim arrangement because he wanted a Royal Commission that postponed for five years doing anything. That was an understandable point of view, but it is not one which I share. I consider—and if the Opposition think differently, I hope they will say so—that some interim arrangement is necessary.
Secondly, no interim provision could be made which is not open to very serious criticism. It is an enormously complicated thing to do. Therefore it seems to me that an effective Opposition at this time must argue either against the Bill or in favour of some amendment; either that no interim arrangement is necessary—if that is the view, I hope it will be put quite plainly to us—or that, although it is necessary, it ought to be quite a different interim arrangement. One or other of those platforms must be adopted by anyone who is going to vote against the Government tonight. The amendment ignores these points. It does not really deal with them. It is couched in terms which seem to me not only unacceptable, but in large measure irrelevant, in that it says that this measure was not included in the manifesto. I reject altogether this manifesto concept.
I have all my life watched manifestoes being produced. They are produced by backroom boys of great youth and no experience of the world whatever; or they are produced in overheated, left-wing packed party conferences; or they are produced in high-falutin committees full of quacks. Governments in this country are not installed; parties are not elected to carry out manifestoes. They are installed, and they are elected, to govern this country, to introduce those measures that are necessary. Therefore, in my opinion, the decisions that are required and the authority that is required must come from an election. My Lords, nobody can deny that this Government have a firm authority in that respect.
What are the alternatives? I must say that, before this debate ends, the Opposition ought to tell us, if they are going to have an alternative at all, what it really is. One alternative is to put in commissioners. Another alternative is to say to an elected body which has run out of time, "Carry on and do the thing, anyhow". It seems to me that those alternatives are neither democratic, nor sensible, and in those circumstances I support the Government.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, has very properly put a number of challenges to those who have reservations, stronger or weaker, about this Bill and about the amendment which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. At this time of night I do not think that he or any of your Lordships would expect a reasoned argument from the Back-Benches about the whole range of matters which have been discussed in this House over the past hours. I wish to concentrate on three particular matters where I believe the House has been not misled—I should not dream of saying that—but has failed to appreciate the facts of the argument.
The first matter, which was raised by a number of noble Lords, is the legitimacy of having the power

967
handed over to what were called successor authorities; what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, called the responsible people who will be responsible afterwards. The second is the question of why there should be a paving Bill at all in advance of legislation. Finally, there is the question of whether this thing will work and whether there is any practical possibility that the series of Bills which is now proposed will actually produce, either in the short-term or in the long-term, an effective government for London and the metropolitan counties.
I should like, first, to refer to the argument that it is rational and logical for the successor authorities to take responsibility during the last 11 months of the existence of the Greater London Council, or whatever the administration at County Hall is to be called. Let us look at the responsibilities of the Greater London Council and where it is proposed, according to the White Paper and according to Government statements, in so far as we have them, that these responsibilities should go. The Fire Service, which accounts for 7,000 employees, or one in three of the staff of the Greater London Council, is to go not to the boroughs, but to a London fire board. Waste disposal is to go to the London boroughs, but there will be reserved powers to set up a waste disposal commission which will be outwith the responsibilities of London boroughs. Public health and safety will be with the London boroughs. The Thames barrier, perhaps the most dramatic of the GLC's developments over recent years, and flood prevention and land drainage will be with the Thames Water Authority. Planning powers will be with the London planning commission, with a certain amount going to the London boroughs. Transport and roads will be with the Department of Transport. London Transport will be with the new London Regional Transport, if the legislation before your Lordships' House goes through.
The arts will be a mixture of borough and Arts Council funding. The National Sports Council will have a much more significant role in recreation. There will probably still be a Greater London Enterprise Board responsible for some aspects of industry and employment. Housing services have of course already gone to the boroughs. Central services and supplies will be with some type of joint organisation.
The conclusion of that recital, for which I apologise to your Lordships. is that of the total 1983–84 budget of the Greater London Council of £1,900 million. non-elected authorities will have responsibility for £1,147 million. In other words, 55 to 60 per cent. of the responsibilities of the Greater London Council will not go to the London boroughs and will not be in the hands of elected authorities, and the responsibilities of these so-called "successor authorities" will not continue. In other words, we shall have two changes. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, said that the legitimacy of the successor authorities was to him the decisive argument. I would suggest to him, if he were in his place, that his decisive argument falls on the facts and that, on the basis of his own argument, he ought to vote for the amendment.
Secondly, why should we be having a paving Bill at all? The whole question arises of the mandate of the Government. Noble Lords have said that if you have
968
willed, in the general election, the end of abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan counties then you should will the means of the paving Bill.
Why do we have a paving Bill now and not an abolition Bill? It is because the Government have not found a way of formulating the actual Bill for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils. It has proved to be too difficult for them. They do not know how to do it. They are involved in a mish-mash of, as I said, elected authorities, quangos, joint boards and return to central government—all these things are milling around in the collective mind of the Government. They are not capable yet of putting it into legislative form or putting it before Parliament. If they were capable, and if there were a rational explanation for their electoral commitment, we would have the whole Bill now: not a paving Bill but the Bill that says, "This is the final plan for the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, and how we deal with the elections is part of the Bill".
The argument of those of us who support the amendment tonight is that, if they cannot work out the final result of their legislative programme, then they ought not to be putting forward, first of all, this paving Bill with the abolition of elections at this time. The truth of the matter is that the Government are, above all, afraid not of mismanagement and not of the over-expenditure of the Greater London Council—none of those things. They are afraid of electoral defeat. That is the truth of the matter and that is the fundamental argument which proves that the Government are being less than open and less than honourable, in my view, with another place and with this House—with Parliament as a whole.
The fact of the matter is that the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, in his very brave speech—and I wish I had the guts to make a speech like that—said that the Government had an obligation to show that the alternative system will work. He pointed out that the historical experience is that disagreement among the London boroughs is such that a voluntary joint organisation within the boroughs will not work.
What is the alternative to a voluntary agreement between the boroughs? It is an involuntary agreement, a system whereby a majority of the boroughs have control. And what is that but the start again of a city government? Whatever may be the case with the metropolitan counties—and I yield to those who have pleaded eloquently for those counties, of which I have no experience—it cannot be right or even a practical possibility that we should have a capital city such as ours without a directly-elected city government authority. There have been arguments about the inadequacies of the Greater London Council—and, by the way, I disagree with some of the activities of the recent Greater London Council, as would many of your Lordships, and I was particularly nauseated by the attempt to impose a loyalty oath on Zola Budd recently; that is the kind of action against which I have fought all my political life. But that is not the issue. The issue is that if the GLC is inadequate, what we have to replace it by is an effective city government; and the melancholy catalogue of the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds, on the way in which central

969
government has taken over the activities of local government in London is evidence of that.
If we had the will and the political courage to accept that a capital city like every other capital city in the world, including now Washington and Paris, has the right to determine its own government, whether we like the political conclusions or not, then we would not be in a position of having before Parliament over the next 12 months an abolition Bill and having before your Lordships' House now a paving Bill. It is not only democratically indefensible, but it is, practically, not going to work.
8.55 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, if one accepts, as I do, that the Government have a clear mandate to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties, then I believe one must support this Bill and oppose the reasoned amendment; and I shall do so. So many points have been made throughout this debate, and I feel that even at this late hour I must correct some of the misapprehensions or misstatements that have been made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, indicated that the GLC and metropolitan county councillors were different beings from local councillors and that quite a different calibre of person was required. This came through in speech after speech made in the House—that these people elected to represent local boroughs would not be capable of moving in and doing a job at County Hall. I do not accept that for one moment. I myself have served in both authorities, and many members of the Greater London Council at the present time have done just that. Indeed, at the present moment several members of the GLC are also members of their local councils. I should perhaps at this moment declare that I am currently an elected member of the Greater London Council.
Then we have had a great many comments about how, we would be destroying the only body that did anything to help in terms of homelessness. In London, I believe the boroughs have done much more to help homelessness than the Greater London Council has done. Housing has in fact now moved away from the Greater London Council to the boroughs and seems to be working well, because when houses were dealt with at County Hall it was remote from many people and not very satisfactory.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester said what a help and a value the Greater London Council was. I accept that it has helped many people, but no one has spoken of its interference or of the hindrance it is to local government. At present, almost every major development the City of Westminster would like to continue with is held up at County Hall. They cannot get anywhere with it. They wish to change their resident parking system, but again it is stuck at County Hall, and has been there for 18 months. I know from my own constituency that if you have the desire to put in a pedestrian crossing, it can take years if it goes to County Hall. Not only that, but the local people can be told that "County Hall knows best and your pedestrian crossing must go in at the spot marked X". And, of course, when the local
970
people get it there they still continue to cross in the same place as they have always crossed, and they ignore what all the traffic engineers and other so-called experts remote from the spot have suggested.
In my own constituency we have a very major redevelopment of an historic building site which would have been passed again and again by the local council; it has been held up and refused at County Hall. So I think there are two sides to that and one must remember it—not to mention Talgarth Road at the moment, where the Greater London Council have announced that they are very happy that all the traffic is being discomfited because they believe that people should get out of their vehicles and use a bus.
The fire brigade is one body that I think is of interest. I have had a letter today from someone who has received a lot of scare information that the Fire Brigade might be privatised. I do not think there is any suggestion of that at all in the paving Bill. It is quite clear that there will be provision for the Fire Brigade. When one thinks about the GLC running the Fire Brigade—in the time that I served on the committee I was never quite sure who was running what. I felt that the Fire Brigade itself made a great deal of the running. But powers have been transferred progressively away from the Greater London Council and the noble Lord who said that it is now busily looking for more powers to take to itself to keep it in a job made, I thought, a very interesting point. I believe it was made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick.
But what of those parts of Greater London which have never wanted to be part of it? Mention was made of those who longed for the Ridings again in Yorkshire. But in the Greater London Council I represented Essex and Middlesex, and in each case those areas have wished that they had never been incorporated into Greater London. There was a great sense of history and identity in the old LCC area, but people never wished to join Greater London in the same way and I have not had a single letter from any constituent of mine regretting the abolition of the Greater London Council. I have sought views on this and most people say that they would much prefer to have local democracy really local.
We have heard so much tonight about the removal of democracy because we are taking away people's right to vote. Nothing much has been said about the fact that we are retaining the genuine local councils and how democratic they are. And think, too, my Lords, about the democracy within the Greater London Council. At the moment, the figures there are 44 to 48. A traditional pattern on committees has always been followed, which gives a proportionate number of seats, but the present administration has taken seven seats to four on every committee and there is nothing too democratic about that.
I was impressed by the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield about the staff and the anxiety that could be caused. It is true that any change of this type creates great anxiety. For that reason, I believe that the sooner it is a settled and definite thing the better it is for people, rather than to be living in a situation of uncertainty. Amendments can be brought forward at Committee stage if people have genuine

971
concern, and it is the role of this House to be a revising Chamber. I rather like the idea of an equivalent of a Mayor of New York or of Paris, but at the moment I cannot see how that would fit into the present restructuring. But I hope that eventually that may happen.
I should like to finish by quoting a small extract from The Londoner which I normally do not read, though I feel that as it costs such a lot of money one should look at it. I see a letter quoted from Mr. Alan Greengross, Tory opposition leader at the GLC. It was a private letter to the Prime Minister, so it is quite to be expected that it would be published in accordance with the usual leaking of confidential papers at the present moment. The letter states:
"As you will know, although there are differences between us as to how we should proceed after abolition, the Conservative group here, with the odd exception, has remained solid in public endorsement of the Government's commitment to restructuring."
I consider that this Bill is simply a matter of logistics and it is necessary to deal with the practicalities of abolition. I intend to oppose the amendment and to support this Bill.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I find it hard to believe, particularly after listening to the debate today, that there are many noble Lords opposite who do not entertain some doubts about this extraordinary Bill. Indeed, I am sure that there are several Ministers—though undoubtedly they come from outside the Department of the Environment—who profoundly wish that the Government had never proceeded in this particular way.
It has been pointed out that the central purpose of this Bill is to cancel next year's elections in the GLC and in the metropolitan counties. Of course there is, as has been pointed out repeatedly, a second result, which is that it will effectively transfer political power in London from the Labour-controlled Greater London Council to a group of nominees selected by the boroughs, the majority of whom will be Conservatives. So without in any way being consulted, real political power in London is being switched from the Labour party to the Government's supporters in the London boroughs.
The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, and the noble Lord, Lord Alport, raised one question and it is an interesting one. What would have happened if the roles had been reversed? What would have been the situation if we had had a government of the left proposing to abolish the right to vote in a GLC which was controlled by the Conservative party and transferring effective power to its political friends in the boroughs? We know very well what would have happened in this House. We should have had the noble Viscount the Leader of the House on his feet—speaking, of course, from the Opposition side of the House—denouncing that Bill in the most unequivocal terms.
It would have been added by the noble Viscount that what was particularly objectionable about that Bill was not simply the power it gave to abolish elections, but this extraordinary provision whereby this Bill will come into effect after the Second Reading
972
of the Bill to abolish the Greater London Council later in the year. The noble Viscount, I suspect, would have been saying from this side of the House, responding to a Bill of that character proposed by a government of the Left, that it raised some of the gravest constitutional issues that he had ever faced in his political lifetime.
There would have been demands for the opposition not simply to pass a reasoned amendment, but, I suspect, to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. It would have been said that if the House of Lords was not prepared to fight on an issue as fundamental as that, there would be no point in having a House of Lords at all. In that situation, I believe that the noble Viscount would have been entirely right.
It may reasonably be asked: how is it that the Government could have been guilty of such a quite extraordinary error of judgment in bringing forward this legislation? Knowing what they would have said if they had been in opposition, why did they not realise the grave risks they were running if they proceeded in this manner? I think there are two explanations for that. The first is the doctrine of the mandate and the second is Mr. Ken Livingstone.
As we have all been reminded by the Secretary of State for the Environment, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, the Government announced both their rate-capping proposals and their intention of abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan counties in the manifesto for last year's general election. What is equally clear is that they had then devoted remarkably little time or effort to studying what the consequences would be if they did, indeed, abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties. This is, presumably, why there was not the slightest hint in the Conservative election manifesto that the Government would introduce such an entirely unprecedented measure as the one that we are facing in this House tonight.
In any event, I find the argument about the mandate which the Government are supposed to have for these measures deeply unpersuasive. First, during the 10 years that I have served in this House some of the silliest measures I have seen introduced have owed their existence solely to the fact that they received a mention of two or three lines in the Government party's election manifesto. I am glad to say that I have some support for my scepticism about the so-called mandate, first from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, when Master of the Rolls, in the Fares Fair case between the London Borough of Bromley and the Greater London Council. In his celebrated judgment in the Court of Appeal he said:
"It seems to me that no party can or should claim a mandate and commitment for any one item in a long manifesto. When the party gets into power it should consider any promise or proposal afresh, on its merits, without any feeling of being obliged to honour it or being committed to it".
Secondly, I want to return inevitably—though the House will be glad to know briefly—to the remarkable Richard Dimbleby Lecture given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in 1976. I have a particular reason for remembering it because I was glad to be one of those who was invited to be present on that occasion. I am also glad to say that I agreed then with very nearly everything the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about what he

973
described as the elective dictatorship, about the dangers of the almost unrestrained powers of the Executive, and about the need for a written constitution which would ensure that the powers of Parliament would be limited both by law and by a system of checks and balances.
If we had made the constitutional changes that were recommended on that occasion by the noble and learned Lord, there is no doubt that this miserable Bill would not be before us tonight, because it would have been ruled out under one or other of the headings set out by him on that occasion. But, as it is, the Bill has been produced and it has met with the fiercest criticism, some of it from newspapers such as the Financial Times, which are strong supporters of the present Government. And it has met with the fiercest criticism not only from the press but undoubtedly from the overwhelming majority of the citizens of London. In that situation one asks oneself again how the Government could have made this colossal misjudgment.
That brings me to the second explanation I should like to put forward for the Government's behaviour. That, of course, is Mr. Ken Livingstone. The Government do not just dislike Mr. Livingstone: they are, I believe, almost obsessed with him. Let me for a moment, however, find some common ground with the Government Front Bench on this particular matter. I, as do my noble friends, most strongly and profoundly disagree with a great deal that Mr. Livingstone has done in London since he has been the leader of the GLC. There has been his policy of pouring public money into the pockets of a number of his political friends. There has been his appointments policy at County Hall, which has been so shameless that I believe it would have brought a flush of embarrassment to the faces of even some of the less sensitive members of Mr. Prendergast's machine in Kansas City and that of Governor Gerry in Massachusetts. There have been his constant public statements which have given aid and comfort to Provisional Sinn Fein. All that, I believe, is wholly deplorable. But that in no way begins to justify the Bill that we have before us today.
It was because of this record that Mr. Livingstone was, 12 months ago, possibly the most unpopular local government leader in the United Kingdom. Many of his colleagues believed at that time that they would be swept out of office at the time of the next GLC elections. In just a year the present Government have transformed Mr. Livingstone's position. He must indeed be grateful to the Secretary of State. The Government's inept conduct has succeeded, I believe, in rousing the patriotism of Londoners in a way which none of us has witnessed for at least the past 40 years.
That is why we have this Bill before us today. The Government are quite determined not to have elections in London next year. There is, in my view, little doubt about what would happen if there were elections next year; and I suspect there is not much doubt, either, in the mind of the Government. The pretence that they would be in some way too costly does seem to me to be one of the less impressive arguments that can be put forward. The cost of the elections would hardly equal the extra policing costs
974
for a period of three weeks that have been caused by the activities of the pickets in the Nottinghamshire coalfields. But if they are adamant (and I believe they are) that they will not next year permit the people of London to vote, they should extend the life of the present authorities and not create the absurdity of an authority—a non-elected authority—which will exist for a period of 11 months.
I repeat, what is even more objectionable about all of this is the deliberate intention of transferring power, without the people of London being in any way consulted, from one political party to another. As Sir Ian Gilmour said in another place, to remove an elected majority of one party and to substitute a nominate majority of another is constitutionally unacceptable. Mr. Pym said that if the Bill was put onto the statute book, the Government and the Conservative Party would rue the day. And Mr. Heath said that it would lay the Conservative Party open to the charge that they had carried out the greatest act of gerrymandering in 150 years of British history.
I can recall no occasion in the history of British politics since the war when three former senior Ministers of the Crown have attacked their own Government not simply because they disagree with the Government's policy but because they believed that it undermined the democratic basis of our society. In my view, this issue is one of infinitely greater importance than the future of Mr. Livingstone. What is at stake tonight is not just an issue that concerns the future of London's local government and that of the metropolitan counties; it is, whether we will allow a Government not only to cancel elections but also, in the case of London, to effect a change of political control without the tiresome formality of an election.
The vote which takes place tonight occurs at a time when this House probably has a higher reputation than at any time since the last war. I believe that that is because this House has on a number of occasions insisted on exercising its revising powers despite the entreaties of Ministers, and even though the majority of the House undoubtedly supports the present Government. At a time when the Government have such an overwhelming majority in another place that debate there has become devalued, this House has refused to submit to the wishes of the Executive when it has believed that the Executive were mistaken. This House has insisted on listening to the arguments and taking a decision on what it believes the merits of the case to be. Without a written constitution, this House is the final guardian of the liberties of the British people; I hope that the House remembers this when we vote tonight.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, this must be one of the most important debates to take place in this House for many years. As the noble Lord who has just spoken indicated, the issue is whether democracy is to have any meaning at all at this time, in any realistic sense. The issue is not whether the Greater London Council or the metropolitan councils should or should not be abolished; that is not the issue to which we are directing our attention. That is not the issue at which the Bill is directing itself. Tonight, we are not voting on a Bill which deals with alternatives to the Greater

975
London Council. I submit that what we have to decide tonight is whether it is proper, within our parliamentary and democratic traditions, not only to prevent the citizens of Greater London and the metropolitan county councils from voting in the elections which are due to take place in 1985 for those who may want to represent them for one or two years, or whatever the period may be—but to impose without an election a change of party control of the councils by way of a nominated body.
The issues which arise from the Government's decisions and this Bill go far beyond the day-to-day issues of local government and touch upon the very foundations of our parliamentary democracy. In another place, a former Prime Minister—and what a chorus of distinguished opposition has been raised from the Government side in another place on this matter!—said that this Bill was a bad Bill: bad because it is a negation of democracy. It is.
The right honourable Geoffrey Rippon, the former Cabinet Minister and a distinguished constitutionalist, felt himself impelled to call the proposal to substitute for a directly elected socialist authority an independently nominated quasi-quango as abject, squalid and shameful. There is no way in which it can be justified, he said. As we already heard a few minutes ago, the former Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, called it the greatest piece of gerrymandering for 150 years, and words to that effect. These matters have been mentioned—
Noble Lords: Order! Quoting.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am not quoting, I have given the effect. These matters have been mentioned many times in the House tonight. It is too late for the Chief Whip to try to shelter behind a point of technicality.
It is not merely what has been said in another place. The point I am making was made most powerfully by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret. He said that if a Labour Government were to do this, say, in a county like Surrey and converted an elected Tory majority into an appointed Labour majority, there would be uproar in the land. What uproar we would have in this honourable House! The noble Lord, Lord Alport, emphasised much the same point.
It is true that when consideration was given in another place to the power of the Secretary of State to issue an order to give effect to what the Bill proposes the Secretary of State said that he would not make the order unless and until the House agreed the Second Reading of the main abolition Bill. Incidentally, Clause 1 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State unfettered power to abolish the elections. There is no express requirement that any event like the passing into law of the main abolition Bill must first have occurred.
But coming to the statement of the Secretary of State in another place that he would not make the order unless and until the House of Commons had agreed to the Second Reading of the main abolition Bill, the question has been asked many times in this debate: what about the House of Lords? We happen to
976
have a Parliament consisting of two Houses, not of one. Where, I may ask, does the House of Lords come into this neat ministerial package? This is a moment when the House of Lords must assert itself, assert its existence and assert propriety of behaviour in this matter.
The pledge of the Secretary of State ignores totally the judgment which this House may wish to make on the whole principle of abolition or on its detailed issues—for instance, on whether a substitute system would work. We heard a notable speech from the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, with his great experience on the Greater London Council, dealing with that and other matters and, incidentally, in his notable speech giving formidable support to the amendment. One of the further deplorable constitutional features of the Bill is that it introduces the switch from democratic to nominee control without Parliament having seen, least of all approved, the proposals for a reformed system of government in the capital city and the six conurbations.
Never before has Parliament been asked to consider local government organisation in the way in which it has been dealt with in this Bill. The House is being asked to set in motion the timetable of abolition of the county councils before it has debated the principle of abolition itself. The main Bill is not yet published. The Government are paving the way, as Sir Ian Gilmour said, in effect, in another place, before we know where the paving leads. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, dealt with that, and it enabled my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal to describe this as a crazy-paving Bill, and indeed a crazy-paving Bill it is.
There has been no debate in the House, as I say, on the White Paper, Streamlining the Cities, and this Bill if it was passed, would pre-empt such discussion. We submit that the proposals in the Bill are a gross presumption of the authority of Parliament and especially of this House. I come back—we have been debating this all day, and I think that the House will soon be wanting to come to a decision—to the Bill's departure from our customary standards in our parliamentary democracy. In a democracy a Government must rule by consent and must have regard to the proper limits of their own power. Those limits have been far exceeded in this Bill. The Government should have been seen to act properly. They have been seen to act improperly.
The most powerful statement upon the matter generally, I venture to say, was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester when he said:
"I have to say that the leaders of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and the Free Churches in London find this Bill offensive as a parliamentary procedure, offensive in the context of our traditional democratic way of life and offensive to the conscience of many Christians of all traditions".
In urging the House to support the amendment, we call upon the Government in the name of parliamentary democracy and of our good political traditions, which have been known as the best in the world, to take this back to the Cabinet and invite it to consider the grave implications in this Bill which noble Lords on all sides of the House have so clearly identified. My Lords, the mother of Parliaments should disown this child.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am very grateful to all who have contributed to this debate. Very many points have been raised. As usual, I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if in this second speech I concentrate only on why I cannot accept the reasoned amendment. Let me restate categorically that our main reason for proposing the abolition of these authorities—and I am on record as having said it all along—is that they are superfluous. My noble friend Lord Marshall spelt it out clearly enough, and I am very grateful to him for the detailed reasons which he gave and which I entirely endorse. But for now I want to limit my remarks to the amendment and to the contents of this interim Bill.
I was sorry that my noble friend Lord Plummer felt the need to speak as he did. He, too, talked of an attack on democracy. Of course he is entitled to his views. I respect them, even though I fervently disagree with them. I wonder whether he has any idea of the scope there would be in an extended mandate for obstructive machinations on a scale that makes the mind boggle. My noble friend may be willing to gamble on that, as indeed may others, but a responsible Government cannot do so. The people running the other metropolitan counties, I would happily say are more responsible, and I want to be the first to say so. I know them. But unhappily they have committed themselves to non-co-operation so there, too, that argument falls.
Just as in the case of the Second Reading of the Rates Bill, we have before us today a reasoned amendment. It is an amendment which is designed to give the opponents of this Bill a chance to vote against its provisions, a chance to defeat the Government. The experienced noble Lord, Lord Hooson, knows as well as anyone—and I suspect better than most—that however the amendment is worded, that is its effect. Call it an opportunity to think again if you like; imply that it is not meant to try to make the Government change the policy if you like; but let us not shilly-shally about this. That is the purpose of this highly unusual procedure and I would say so much for the conventions. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, puts it clearly enough again, for which I am very grateful to him. I thought the noble Earl, Lord Longford, almost gave the game away when he said—and I wrote it down as he said it:
"The Bill should be castrated, which is the purpose of the amendment".
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, speaks of this Bill as a dangerous precedent in that it seeks to give what it calls non-elected bodies the powers of properly constituted councils. It says that it was not in the Conservative's Party's election manifesto and that it is premature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course, no manifesto sets out the detailed procedures of a party's legislative proposals.
As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said so aptly, who wills the end wills the means. My noble friend Lord Renton reminded us of the extent to which manifestoes ever spelt out procedures. The fact that you do not say how you will do it, in no way diminishes your expressed intention to carry out a manifesto commitment. In practical terms, you
978
cannot have abolition without transitional provisions, which in effect is no more than a corollary—though a necessary one—of the commitment which was very clearly expressed in the manifesto to abolish the seven upper tier authorities and restore their functions to the councils best fitted to provide them.
I have explained why the Bill is necessary. If abolition is to be effectively implemented, it is vital to get started now. But—and this is the advantage of the course upon which we are embarked—we are not at the same time committing Parliament to these interim arrangements. As I have already said, we are not closing off the option of reverting to the status quo. And this is why it is so wrong to say that the measure is premature. Why do our opponents refuse to acknowledge this? I have said this over and over again today—and it is true—that that part of the Bill providing for the cancellation of elections will only come into law if and when the main Bill has received its Second Reading in another place. If abolition does not go ahead, this measure contains the means for repealing the provisions which will already have been implemented. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already given an undertaking which I have repeated, that these mechanisms will in that event be triggered.
On the point of serious concern about a Bill providing for the suspension of the May 1985 elections to the GLC and the MCCs, and for the replacement of their present councillors by Members appointed by the authorities to whom most functions will, if Parliament agrees, be passed, it is quite wrong to imply, as does the amendment, that the transitional councils, not having been elected for the purpose, will be undemocratic.
Let me again remind your Lordships the essential points are these. The first decision facing the Government was whether to hold fresh elections to bodies, the abolition of which was already in prospect at the time of the election. Never before has a whole council had to be elected for a term of less than one year. So, having decided to propose suspension of the elections, the choice lay between extending the existing councils by appointment, and appointing members from the successor authorities. As your Lordships will appreciate, both courses had their difficulties. Appointing members from the successor authorities might result in a change of political control other than through an election, although in practice, as I said earlier, out of the seven authorities concerned, in six out of the six metropolitan counties, the control is in no way affected: they will all stay Labour. Only in the one—in London, as it so happens—will there be a change. On the other hand, continuing with the present membership would expose the transfer of functions to virtually certain obstruction and delay.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, in the event, may I remind your Lordships that the choice was made on the basis of three considerations. The first was the role of the transitional councils in their last 11 months. As I have already explained, this will be a combination of care and maintenance and preparation for hand-over. The second—here I come back to the terms of the amendment—was that the successor authorities

979
already existed. Surely the Government have to have some regard to practicality in these matters. Surely we have a duty to ensure effective administration.
The main consideration—here, in particular, the amendment does not hold water—was that the appointee councils are themselves democratic bodies. The arrangements we have in mind are not an erosion of local democracy—quite the contrary. The amendment's wording refers to "non-elected bodies". The members of the boroughs and districts who in one form or another will be taking over the bulk of the services are elected; they are fully representative. It is entirely appropriate that they should provide the members—
Lord Molloy: My Lords—
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if your Lordships want me to sit down, I shall do so. It is entirely appropriate that the boroughs and districts should provide the members for the transitional councils whose functions they will inherit. Of course, I fully understand the concerns that have been expressed on this matter of the elections. As I believe I have shown, we have considered these objections with the utmost seriousness. I have myself gone back and looked again at the options before us. I have once more satisfied myself that in all the circumstances the Government's proposals are proper ones.
The cancellation of the 1985 election is well precedented. It is not in any way the sinister, antidemocratic step which some have portrayed it to be. The 11-month transitional council proposal is logical and sensible, and it would have caused far less fuss had it not been that, as I said, it happens by chance that one of the seven authorities concerned will have its control changed. But when one considers that the 11-month period will be for dealing with winding up and handing over to the boroughs and districts, when one bears in mind that the boroughs and districts already exist, when one contemplates the opportunities for disruption, when one appreciates the benefit of having successor bodies of democratically-elected members, one is confident that your Lordships will accept that the Government's proposal is the right one.
My Lords, the hour goes on and I must close now. I want to say this. The Bill is essential. If the transfer of functions which will be achieved through the main Bill is to proceed smoothly and effectively, it is essential for practical reasons. But contrary to what has been said by some, it does not seek to pre-empt Parliament's decision on abolition. It is dependent on the main Bill being approved by Parliament. If that fails, this Bill will not be needed, and will also fall. That cannot be said too often—
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Bellwin: No, my Lords; I will not give way.
Even if there are among your Lordships those who still have doubts about abolition, or some aspects of it, I ask whether tonight noble Lords can vote for an amendment which simply does not stand up. Some
980
may not like the form of the ultimate proposals. Some may want to have in place some body or central voice, but that is a far cry from voting against the Government and supporting this amendment. It refers to matters unprecedented. The only aspect that stretches precedence to its limits is that, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, reminded us, in the last few weeks noble Lords opposite have now twice departed from the conventions of this House by seeking to press Divisions against the Government.
Before I finish, I must make one point clear. I believe that it might have been misunderstood. The fault must be mine; I should have put it more clearly. Part II of this Bill, dealing with the election provisions, will be activated by a commencement order. However, the main abolition Bill will have to be passed through all its stages in both Houses before that main abolition Bill can become law. The passing of this interim Bill in no way affects or diminishes the need for that approval, line by line—I say it again—in both Houses.
I want to stress two important points. First, by agreeing to this Bill the House is in no way pre-judging or curtailing its consideration of the second Bill. Secondly, the fate of the interim provisions which we are discussing today depend entirely upon the main abolition programme. If, for any reason, abolition does not go ahead, then the paving provisions will be repealed and the elections will be held as quickly as practical.
This Bill was approved overwhelmingly in another place, in the House of Commons, at the final stage, at Third Reading, by a majority of 128. However much our opponents may try to dismiss, denigrate or belittle it, that is the fact. We have today debated some aspects of the proposed legislation as well as the Bill. Doubtless we will do so more extensively in the future. In the meantime, I invite your Lordships to reject the amendment and to give the Bill an unqualified Second Reading.
9.41 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I suspect that today we have heard the House at its best and at its worst. We heard it at its best when noble Lords of all political complexions, or of no political complexion, tried to elevate this debate into what it deserves to be: an important issue which affects all of us by its long-term implications for the constitution of this country. We heard the House at its worst when we heard noble Lords who, for party reasons, have been scratching around for plausible arguments to try to justify what they know is unjustifiable. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, absolutely put his finger on it when he suggested that, if in fact this Bill had been introduced by a Labour Government, many of the Members who are trying to justify this Bill would have been outraged.
The truth is that this evening this House is on trial. This House is on trial because we claim to have an important role to play in the constitution. I quoted in my initial speech the words of the late Lord Salisbury and the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when they were justifying the Conservative Opposition's attitude towards a Labour Government on measures of which they did not approve. I will not repeat what they said, but it was quite clear what they

981
regarded as the duty and the right of this House to perform.
I went on to say that I had not chosen the method, for example, that had been followed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on the Bills that he dealt with when, in fact, he had put down amendments which I described as wrecking amendments. After my speech I was told by a great constitutional authority, whose name I will not give but who I respect very much, that I was rather unfair because I should have referred to them not as wrecking amendments but as significant amendments, so significant, in fact, that the Government of the day—the Conservative Opposition having decided to press their amendments—felt required to withdraw the Bill and to introduce it in a totally different form in the next Session.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, both flattered me and was unfair to me. He said that the amendment was too clever by half and suggested that the right constitutional course for this House was to deal with the matter in Committee. Let me tell the noble Earl that I did not take my reasoned amendment from my head—I wish that I had given birth to it in that way. If the noble Earl will look at the Companion to the Standing Orders of this House, he will find that this provision has not changed over a number of years. The noble Earl will find three methods of opposing Second Reading, including a reasoned amendment opposing.
Under the heading "Other Motions on Second Reading" and the sub-heading "Second Reading agreed to with reasoned amendment" the following words appear:
"In addition to reasoned amendments in opposition to the Second Reading of a Bill, it is possible to move reasoned amendments in support of, or without seeking to negative, the Second Reading, where it is desired to invite the House to put on record a particular point of view in assenting to the Bill".
That is what we are doing in this House. It is a facile argument to suggest that you can avoid voting for the amendment because it is argued that there is greater constitutional propriety in supporting a wrecking amendment in Committee.
I think that this debate has highlighted the question for this House: are we capable, as a House, of regarding our duty here as being greater than any allegiance to any political party? Are we capable of being an effective brake on the Executive? Or is the elective dictatorship—which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has spoken of so eloquently in his writings—now ruling supreme, and is this the final acknowledgment of it? I think that this House should now move to a Division.
9.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 217; Not-Contents, 238.
[See col. 989.]

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ardwick, L.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Ashby, L.

Alport, L.

Attlee, E.

Amherst, E.

Avebury, L.

982

Aylestone, L.

Hale, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Hampton, L.

Balogh, L.

Hanworth, V.

Banks, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Barnett, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Barrington, V.

Hayter, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henniker, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Beswick, L.

Heycock, L.

Birk, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Birkett, L.

Hooson, L.

Blakenham, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Blease, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Hughes, L.

Blyton, L.

Hunt, L.

Boothby, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ingleby, V.

Bowden, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Briggs, L.

Jacobson, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Jacques, L.

Brimelow, L.

Jeger, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brockway, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kagan, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kaldor, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Kearton, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kennet, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Caradon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Chandos, V.

Kirkhill, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Kirkwood, L.

Chitnis, L.

Lawrence, L.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Collison, L.

Listowel, E.

Combermere, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lockwood, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

London, Bp.

David, B.

Longford, E.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McCarthy, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

McCluskey, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Denbigh, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Denington, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Diamond, L.

McNair, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mar, C.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Mayhew, L.

Edmund-Davies, L.

Meston, L.

Elibank, L.

Milford, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Minto, E.

Ennals, L.

Mishcon, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Molloy, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Molson, L.

Ezra, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Falkender, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Falkland, V.

Mountevans, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mulley, L.

Flowers, L.

Munster, E.

Foot, L.

Nicol, B.

Fulton, L.

Northfield, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ogmore, L.

Gallacher, L.

Oram, L.

Galpern, L.

Peart, L.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, B.

Gibson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gifford, L.

Plant, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Glenamara, L.

Glenconner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Raglan, L.

Gregson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Grey, E.

Rea, L.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Reilly, L.

Grimond, L.

Rhodes, L.

Hacking, L.

Ripon, Bp.

983

Roberthall, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Teviot, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Tordoff, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Rochester, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Underhill, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Scanlon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Seear, B.

Walston, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Segal, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Serota, B.

Whaddon, L.

Shackleton, L.

White, B.

Sharp, B.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Shaughnessy, L.

Willis, L.

Soper, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Stallard, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Winchester, Bp.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Stone, L.

Winstanley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Craigton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Crathorne, L.

Allerton, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Ampthill, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Annaly, L.

Croft, L.

Argyll, D.

Cross, V.

Arran, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ashbourne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Astor, V.

Davidson, V.

Atholl, D.

De L'Isle, V.

Avon, E.

De Ramsey, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Bathurst, E.

Digby, L.

Bauer, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Dormer, L.

Bellwin, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Belper, L.

Dudley, E.

Belstead, L.

Dulverton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Bethell, L.

Dundee, E.

Biddulph, L.

Eccles, V.

Birdwood, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Effingham, E.

Boardman, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Brentford, V.

Elton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Fisher. L.

Foley, L.

Caccia, L.

Forbes, L.

Caithness, E.

Forester, L.

Cameron of Balhousie, L.

Fortescue, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Freyberg, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gainford, L.

Carnock, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Cathcart, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Cayzer, L.

Glanusk, L.

Chelwood, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Chesham, L.

Gowrie, E.

Cockfield, L.

Gray, L.

Coleraine, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gridley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Haig, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Cowley, E.

Halsbury, E.

Craigavon, V.

Hanson, L.

984

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Perth, E.

Henley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hertford, M.

Pritchard, L.

Hindlip, L.

Quinton, L.

Hives, L.

Radnor, E.

Holderness, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Hood, V.

Reay, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renton, L.

Ingrow, L.

Renwick, L.

Ironside, L.

Rochdale, V.

Jessel, L.

Rockley, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Rodney, L.

Kemsley, V.

Rollo, L.

Keyes, L.

Romney, E.

Kilmany, L.

Rootes, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Rugby, L.

Kitchener, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Knutsford, V.

St. Davids, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Saint Levan, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Salisbury, M.

Layton, L.

Sandford, L.

Limerick, E.

Selborne, E.

Liverpool, E.

Selkirk, E.

Long, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shannon, E.

Lyell, L.

Sharples, B.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Southborough, L.

McFadzean, L.

Spens, L.

McFadzean of Kelvinside, L.

Strathalmond, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Strathclyde, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Strathspey, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sudeley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Suffield, L.

Margadale, L.

Swansea, L.

Marley, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mersey, V.

Tollemache, L.

Middleton, L.

Torphichen, L.

Milne, L.

Townshend, M.

Monk Bretton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trenchard, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Moyola, L.

Tryon, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Nairne, Ly.

Vaizey, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Nathan, L.

Vesty, L.

Newall, L.

Vickers, B.

Northchurch, B.

Waldegrave, E.

Northesk, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Watkinson, V.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Westbury, L.

Orkney, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wigram, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Windlesham, L.

Peel, E.

Wynford, L.

Pender, L.

Young, B.

Pennock, L.

Resolaved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.2 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question now is that the original Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"? … To the contrary, "Not-Comtent"? … I think the Contents have it?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before the House proceeds. I wonder whether the noble Viscount,

985
Lord Whitelaw, would tell the House what action he proposes to take in respect of this Bill in view of the powerful vote for the amendment—the most powerful vote in a case of this kind for many years past. In light of the views expressed on all sides of the House, would the noble Viscount give some indication to the House whether he proposes to take the Bill back to the Cabinet and seek to inform the Cabinet of the views expressed in this debate?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, before I respond to the noble Lord, which I shall do so willingly, I feel I am in a slight difficulty. I am not quite clear whether or not the Bill has received its Second Reading. I understand that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor put the Question. I am very ready to respond to the noble Lord in exactly the same way as he responded to me, but I am a novice in these matters. I understand that it would probably be right if the Bill had its Second Reading before I respond. I hope that would be in order. If not, I shall be pleased to respond beforehand.
The Lord Chancellor: The Question is, That the said Bill be now read a second time?
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am sorry to be niggling on a small point of procedure, but I understood that was correct. Of course I wish to respond to what the noble Lord has said. I accept at once that there has been a major vote in this House, perhaps it would be reasonable for me to say "on both sides", and I think the noble Lord will have to accept that. The noble Lord and I have been on either side of a different House before and I have always understood—and I had some responsibility for these matters—that once one had a majority, and a powerful majority, which I must accept that it is, that is something which means that one proceeds with the legislation in hand. I do not think that anybody on any side of this House would expect me to say otherwise. A substantial majority has been gained on a very high vote.
Noble Lords: No!
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, if noble Lords think it is not a substantial majority that is up to them, but I regard it as a substantial majority—and I am entitled to my view—so would my noble friends.
Having said that, it is perfectly proper for me, as Leader of this House, to say what I believe was said by some noble Lords during this debate and what I hope this House may consider, and I hope I shall not, as a new boy, be unreasonable in saying it. This House is a revising Chamber. The Committee stages of Bills are crucially important. Of course this House will proceed, as it should to the Committee stage of this Bill and many of the arguments that have been put today will be argued strongly in the Committee stage. Some may be successful and some may not, but I hope that, as a revising Chamber, we shall remember that that is our role.
986
I listened to and I hope it will not be unreasonable for me to quote the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who has so much more experience than ever I have had of this House, who questioned our procedure today. He said that he believed the right place to take these arguments in the future was on the Committee stage. Humbly, I feel that he may have been right. I hope that that is the way in which this House will proceed through this Bill.
I will express to my colleagues in the Government, as I think this House knows very well I consistently do, the very strong views of this House on different matters. I think I am entitled to say to this House as well that on many of the issues that have come up from time to time I have been able to persuade my colleagues that the views of this House should prevail on various Bills that have come before us. That is my job as Leader of this House. That is the job which I will undertake. I hope I may be given the credit for that and I will do the same on this Bill as it goes through the Committee stage.
Public Health (Control of Disease) Bill [H.L.]
Dentists Bill [H.L.]
Registered Homes Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

County Courts Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.
House adjourned at eight minutes past ten o'clock.

  WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION
  WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION
  CONTROL OF POLLUTION ACT 1974: IMPLEMENTATION
  CONTROL OF POLLUTION ACT 1974: IMPLEMENTATION
  SSSIs IN KENT
  SSSIs IN KENT
  SSSIs IN SCOTLAND
  SSSIs IN SCOTLAND
  NCC, SCOTLAND: ESTABLISHMENT
  NCC, SCOTLAND: ESTABLISHMENT