Sitting of 13 June 1984

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

    Rate Support Grant
    Sir David Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will propose amendments to the rate support grant formulae to accommodate the increasing transfer of long-stay geriatric, mentally handicapped, mentally ill and physically handicapped patients from National Health Service hospitals into community care.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): The grant-related expenditure assessments used to calculate rate support grant entitlement already take account of the general responsibilities of local authorities, including caring for patients moving from hospital into community care.
    Sir David Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present rate support grant arrangements do not sufficiently accommodate the movement of that category of patients to whom I refer in my question. Will he undertake to review the matter? Does he recognise that there is a case for introducing a specific grant for moving long-stay patients out of hospital into community care?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend's question straddles the boundary of responsibilities between my Department and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, but we shall certainly consider the matter. Many local authorities do not welcome an extension of the principles of specific grants, but I note what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister accept that the areas of greatest difficulty, where there are old and large long-stay hospitals, are under the severest pressure on their rates and from rate-capping? Does it not make a mockery of the wholly commendable proposal to get patients into the community when the cost of keeping patients in hospital is cheaper per head than when they come out and are cared for by the local authority, which may have its rates penalised?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am not sure that the statistics would show that the hon. Gentleman is right about that. These hospitals are not usually located in inner city constituencies, some of which may be troubled with rate-capping. Authorities face rate-capping because obvious economies can be made in the rest of their areas of spending.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind that in my constituency of Norwich, North there are two hospitals, at Hellesdon and at Thorpe St. Andrew, with those categories of patients, and that in Norfolk the resources through joint funding are unlikely to match the challenge of community care, I hope that my hon. Friend will have further urgent talks with the local authorities about this great problem.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend is considering other aspects of joint funding and has announced a disregard from target expenditure for the increase in spending. Representations have been made on other aspects, which my right hon. Friend is still considering. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. Straw: Does the Minister recognise that two problems are raised by the question asked by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price)? First, the grant-related expenditure assessments do not take proper account of the increasing impact of community care on local authority social services departments. Secondly, under the public expenditure White Paper, for which the Secretary of State is as much responsible as any other Cabinet Minister, social services expenditure will be forced to be cut by £111 million in real terms this year over last year, and by £232 million in real terms by 1986–87. How does the Minister expect local authorities to meet their increasing commitments when the total resources available for social services are being cut in real terms?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The GREAs recognise the numbers in local authority care, but, I as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), we shall discuss with our opposite numbers in other Departments whether the weightings that are given are adequate.

    London Docklands Development Corporation
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to discuss developments in London docklands with the chairman of the London Docklands Development Corporation.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I am due to meet the next chairman and other members of LDDC's board on 29 June.
    Mr. Spearing: When the Minister meets Mr. Benson and his colleagues, will he draw their attention to two matters that are causing considerable concern in my constituency and, indeed, in the docklands as a whole? The first is the alleged list of 70 sites which the LDDC wishes to acquire, including publicly owned sites and public open space, without apparent consultation with the public bodies concerned? Secondly, is the hon. Gentleman aware that, due to industrial location requests and doubts that have not been allayed by answers to recent written questions, some small local industrial firms are being prejudiced by the lack of interest shown by the LDDC, which is contrary to the reason why it was established?
    Sir George Young: I shall be happy to discuss both those matters with Mr. Benson when I meet him later this month. With regard to the first matter, the amount of land that the LDDC wishes to acquire is a matter for it, taking into account the need to balance expenditure on land purchase and expenditure on carrying out works. I have

    897
    looked into the second matter as a result of the hon. Gentleman's questions. The corporation has acted with considerable sensitivity in relocating existing businesses in the docklands. It has successfully managed the relocation of 59 tenant businesses, thus preserving about 550 associated jobs. I shall raise the matter further, but I believe that the LDDC has done well.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Under-Secretary also raise housing in this context? I welcome the considerable number of houses being built for sale, at a moderately low cost, in the docks, but there is a considerable demand for even cheaper housing for people who at the moment are local authority tenants, particularly people in north Southwark. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to make sure that the price of the housing reflects the ability of people in the dockland boroughs to pay if they are to stay there as opposed to being forced to move out?
    Sir George Young: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has recognised the valuable work that the corporation has done in housing. Over 1,000 homes have been completed on LDDC sites, and work is under way on another 2,000. The level of owner occupation in the area has doubled from 5 per cent. in 1981 to over 10 per cent. today. Much of the development is aimed in the first place at local residents. I know that the LDDC is anxious to make sure that a proportion of the schemes that it encourages are within the means of Southwark residents and residents north of the borough. I am happy to discuss the matter further with the corporation.

    Rates Act 1984
    Mr. Georgeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes designating any authorities under the Rates Act 1984 at the same time as he issues provisional expenditure guidance for local authorities.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Subject to parliamentary approval of the Rates Bill, I hope to be in a position to announce the principles of selection, the list of selected authorities and the proposed expenditure levels by the end of July. I cannot, however, commit myself at this stage to the exact timing of those announcements.
    Mr. George: As the Secretary of State clearly has a hit list of authorities to be proceeded against, will he make an announcement of the names even sooner than he said? Is he aware that many local authorities are anxious to know what action will be taken against them, and that if he makes a statement to the House hon. Members on both sides will have an opportunity of questioning him?
    Mr. Jenkin: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's question. The only point that I would make is that I am not sure how valuable it would be to announce the list of authorities and not announce at the same time the expenditure levels to which we would expect them to conform. However, I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's points in mind.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State confirm, if he has not already done so, that a list is circulating in his Department that includes Tory-controlled Portsmouth as one of the councils that will be hit by the Government? It will be hit because it has been trying to give services to the community. Is it true that the reason why it is on the
    898
    list—people are trying to devise criteria to get it off the list—is that the council spends more money on one basis than does the council in Labour-controlled Sheffield? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that when the so-called hit list is drawn up it will not be devised in such a way as to allow Tory authorities such as Portsmouth to escape when there is an important by-election, when the Labour authorities against which the Government have a vendetta cannot escape?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman misses the point of the Rates Bill, which is to control the rates of high-spending authorities, to protect ratepayers. I have confirmed that Portsmouth is on some of the several draft lists—
    Mr. Skinner: Is that right?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman knows that. It was said on the radio at lunchtime by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. Portsmouth is on some of the lists. I have no doubt that the ratepayers of Portsmouth will look forward to the protection from high rates that they will get, whatever political complexion the council may be.
    Dr. Cunningham: The House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for at last admitting the truth about what is going on in his Department, having denied it in a letter to me earlier this week. Does not what the right hon. Gentleman has now said absolutely invalidate what the Prime Minister told the House yesterday at Question Time, when she said that it would be premature to devise a list before the Bill had even become an Act? Did not the Prime Minister mislead the House in saying that, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said? Do not all these squalid little manoeuvres in his Department — of sending for lists and then rejecting them because they do not contain particular local authorities—demonstrate beyond doubt the right hon. Gentleman's determination to use this legislation simply to ensnare, without any principle whatever, the councils which he wants to trap, and does this not completely debase the whole of local democracy?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has got himself thoroughly ensnared with delusions of conspiracy. The Prime Minister would be justifiably critical of her Secretary of State for the Environment if he were not making advance plans, including a variety of criteria and a variety of lists, pending the passing of the Rates Bill. I assure the hon. Gentleman that when the principles are published they will be applicable to any authority, whatever its political control, which falls within those principles.
    Mr. Adley: With the exception of the scowl on the face and the gnashing of the teeth by Mr. Livingstone, will my right hon. Friend say what changes will be seen or heard by Londoners after the local government reorganisation that he is planning takes place in London?
    Mr. Jenkin: That matter will arise on a later question. A large number of Londoners will recognise the advantage to them of lower rates and a simpler, streamlined structure of government in London.

    Basildon (Ministerial Visit)
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Basildon.
    Mr. Amessasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about his recent visit to Basildon.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The visit was a valuable opportunity to see developments being carried out in partnership between the private sector and the new town development corporation. I was much impressed with what I saw.
    Mr. Proctor: On his visit, did my right hon. Friend detect, apart from among the rate spenders, a determination on the part of the ratepayers to support the Government's policy on rating legislation? In particular, did he notice that the ratepayers in the Basildon district council area cannot wait to see the council rate-capped and controlled?
    Mr. Jenkin: Basildon is, by any standards, a massive over-spender against two of the most obvious yardsticks; it is budgeting to spend 17 per cent. above its target and 70 per cent. above its grant-related expenditure in the current year. Perhaps it will not surprise the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to know that Basildon, too, appears on most of the lists that have been circulating in my Department.
    Mr. Amess: When my right hon. Friend visited my constituency, did he notice that he entered a nuclear-free zone, a matter which is currently being investigated by the district auditor? Does the declaration of this zone mean that the leader of the local Marxist district authority contacted the leader of the Soviet Union to arrange that in the event of a nuclear war weapons would be so directed as to avoid Basildon?
    Mr. Jenkin: After noting the example of those authorities which declare themselves nuclear-free zones, I am tempted to throw away all the locks on the doors and windows of my house and hang on the front gate a sign saying, "Burglar-free zone". I know that I shall be perfectly all right after that.
    Dr. Cunningham: When all the petty abuse about Basildon council is set aside, is it not a fact that the Secretary of State did not arrange discussions with the council when he went to Basildon? Did not the Basildon electors just return the Labour party to office in the May elections, and will they not now notice the monumental contempt for the democratic processes that has been displayed by Conservative Members?
    Mr. Jenkin: The leader of the Basildon council complained that he had not known of my visit although he had been informed of it beforehand by the chairman of the new town development corporation.
    Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman did not meet him.
    Mr. Jenkin: No, I did not meet him, because he had led a deputation to my noble Friend Lord Bellwin only a few weeks previously and the whole subject of Basildon finance was discussed. I was there at the invitation of the private sector developer and of the new town development corporation under its distinguished chairman Dame Elizabeth Coker. I spent a most worthwhile and valuable morning.

    Rate-capping
    Mr. Loydenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from organisations representing the aged and the mentally handicapped about the Government's plans for rate-capping.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about the Rates Bill, including letters from Mr. Brian Rix, secretary-general of the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults. My right hon. Friend has replied to them and, with permission, I will arrange for the text of his replies to Mr. Rix to appear in the Official Report. Mr. Rix has thanked my right hon. Friend for his letters.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister agree that as a result of the Government's policies virtually no section or group of society is protected against the vicious and relentless attack that is taking place on those authorities which provide such services? When will Ministers fight their own corner and say to the Prime Minister, "Enough is enough. Attacks on local authority services will endanger the most vulnerable groups in society which need the assistance of local authorities now and will need them in the future"?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The corner that Ministers in this Department and others will fight is to ensure that the power and compulsion involved in taxation and rating are not wasted on frivolous expenditure. We stand for value for money and that is the corner that my right hon. Friend and all his colleagues will fight.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in present circumstances, rate-capping has proved to be a regrettable necessity to prevent the abuse of power by some Labour-controlled authorities which have imposed enormous rate increases, with destructive effects, on their local economies? It is the disadvantaged in society, such as the aged and the mentally handicapped, who suffer from such practices, as well as from the inflation that is a consequence of excessive public expenditure.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend. Local accountability is clearly not delivering a responsible balance whereby those who must pay have a sufficient say about spending. That is why central Government have had to step in to right the balance.
    Mr. Wareing: Is the Minister aware that in a recent report commissioned by the Disablement Income Group it was found that it cost £61·50 a week in terms of care and loss of earnings for the average family to cater for a mentally handicapped person? To care for a mentally handicapped person is penalty enough. Is it not about time that the Government felt some compassion and ensured that the first people to benefit from the disregard are those who cannot cater for themselves and the families who have to cater for these poor, mentally handicapped people?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The case that the hon. Gentleman makes shows why the Government have substantially increased the benefits for disabled people.
    Mrs. Currie: Has my hon. Friend noticed that Derbyshire county council has increased the rates by 13 per cent. this year, and is apparently so flush with social workers that it can send one of them, from the most

    901
    important emergency duty team, to Greenham common? Strapped for cash, it nevertheless managed to find several hundred thousand pounds to put up, "Peace be with you" notices at the entrance to the county. Does my hon. Friend agree that, with better husbandry and a more careful choice of priorities, the elderly and the mentally handicapped would not suffer?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree that when there are real needs, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) described, such frivolous expenditure is irresponsible and wasteful beyond belief.
    Following is the text of the replies.

    2 MARSHAM STREET

    LONDON SWIP 3EB

    01–212 3434

    My ref: J/PSO/13479/84

    Your ref:

    17 May 1984

    Dear Brian,
    Thank you for your letter of 30 April.
    I can confirm and assure you that there has been no change in the Government's policy towards services for mentally handicapped people. We continue to see the protection of services for the most vulnerable as a priority. "Care in Action", which was published in 1981, remains the general guidance to authorities on national policies and priorities in the health and personal social services, and all health and local authorities in England know that.
    For its part, the Government has extended the scope of joint finance within the "Care in the Community" arrangements, to allow greater flexibility and continuing payments from health authorities to facilitate the movement of patients out of long stay hospitals. This should benefit services for mentally handicapped people.
    At the local level, it is for the local authorities themselves to decide relative priorities between their various services within the need to restrain their overall spending, as I explained in my previous letter. They are best placed to judge local needs and none of us would want to change that. We expect them, in making their decisions on services, to have regard both to their statutory obligations, and to the guidance of national priorities I refer to above. I am confident that they have done and will continue to do so.

    With kind regards

    Yours ever

    Patrick

    PATRICK JENKIN

    Brian Rix Esq CBE MA

    2 MARSHAM STREET

    LONDON SWIP 3EB

    01–212 3434

    My ref: J/PSO/12948

    Your ref:

    25 April 1984

    Dear Brian,
    I was very concerned to read your letter of 6 April, about the Rates Bill. I know that a number of voluntary organisations have been told that their funding, and the services they provide to the vulnerable people they serve, are at risk. It particularly saddens me to hear of Directors of Social Services talking of serious effects on services for mentally handicapped people.
    Perhaps I should first explain what the Rate Limitation provisions of the Rates Bill set out to do. A small number of local authorities have been spending far more than we have allowed for in our public expenditure plans. It is an important part of the Government's policy to restrain public expenditure in the interests of low inflation and the creation of a better climate for genuine economic recovery. We believe that only in this way can we afford to sustain the services which we would all like to see for all of those who need them. The present level of overspending by some local authorities, and the excessive rate increases which result, are a serious concern for us in meeting our objectives.
    The rate limitation process will enable us to select about 12 to 20 of the highest spending councils and put an overall limit on the rate or precept they can raise.
    Those who oppose this policy for a variety of reasons have sought to foster important misconceptions about the consequences. Firstly, they have suggested that the rate limited authorities will be forced to make excessive reductions in their present spending levels. Secondly, they have argued that the only course open to authorities in making savings is to cut into essential services.
    Both these allegations are unfounded. The reductions in spending we shall be looking for will be reasonable and attainable in a single year. The Association of Directors of Social Services seem to have argued that we shall be looking immediately to bring authorities down to the level of their Grant Related Expenditure. I have to say that is not our intention.
    As to the implications for services, we have to remember that we are talking of authorities who are spending relatively much more than other authorities providing a good standard of service — including active support of voluntary organisations — at lower cost to the ratepayers. They have plenty of scope for savings. There will be no question of their putting statutorily required services at risk.
    Furthermore, many of the authorities we are concerned with have a recent history of significant increases in expenditure—even allowing for inflation. They have been recruiting more staff and inventing totally new activities unrelated to their statutory responsibilities at a time when other authorities have been making significant savings; and, at the same time, they have been protesting about shortage of funds for their essential services. There is no reason why these authorities should not be able to make significant savings, not least through increasing efficiency, without in any way cutting into the essential services they provide.
    I know there is also concern among some voluntary organisations that rate capped authorities may seek to make their economies by cutting back on support for the voluntary sector. Certainly decisions on where savings are to be achieved within the overall rate limit set must be for the local councillors to decide; they are best placed to take a view on priorities. But we, in the Government, are convinced of the value of voluntary organisations in providing flexible and cost effective services for the local community and in giving the opportunity for people to make a contribution to those communities; our record confirms that. I know that many local authorities take the same view. My own belief is that, once the heat of the argument over this Bill has died down, the selected authorities will settle down to make the necessary economies without destroying essential services. When they do so I am sure they will want to continue to recognise the benefits which a constructive programme of support to the voluntary sectors offers to that process.

    With kind regards

    Yours ever

    Patrick

    PATRICK JENKIN

    Brian Rix Esq CBE MA

    Housing Improvements and Repairs
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he is giving to local authorities regarding the need to sustain their housing improvement and repair grant programmes.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): We are enouraging local authorities to maintain a high level of investment in the repair and improvement of the housing stock. But it is their responsibility to make decisions about local housing needs and priorities.
    Mr. Latham: As Ministers have rightly pointed out that substantial sums are still available for this purpose in this financial year, what advice or assistance can my hon. Friend give to the significant number of local authorities which have discontinued giving grants?
    Mr. Gow: It is up to each local authority to determine its own priorities. For the total allocation of money for

    903
    improvement grants, I remind my hon. Friend that in 1982–83 the total amount spent was £430 million. When the figures for the past financial year become available, I expect that the figure will be almost double—in marked contrast to the sum of £90 million, which was the figure for the last year of the previous Labour Government.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Does the Minister agree that what local housing authorities most need now is a planned programme for several years of maintenance, repair and renewal of old housing stock, for which they need resources? Is he prepared to provide those resources so that local authorities can carry out such a programme?
    Mr. Gow: I shall bear in mind what the hon. Lady said when we make our allocations under the housing investment programme for next year.
    Mr. Heddle: Did my hon. Friend read with alarm in The Times of yesterday the decision of Glasgow city council to demolish, in the Gorbals, 756 flats that were built 12 years ago for £8 million, rather than enter into an agreement with a firm of building contractors to revivify them on an improvement for sale basis?
    Mr. Gow: I saw that report, but the matter falls within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister admit that local authorities cannot sustain house improvements and renovation programmes if the Government introduce a moratorium on local authority capital expenditure? Do the Government plan to introduce that moratorium? If they do, will it include a moratorium on improvement and repair grants? Have not the Government already attacked needy owner occupiers by cutting back the moneys for improvement grants?
    Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman's question is wholly hypothetical.
    Mr. Stanbrook: I welcome the steps that the Government are taking to assist owners of defective housing in the public sector, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind that thousands of houses which were purchased in the private sector have been deemed defective, but for which Government proposals provide no remedy? Is he aware that more than 80 of my constituents live in houses which they are unable to sell because building societies will not advance money on them? How can the Government assist those people?
    Mr. Gow: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point, about which he has also written to me. The Government believe that they have a particular responsibility for houses that originate in the public sector. It would be a major departure to say that the Government should accept similar responsibility for houses that have always been in the private sector.
    Mr. Cartwright: Is the Minister aware that in the London borough of Greenwich 2,500 people expressed interest in repair grants, 400 people are on the approved waiting list and the council says that it has resources in the current financial year to make only 30 grants? Does he think it reasonable to raise expectations, if the resources are not made available?
    Mr. Gow: I have raised no false expectations. The borough must determine its own priorities according to its perception of its needs. I hope that the borough will continue to give proper priority to improvement grants.
    Dr. Hampson: Does my hon. Friend intend to increase the flow of improvement grants and urban development grants to the private sector to offset a drop in the level of its renovation activities, especially in inner cities, resulting from the imposition of VAT on its activities? Has he pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that many hon. Members believe that it makes little sense to impose a tax that results in less private investment and causes increased public investment?
    Mr. Gow: We are reviewing our improvement grant policy to make certain that grants are available for the properties and the people in the greatest need. My hon. Friend will know that VAT has always been payable on building repairs and maintenance, which account for a substantial proportion of improvement grants.
    Mr. John Fraser: Does the Minister recognise that although last year improvement and repair grants were at a record level, because of the 90 per cent. grant, this year the cut in the level of grant to 75 per cent., the discontinuance of grant because of financial pressures by many local authorities, the existence of rate penalties, the forthcoming rate-capping and the imposition of 15 per cent. VAT on house alterations, including damp-proof coursing, are likely to cause a disastrous slump in housing improvement and repairs, to the great detriment of our housing stock, much of which is in the hands of rather poor owner-occupiers? Will he at least ask the Chancellor to give with one hand what he has taken away with the other from the improvement grant sector?
    Mr. Gow: There is a certain impudence in the hon. Gentleman's question, since in the last year of the Labour Government, which he adorned, only £90 million was made available to the entire improvement grant sector.

    London Docklands (Stolport)
    Mr. Gerald Howarthasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to receive the report of the inspector into the Stolport site in London docklands; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): The inspector's report has just been received in my Department and is now being studied. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the case now, but I shall issue a decision on the matter as speedily as possible.
    Mr. Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that this privately funded project will act as a vital catalyst in securing investment and jobs in the derelict area to the east of the City, that it will take some pressure off Heathrow and that an early, favourable decision is needed? Will he try to announce his decision to the House before the recess?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I understand the issues involved, which will be drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention. The inquiry was long and raised many complex issues. I cannot forecast how long it will take to consider them, but I am arranging for the case to be treated with the utmost urgency.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: When considering the report, will the Minister bear in mind that a key opportunity in the docklands is for sporting activity, especially on water, in the docks and on the river? Will he condemn comprehensively the attempt that will be made this evening by Southwark council to prevent the director of leisure and recreation from coaching the Olympic team later this year as being the last thing we want if we are trying to encourage sport in our inner cities, and encourage people to work for the better sporting prowess of the youngsters of inner London?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I agree that we should do everything we can to encourage sport in our inner cities and, indeed, anywhere. That is why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young)—and the Sports Council are considering closely the Olsen shed project in the docklands. There are many complex and interrelated issues, all of which will have been addressed by the inspector.
    Mr. Squire: Does not the action of Southwark council underline the wisdom of the Government in setting up the LDDC, and does my hon. Friend agree that it has achieved much success under its new structure?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I fully endorse my hon. Friend's comments. It is almost the only way in which we can make progress in that derelict part of London.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that the proposed Stolport is in my constituency? Is he also aware that throughout the inquiry, as far as I know—perhaps he will confirm it—the noise and safety regulations, and the inspector's recommendations in that regard, were based on the characteristics of the de Havilland dash 7 aeroplane? If the Minister wishes to change those recommendations or substitute them for his own, which might be more accommodating to the dash 8 or other noisier aircraft, will he undertake to give any such reasons to the House when he makes his decision?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. Many complex issues are involved here. The Civil Aviation Authority, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and the Department of the Environment must make many decisions during the next few weeks. I shall ensure that the House is fully informed.
    Mr. Soames: When talking about planning, will my hon. Friend undertake a review of the odious system whereby county councils grant themselves planning permission for pecuniary advantage to themselves? Does he agree that such decisions bring the entire system into disrepute?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity in introducing that on this subject. While we might all have some sympathy with certain examples, I do not want to stray too wide, Mr. Speaker, and incur your wrath.

    Gipsies
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has issued any recent guidance to local authorities concerning the provision of gipsy sites; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Macfarlane: Comprehensive guidance on provision of sites is contained in the Department's circular
    906
    28 of 1977; it has been supplemented from time to time. The most recent guidance was given in a booklet issued in June 1982 on the management of local authority sites.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware of efforts by the Labour party, aided and abetted it would appear by some parts of the Department of the Environment, to force the establishment of gipsy sites at a cost of £1 million for 15 families—many of whom are didicois and not gipsies — at Kensington road or Ruislip road in my constituency, which sites are not suitable and where the local people bitterly resent the suggestion? Will my hon. Friend assist me and Ealing council in our efforts to have such a site, if we must have it, at Park Royal, where no residents would be affected?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I understand the anxiety and upset which this subject can arouse. Indeed, I expect many hon. Members have similar anxieties on occasion about gipsy sites in their constituencies and the problems that surround them. While I understand the background of the case, obviously the selection of a site is very much for the local authority. My hon. Friend is sufficiently experienced to know that there are constitutional responsibilities for the local authority and ultimately, perhaps, for my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency suffers from constant visitations by gipsies, many of whom are unable to find sites within the London boroughs because the boroughs are shamefully neglecting their responsibility to provide sites?
    Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend and many other colleagues who represent constituencies in Kent, and mid-Kent in particular, have had a close dialogue with my officials to try to resolve some of these problems.
    Mr. Cartwright: Will the Minister also consider the position of council tenants at Thamesmead who live in a borough that has provided 54 caravan sites for travellers and yet have to suffer regular invasions from travellers simply because there are not sufficient sites in other parts of Greater London?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The question of site provision certainly involves my Department. Obviously any causes of misery, and the problem of travellers who arrive on pitches that are not recognised, are primarily matters for the local authority and the local police.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the gipsy problem is getting out of hand? An answer I received from his Department only the other day demonstrated that nearly twice as many people were taking advantage of the legislation as had been envisaged when it was passed. The definition of a gipsy is completely inadequate. The people who are causing the trouble in Cambridgeshire, and no doubt in other constituencies, are not true Romanies. They are layabouts or scrap dealers. Will my hon. Friend please receive a deputation of hon. Members who have this problem in their constituency to see what can be done?
    Mr. Macfarlane: My earlier judgment of this as a matter that arouses much hostility and anger in hon. Members was probably more accurate than I realised. Certainly I shall consider any overtures that my hon. Friend wants to make. Officials in my Department have been working closely with officials from Cambridgeshire county council and we shall continue with that.

    Ionizing Radiation Levels
    Dr. Mawhineyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what responsibilities his Department has for continuing monitoring of air and sea ionizing radiation levels within the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My Department, together with the Scottish and Welsh Offices, is responsible within Great Britain for co-ordinating monitoring of environmental pathways for radioactive pollution. Similar responsibility is exercised by the Department of the Environment of Northern Ireland. These responsibilities are exercised in close collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the National Radiological Protection Board.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Will my hon. Friend accept that, because I am a professional radiation biologist, I understand that the populace are not in danger when exposed to normal environmental levels of radiation? Will he also accept that we are not getting that message across to our fellow citizens? Will he redouble the efforts of his Department to try to find a way to communicate the facts better, in order to ease the anxieties of many of our fellow citizens?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is a formidable man with whom to discuss these issues. He is right. People forget that there is such a thing as natural background radiation and that human beings are naturally slightly radioactive. All the time we have to work to explain the facts and also to make clear the real dangers.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do the repeated references to cost-effective techniques in relation to environmental damage as laid out in the London summit declaration the other day indicate any renewed interest by the Government in the principle of ALATA — "as low as technically achievable" — for reducing nuclear discharges? When shall we see the translation of the words in the declaration into Government action.?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member will have studied closely what BNFL has said about discharges from Sellafield and will have welcomed its tone. It is better to consider the limits on what goes out rather than to worry too much about the words in the formulae. We must continue to ensure that the controls are tight.
    Mr. Alexander: Does my hon. Friend agree that the publication of radiation statistics sometimes causes unnecessary anxiety in some communities? Does he agree also that, for tourist communities in particular, the precise level of danger, or lack of it, needs to be made known equally prominently?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend, so long as he is not asking us not to be entirely open with the publication of the facts. We must publish all the facts, but both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) must help us to put across the message of what the real dangers are in the different circumstances.
    Dr. Cunningham: Although it is true that emissions from the nuclear industry contribute less ionizing radiation than the natural background or diagnostic health X-rays, will the Minister encourage British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to press ahead with all possible speed towards its aim of eliminating discharges to the marine environment? In the
    908
    meantime, when will the Secretary of State reply to my letter asking for a definition of "as low as reasonably achievable"?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman knows that the courts may provide another forum where that is a matter for argument. The hon. Gentleman is right in the first part of what he said. I know that the Secretary of State welcomed the recent statement from BNFL.

    Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
    Mr. Yeoasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when Her Majesty's Government expect to conclude their considerations of proposals to end the three-month loophole in section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
    Mr. Waldegrave: We are considering the various proposals that have been made, including the private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), in consultation with the other Government Departments concerned. We expect to be in a position to reach a view shortly.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unsatisfactory for the owner of a site of special scientific interest to have three months in which to object to a proposed notification by the Nature Conservancy Council, because that period could be used by unscrupulous owners to cause irreparable and permanent damage?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I well understand the argument, and Ministers are considering it.
    Mr. Freud: Does the Minister agree that the whole effectiveness of the Wildlife and Countryside Act is called into question when, despite ministerial assurances, many acres of Halvergate marshes are being ploughed up? Will he take power under article 4 of the general development order to stop these works?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I welcome the opportunity to comment on Halvergate. When I referred to Halvergate earlier I was, perhaps rightly, criticised for using shorthand for those areas not far from Halvergate to which the Broads authority was offering management agreements. Those areas under such agreements are secure. However, 92 other acres, I am sad to say, are in danger. Article 4 action is for the Broads authority to take in the first instance. If it wanted to come to us to discuss it we should give the matter urgent consideration, but it has delegated planning powers to make such an order.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Wildlife and Countryside Act is a big step forward in protecting the countryside and that it was passed by a Conservative Government? However, does he accept that we have now had time to understand certain defects in the Bill and that if we are to give proper protection to the countryside the deficiencies must be remedied before long?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We are considering the representations, such as those from my hon. Friend, which have been made to us on these points.
    Mr. Spearing: With respect to the 92 acres near or on Halvergate to which the Minister referred, is it his opinion that the ploughing threat to which they may be subject at

    909
    the moment is due to the improved techniques of drainage, or to the price mechanism to which agriculture is now subject?
    Mr. Waldegrave: There is no question but that the return from cereals growing is the principal issue, and is more important than drainage.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that this problem arises from the operation of the common agricultural policy in fixing the price levels for cereals and oil seed rape too high. Would it not be better to make representations to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rather than give further subsidies to landowners?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It would be worth while for farmers considering ploughing in this sort of area to note that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is tackling these questions of over-production, and that the great expansion of cereal profitability may not go on for ever.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister not appreciate that the House is getting tired of the Government wringing their hands over countryside lost, and taking no action? May I remind the Minister of the categorical assurance that he gave the House in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? My hon. Friend asked:
    "Is Halvergate now safe?"
    The Minister replied:
    "I can assure the hon. Member that Halvergate is safe for a year."—[Official Report, 4 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 954]
    That is typical of the Government's attitude. May I ask the Minister again when he will take some action? When will he pick up the Bill lying on the Floor of the House in the name of my hon. Friend, the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), and will he have meaningful discussions with Opposition Members, who are prepared to help the Government to produce a sensible amendment to the Act to try to protect the countryside?
    Mr. Waldegrave: On the latter point, I have had helpful discussions with the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and will be delighted to have discussions with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman heard what I said to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) when I remarked that in an oral answer I should have been more accurate. The land to which I was referring—and I make this clear today—was the land for which the Broads authority was offering agreements over which there were difficulties, which the House was debating at that time. Those agreements have all been made, and that remains the fact. There have been other losses elsewhere.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the sale of council homes and flats other than to sitting tenants.
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has received recent representations from councillors in the hon. Member's constituency. It is for local authorities to decide whether to sell vacant dwellings.
    Mr. Dubs: When will the Minister understand that his encouragement of the policies of local authorities such as
    910
    Wandsworth council in selling council houses and flats to people not on the waiting list and to people not in urgent need is deeply offensive to the thousands of badly housed people in my area and elsewhere in the country, and is saying to those people, "There is no hope of decent housing for you in your lifetime."? Is it not time that we had a change of policy, starting with the Minister?
    Sir George Young: The important thing is to ensure that empty houses are put to proper use. I understand that Wandsworth council gives some priority to council tenants under partnership or improvement for sale schemes in instances such as the ones that the hon. Member describes. Wandsworth council has raised £37 million in the last four and a half years by its policy of selling council houses, and this has enabled it to make faster progress with modernising its old stock and allocating improvement grants than would otherwise have been the case. That is why the policy that Wandsworth council is following makes sense.
    Mr. Chope: Will my hon. Friend arrange for the details of the Wandsworth success story to be distributed to councils throughout the country, because a large number of council tenants who occupy flats and houses wish to buy houses and flats other than those that they occupy, and Wandsworth council has had a success story in satisfying their needs in excess of almost any other local authority in the country?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend has done more than the Government could do in advertising the success of Wandsworth council and in promoting those policies for other local authorities which face similar problems.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the sale of council houses means that the better houses are sold off, leaving the substandard accommodation for council tenants? Is he not aware that, as a result of the no-build programme, those seeking rented accommodation in the public sector have to wait for years before they are accommodated?
    Sir George Young: All the evidence is that those who buy their council houses in the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman would not move anyway, and so those properties would not become available to those on the waiting list. On the other hand, the council has the benefit of the capital receipts, which it can then use to make faster progress with those who are on the the waiting list.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my hon. Friend accept that the number of flats owned by Labour councils that remain vacant for a long time is a disgrace? Do Opposition Members not realise that many flats are impossible to let, although people are willing to buy them? We should congratulate those authorities which are selling them.
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is quite right. No one benefits if local authority stock is simply left vacant. I urge those local authorities involved, which are mainly Labour-controlled, to look at schemes such as homesteading and improvement for sale, to ensure that that stock is put into good use and that some receipts accrue to the local authority.

    South Humberside County Council
    Mr. Leighasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received advocating the abolition of South Humberside county council.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend has received four letters in the past six months advocating the abolition of Humberside county council—one from a student in Leeds, and three from a resident in Beverley.
    Mr. Leigh: Given that it is said of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire that never the twain shall meet except by the unused Humber bridge — known locally as the McNamara bridge in honour of a Labour party by-election victory in the 1960s — what purpose does the county council serve? It is a creation of the 1970s, unloved by the inhabitants and inconvenient, in terms of local government services, for those who live near its borders.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend will know that we are taking some steps in relation to local government reform. I am not sure whether we need to go much further at present. Under the Local Government Act 1972 it is the responsibility of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to review the area, and if it considers change desirable to make proposals accordingly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We have no power to initiate the proposals.
    Mr. Mason: How many organisations within south Yorkshire have made representations to the Minister for the abolition of the South Yorkshire county council? I guess that the answer is not many. Do the Government intend to persist with legislation designed to abolish the county councils next year?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The answer to the last question is yes. I should add that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put in the Library details of the number of representations made for and against abolition.

    Departmental Staff (Ethnic Minorities)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied that ethnic minorities are not under-represented in his Department.
    Sir George Young: No information is currently available about the proportion of ethnic minority staff in the Department as a whole. However, surveys are now being carried out in all Departments with offices in the north-west and Avon. I shall review the position when the results are available.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister's failure to require his own Department to implement the recommendations of the Commission for Racial Equality on ethnic monitoring deliberate, or due to the fact that he does not care whether ethnic minorities are represented in his Department?
    Sir George Young: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to the CRE's code of practice, which has been approved by Parliament and came into effect on 1 April, I should tell him that the Department and the rest of the Civil Service carry out those recommendations.
    Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend ensure that, in order to achieve efficient and effective Government, such things as merit and qualifications are fully taken into account when recruiting people to the public service?
    Sir George Young: Yes, of course.
    Mr. Favell: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the ethnic minorities are not under-represented in the parliamentary Labour party?
    Sir George Young: Happily, I have no parliamentary or ministerial responsibility for the activities of the Labour party.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that Scots represent 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, and that in the past they have usually enjoyed more than 10 per cent. of Government posts and jobs? Can he confirm that the Scots will not be disadvantaged in future because of the advantage that they have enjoyed in the past?
    Sir George Young: I am not sure that the Scots are an ethnic minority.
    Dr. Cunningham: Is it not important, in a plural society, to demonstrate to black and ethnic communities that their problems are being properly considered and understood, and, given that so many of the inner city authorities where their problems are so outstanding are under attack from the Government because of their expenditure programmes, is it not sad that the hon. Gentleman cannot be more specific about his Department's role in this matter, and should not the Secretary of State do something about it quickly?
    Sir George Young: My Department has undertaken a number of initiatives in the past two years to tackle the problems facing the ethnic minorities. In March I and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington) chaired a conference at Church house of all the local authorities with ethnic minorities to discuss the report about local authorities and racial disadvantage. We have taken a number of initiatives through the urban programme to make sure that ethnic minorities get a fairer share of the available resources. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record, he will see that the Government have done more in this regard than their predecessors.
    Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Local Authorities (Capital Expenditure)
    Mr. Chris Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the outturn of local authority capital expenditure in 1984–85.
    Mr. Gow: My right hon. Friend has not yet made any estimate of the outturn on local authority capital expenditure in 1984–85. Local authorities have been asked to complete a return giving their forecast of expenditure and receipts this year. We shall analyse those returns when a sufficient number have been received.
    Mr. Smith: Have the Minister and his Department been under any pressure from the Treasury, which is widely reported to be concerned about a potential supposed overspend in local authority capital expenditure this year? Will he expand on his unsatisfactory answer earlier this afternoon and give the House a categorical assurance that he has no intention of bringing in a

    913
    moratorium on capital expenditure to meet such pressure from the Treasury? If he fails to give that assurance, will he instead give us an assurance that he will fight for the corner of his Department against such Treasury pressure and will fight for the homeless and the badly housed?
    Mr. Gow: As the House knows, capital expenditure by local authorities is cash-limited. If there should be evidence of a risk of breaching those limits my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take such action as he judges to be appropriate. However, we need to be aware that we are only 10 weeks into this financial year.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister has made a statement to the House which implies that a moratorium is under consideration or that there is likely to be one if local authorities overspend on Government targets. Will the Minister recognise that only last year his Government were criticising local authorities for so called underspending? Now that local authorities are responding and providing work for the building industry, the hon. Gentleman and his Government will penalise them and those in need of local authority house building and house improvements.
    Mr. Gow: Had the hon. Gentleman listened to the answer that I gave—or if he reads the Official Report tomorrow—he would know that I made no statement of the kind that he attributed to me.
    Mr. Tony Banks: What discussions has the Minister had with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding a moratorium on capital expenditure?
    Mr. Gow: None, Sir.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that we know him well enough to know that his failure to give the categorical assurance that there will be no moratorium, and the weasel words that he has given to my hon. Friends the Members for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and for Islington, South and
    914
    Finsbury (Mr. Smith) point clearly to the fact that the Government are contemplating a moratorium and that one is likely to be introduced?
    Does the Minister not recognise that the stop-go-stop approach of this Government to capital expenditure is extremely inefficient and deeply disruptive of private manufacturing industry and the building that he claims he wishes to encourage? If my interpretation and that of my hon. Friends is wrong, would the Minister like to give the House a categorical assurance that there will be no moratorium on capital expenditure during this financial year.
    Mr. Gow: The present system of control of capital expenditure by local authorities is not perfect. In this, as in other matters, we shall continue to strive for perfection.

    Housing Investment Programme
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what part of the published housing public expenditure total for 1985–86 constitutes the housing investment programme.
    Mr. Gow: No decisions have yet been taken on the breakdown of the housing public expenditure programme for 1985–86.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the Minister confirm that the forecast for total housing expenditure in 1985–86 is only one third of the expenditure level in 1979–80? Will he at least fight to preserve the present miserable levels of housing investment programmes and to prevent further slashing cuts of the kind that have taken place since the Government came to office?
    Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman generates too much indignation. The White Paper published in February shows that total spending for housing is £2,496 million for the current financial year and £2,610 million for the coming financial year.

Press (Embargo System)
3.31 pm
Mr. Timothy Yeo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter in which I believe that the interests of the House are being grossly abused. I refer to the procedure, which I understand is quite common, whereby Government Departments and other public bodies make official reports available to members of the press under embargo before those reports are available to Members of the House.
I was telephoned at about 10.45 am today by a journalist who wished to discuss the contents of the annual report of the Charity Commissioners, in which I have a particular interest. I had to explain that I had not seen the document, whereupon he quoted large chunks of it to me over the telephone. When I inquired at the Vote Office I was told that it was impossible for any Member of Parliament to see the report until 3.30 pm.
I appreciate the need to give the press a chance to prepare reports on documents of this kind, but I regard the procedure that I have described as grossly insulting to the House and an impediment to our carrying out the job for which we were elected. Knowing of your great interest in defending the interests of Members, and especially of Back Bench Members, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you to bring the strongest possible pressure to bear on Ministers and others in authority to end this highly unsatisfactory and undemocratic arrangement.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is it the same point of order? Has the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) also been approached?
Mr. Skinner: It is a different matter.
Mr. Speaker: In that case I will deal first with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo).
The House knows of my very strong views on this matter. I hold strongly to the view that the House of Commons should always be told first. I understand the embargo system, but I believe that it is a matter of honour for the press not to divulge material before the embargo time has expired. Therefore, I shall look into the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Nuclear Power Stations (Operation)
3.33 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is in some way associated with the previous point of order, but not exactly. Will you ensure that the Government are made responsible for placing in the Library the McGraw-Hill publication, Nucleonic Week? Many hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, are anxious to see that document, but the Government are apparently refusing to have it placed in the Library. The document provides an up-to-date report on the way in which nuclear power stations are being operated throughout the world, including this country.
Mr. Neil Thorne: That is a bogus point of order.
Mr. Skinner: No, it is not. The matter is on today's Order Paper. A very serious problem has come to the notice of some Members of Parliament. Certain nuclear power stations in Britain are being run beyond normal risk levels to try to beat the coal miners' strike. The information in the pamphlet will help those hon. Members to prove that case, of which they have long since been informed. I call upon you, Mr. Speaker, to see to it that that publication is placed in the Library so that we can make it clear that the Government are operating British nuclear power stations at extremely dangerous levels to such an extent as to risk life and limb in this country.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member was referring to an official Government document, but I imagine from what he said that he was not. I cannot be responsible for having pamphlets placed in the Library. I am sure that the hon. Member will find some means of obtaining the document.

Rate Capping
3.35 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the contradictory statements made by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for the Environment as to whether any lists of local authorities to be designated for rate capping already exist, and whether Portsmouth city council is included in any of those lists."
On 6 June my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who is the Opposition spokesman on the environment, wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment saying that he understood that, under the measures that the Government were using, Portsmouth was a higher "overspender" than Sheffield and that the lists in the possession of the Secretary of State, which were drawn up by his Department, included Portsmouth city council for designation.
Before there was any formal reply from the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), spoke at a press conference in Portsmouth. That conference was reported in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday 9 June. The article stated that the right hon. Gentleman described
"Labour's claim that Whitehall had plans to put Portsmouth's Conservative-controlled council on its hit list for rate-capping as 'just another piece of windy scaremongering'."
Mr. Patrick Rock, who, I understand, is the Conservative candidate for Portsmouth and a former employee of the Prime Minister, said of the allegation by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland—
"It is completely untrue."
Yesterday, I put a question to the Prime Minister about whether Portsmouth and Sheffield were included in lists for rate capping. I recited the fact that
"under the Government's own chosen measures, Conservative-controlled Portsmouth has overspent to a much higher degree than Labour-controlled Sheffield".
I asked:
"what sympathy has the Prime Minister for the problems of the Secretary of State for the Environment in trying to manufacture a list for rate capping which ensures that Sheffield is included but that Portsmouth is excluded?"
The Prime Minister replied:
"As the hon. Gentleman knows, the rate-capping measure has not yet been enacted. It is still before the other House and it would be somewhat premature to devise a list before that Bill has even become an Act."—[Official Report, 12 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 759.]
I ask hon. Members to weigh with great care the words used yesterday in the House by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Lady did not say that no final list had been agreed by Cabinet. She said that it was premature to devise a list—in other words, that no list or lists of authorities to be rate capped existed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland received a reply yesterday from the Secretary of State—
Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend received a reply from the Secretary of State, who said that—
Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall hear the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and then take the point of order.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland received a reply yesterday from the Secretary of State in which he described my hon. Friend's accusations as "inaccurate hearsay". Yesterday afternoon, the Prime Minister went along the same lines, by saying that no lists existed.
This morning my hon. Friend received a reply from the Secretary of State which said:
"let me make the position absolutely clear. We are currently considering possible principles for selecting authorities for rate limitation. The application of different principles produces a series of lists — rather like the ones I released during the Committee Stage of the Rates Bill—and Portsmouth features on some of them. "
Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to ensure that the public do not hear that the Prime Minister has misled the House, but I shall not be shut up by the hon. Gentleman.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Straw: The reality is—
Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening to an application under Standing Order No. 10. It is difficult to hear when there is a great deal of noise. As far as I can hear, the application is in order—just.
Mr. Straw: I understand the discomfiture of Conservative Members when the Prime Minister has been discovered to be misleading the House, by the admission of her Secretary of State. There is no consistency between what the Prime Minister told the House yesterday—that no lists had been devised—and what the Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland this morning—that Portsmouth features on some of the lists that have been devised.
For the second time within the week the Prime Minister has misled the House. Whether she has done so deliberately or because of the incompetent way in which she runs the Government, I cannot say. But we need to know from the Prime Minister why she sought to mislead the House; why the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was allowed to say, presumably with the authority of the Secretary of State for the Environment, that the allegation that Portsmouth was on lists of rate-capped authorities was windy electioneering; why the Conservative candidate described that allegation as completely untrue; and why all three of those right hon. Members, including the Prime Minister, have been revealed to be telling untruths by the Secretary of State himself.
We all remember the words of the—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must make out a case why this matter is urgent and not advance the case which he might make if the application were granted.
Mr. Straw: Coming so soon after an occasion when the Prime Minister has been found to be misleading the House, the matter is plainly important, specific and urgent. We have a Prime Minister who is increasingly a stranger to the truth—[Interruption.]—and who has treated the House and the country with contempt and we urgently seek your leave, Mr. Speaker, for a debate on the issue.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the contradictory statements made by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for the Environment as to whether any lists of local authorities to be designated for rate-capping already exist, and whether Portsmouth city council is included in any of those lists."
I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he raises is appropriate—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully submit that the manner in which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made his application to you was an abuse of the procedures of the House? Many times in the House we have heard the occupant of the Chair inform an hon. Member seeking to raise a matter of concern by way of Standing Order No. 10, or, in former times, Standing Order No. 9, that he should not make the speech that he would make if his application was granted but that he should state the reasons why such an application under the Standing Order should be granted.
920
With respect, Mr. Speaker, there is little more that the hon. Member for Blackburn could say that he has not said in making his application. He cannot really be disappointed that his application was not granted, because he has deployed his case to the House, such as it is. I ask, for the future, that the House be protected from an abuse of that kind.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we should persist in this matter. The hon. Gentleman has simply reiterated what I have already said.
Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House has been misadvised, because the Prime Minister, in answering a question yesterday—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that I am not accepting the application under Standing Order No. 10. There is nothing more to be said about it.
Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: On this matter?
Mr. Roberts: About the Prime Minister, but not under Standing Order No. 10.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for what the Prime Minister may or may not have said.
Later—
Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon, when I rose on a genuine point of order at the particular time when I wished to raise that point of order, in your wisdom, from the Chair, you advised me to wait until later. I respectfully obeyed your submission and waited until later. You gave your ruling, and then deprived me of my point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman, but I have nothing to add to what I said before.

Members of Parliament (London)
Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise the matter as a request for guidance on the timing of a Standing Order No. 10 application. It will be within the knowledge of the House that we are promised discriminatory action by the Greater London council and penalties on certain areas, which will lead to a failure of the Government and the authorities to carry out their responsibilities for education, housing, transport and various other matters.
I am referring to the potential threat that road safety crossings will not be put up in certain constituencies just because they have elected a Conservative Member of Parliament. I am referring to the threat to stop school improvements in some constituencies because they do not vote for Labour Members of Parliament. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the sort of matter that should be raised as specific, urgent and important.
The Government have stepped in to take over housing responsibilities and it is possible that they will take over others. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is this?"] The point that I am making, Mr. Speaker, is whether this is the time to raise under the Standing Order No. 10 procedure the matter of the GLC's threat of penal, political vindictiveness or must we wait until it is carried out? I should be grateful for your guidance on the timing of a Standing Order No. 10 application.
Mr. Speaker: The Standing Order No. 10 procedure is precious Back Bench time and should not be abused. I can entertain a Standing Order No. 10 application for the Adjournment of the House only if there is ministerial responsibility over the matter that is raised. Clearly, there
922
is no Government responsibility for action threatened by the GLC until it happens. The hon. Gentleman must find other means of raising the matter.
Later—
Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You gave guidance earlier that a Standing Order No. 10 application can be allowed only if there is ministerial responsibility. When local authorities failed to carry out their statutory responsibilities in the past, we had both Government statements and debates on those issues. When local authorities threatened to take certain action, we had both Government statements and debates, raised sometimes by the Opposition, sometimes by Government Back Benchers, and sometimes by the Government themselves.
I ask for your further guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how one can ask the Government at Question Time what they will do about the threat from the Greater London Council and/or certain of its members, and on what the distinction is between such an issue being raised at Question Time, or as an urgent, specific and important matter, as I tried to do following the intimation yesterday that certain members of the GLC will do the best that they can to fail to carry out their responsibility in an even-handed manner throughout the GLC area.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was previously in touch with me about raising this matter of the threatened actions of the GLC. I told him then, and I tell him again now in the House, that there is no Government responsibility for actions threatened by the GLC. There are many other tactical ways of dealing with the matter. It could have been raised at Question Time this afternoon, or in an Adjournment debate.

Unparliamentary Expressions
3.48 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to say any more.
Mr. Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance in relation to the rights of Back Benchers. Back Benchers and other hon. Members cannot accuse another Member of Parliament of being a liar or of misleading the House. As I understand it, the reason for that regulation is that Mr. Speaker protects the House from being misled and told lies. I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, perhaps tomorrow, what Mr. Speaker can do when such circumstances arise and it appears that the House has been told lies or is being misled. What responsibility do you have for calling to order a right hon. or hon. Member, a Minister, or the Prime Minister when he or she is apparently misleading the House? The matter must surely rest with you, because we are not allowed to accuse right hon. or hon. Members of being liars.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) knows that I cannot possibly answer that. I cannot read the minds of right hon. and hon. Members when they are making speeches from either side of the house. I have no knowledge whether what they are saying is right or wrong. That is not a matter for me at all, and I cannot deal with it.
Mr. Skinner: But on this question of what Members of Parliament are able to say about other right hon. and hon. Members, we are trying to develop a vocabulary to which we can add names and phrases or delete those that are not allowed. Will you give us advice, Mr. Speaker, on whether, in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and others have just said about what the Prime Minister says from the Dispatch Box, an hon. Member would be in order if he said, for instance, that she "would not know the truth if it was sprayed on her eyeballs."
Mr. Speaker: Order. The reason—the whole House knows this—why these phrases should not be allowed in the Chamber is a question of good order. I quote the wise words of Mr. Speaker Sir Thomas More:
"Without freedom of speech there can be no wise debate. Without order there can be no debate at all."

Greater Access to the Countryside
3.52 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for increased access to the countryside.
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure greater access to the countryside. Growth in the population inevitably puts pressure on farming land and the countryside, not only to make more agricultural land available for housing, but, on the one hand, fanners, who need to farm the land to produce food and crops for the benefit of the whole community, and, on the other, the ever-increasing number of people who wish to enjoy the countryside for walking, recreation and leisure.
Those competing claims tend to come most sharply into conflict over footpaths across farmland and access to the countryside. I am concerned that, at present, there is too little co-operation between walkers and farmers to ensure maximum access to the countryside, with minimum inconvenience to farmers. The present state of the law does not help to generate the, co-operation to create new, well-marked footpaths for the benefit of all.
It is not surprising that walkers become irritable and frustrated if farmers fence off footpaths, or that farmers become angry if walkers trample down crops. One of the reasons why farmers are not always enthusiastic about footpaths on their land is that, all too often, footpaths tend to go right across fields rather than round them. The reasons for that are historic and date back to a time when footpaths were used mainly as a means of communication by a few people, rather than for recreation and leisure by many. The numbers using footpaths were small and they tended to take the shortest distance between two fixed points—a straight line.
For example, the footpath between the villages of Shutford and Tadmarton near Banbury reputedly came into being because once a week the local vicar taking religious services rode that way between the churches of the two villages. The routes of footpaths have become fixed, but often such routes originated because of landscape features which no longer exist. For example, the same Shutford to Tadmarton footpath is shown on a map of early this century as following a hedge system which has long since disappeared.
The co-operation of farmers in creating new footpaths is likely to be greater if they were able sensibly to divert footpaths around fields. There are at present powers available to county councils, as the highway authority, to divert footpaths, but the procedures can be cumbersome and costly, as only one objection invariably means a public inquiry. It would appear that certain groups object to every application, however reasonable, to divert any footpath. Thus, farmers who have inconveniently routed footpaths crossing their land tend not to take the initiative to have them diverted, being apprehensive of getting themselves entangled in costs and administrative red tape.
This whole procedure could be simplified. People should, of course, be allowed to register objections to a proposed diversion, and the county highway authority must have regard to those objections before deciding whether to allow an application to change the route of a footpath, but this could be done without having to resort to a public inquiry every time an application is opposed. The Bill thus proposes that county councils be given

925
powers to divert footpaths wherever it seems to them that, in all the circumstances, and having regard to any objections, it is reasonable so to do.
In return for a simplification of the procedures for sensibly diverting footpaths, the Bill intends that farmers should have a statutory duty to take all reasonable steps to mark the route of any footpath crossing their land. At present, there is a statutory duty on the highway authority to mark footpaths when they leave the metal road but no duty on the farmer to mark the route of a footpath once it enters his land.
Further, the whole system of footpaths has developed a sort of rigor mortis, because few new footpaths are being created. This is, I suspect, partially because farmers are frustrated at the present complex of footpaths crisscrossing fields rather than going round them, and what they see as unreasonable opposition to any attempt at rationalisation.
It is also, I suspect, because there is a confusion of statutory duties under various Acts—for example, the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, various highways Acts and the Wildlife and Countryside Act—which place different statutory duties on landowners, county, district and parish councils.
For example, parish councils have powers to create new footpaths but rarely do so because they are unaware of their powers. A confusion of statutory duties contained in a variety of Acts is preventing new footpaths from being created, and I submit that all legislation relating to footpaths and bridleways should be consolidated into one Act of Parliament. The Bill seeks to achieve that so that everyone will know his responsibilities and opportunities to create new footpaths.
There are a number of places where new footpaths could be created—for example, farm tracks and disused railway lines — without causing inconvenience to farmers. My Bill is intended to ensure the maximum access to the countryside for as many people as possible, with a minimum of inconvenience to farmers and agriculture. We shall then see coming into being new footpaths suitable for family walks without disrupting farmers' crops or stock. I seek the leave of the House to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Baldry and Mr. Phillip Oppenheim.

Greater Access to the Countryside
  GREATER ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE
  Mr. Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to provide for increased access to the countryside; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 193.]
Orders of the Day
  Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill [Lords]
    New Clause

      REMARRIAGE (RELIGIOUS BARRIERS)
      'After section 9 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 there shall be inserted the following section—
      "9A. — (1) Where a petition for divorce or nullity of marriage has been presented to the Court, either party to the marriage may apply to the Court at any time before decree absolute opposing the grant of the decree absolute on the ground that there exists a barrier to the religious remarriage of the applicant which is within the power of the other party to remove.
      (2) The Court shall not entertain an application under subsection (1) hereof unless the applicant satisfies the Court of the existence of such a barrier by means of a written declaration by the religious authority which authorised or sanctioned the marriage being dissolved by the Court, or which authorised or sanctioned a religious ceremony of marriage between the same parties or on proof that such authority no longer exists, by a religious authority recognised by both parties to be competent.
      (3) If the Court is satisfied as to the existence of such a barrier then subject to the provisions of subsection (4) hereof the Court shall refuse to permit the decree to be made absolute until it is satisfied by means of a written declaration by the authority referred to in subsection (2) hereof that the said barrier has been removed or that the parties have taken all such steps within their power to remove the said barrier or until the said application is withdrawn by the applicant.
      (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3) hereof the Court may order that the decree may be made absolute if there are exceptional circumstances making it desirable for the decree to be made absolute without delay.".'.—[Mr. Abse.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4 pm
      Mr. Leo Abse: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having selected the new clause for debate. I am sure that that gratitude will be echoed by many within the Jewish and Moslem communities, as it enables to be canvassed within the House a matter which, although I believe it is a mischief, has not come before the House before.
      The new clause is an attempt to deal with a mischief which, unhappily, arises too frequently when orthodox Jewish or Moslem couples seek to end their marriages. According to orthodox Jewish and Islamic law, in order to remarry, the divorced partners must be in possession of a religious divorce — a get as it is called within the orthodox Jewish religion, a talak for the committed Moslem. The obtaining of such religious decrees requires an initiative from the husband and some sign of at least procedural co-operation from a wife. At first sight, such matters are clearly beyond the province of our civil law.
      Unfortunately, one partner—usually the husband—can brutally manipulate the passionate wish of the other party to be free after a civil divorce to remarry according to the religious law, without which religious remarriage the religious Jewess or Moslem may regard herself as an

      927
      adulterer. Therefore the protection that our civil law provides for maintenance and the custody of children can be subverted by a ruthless partner.
      The partner—usually the husband—blackmails the wife. The price for taking the necessary initiative is an agreed settlement or arrangement relating to children. It might be a settlement which, if the issues were adjudicated upon openly in court, would, according to the principles which the House has laid down in our civil law, be far different from that to which the hapless wife has been compelled to submit.
      This sordid exploitation of another's religious commitment cannot commend itself to those of religious faiths other than the Jewish or Moslem, nor to those, like myself, whose intellectual convictions do not permit them to be so attached to ancient faiths as are these victimised partners.
      It must be repugnant to us all that one spouse can use consent to a get as a bargaining card to obtain an unconscionable and inequitable financial settlement. In the Moslem communities considerable anxiety is felt about what are known as "limping" marriages—a marriage which is considered to be valid and subsisting by Islamic law, but dissolved and at an end by our law.
      The failure of the husband to consent to a talak often leaves him at no personal disadvantage as, according to Islamic law, a man is allowed more than one wife. The man can remarry according to religious and civil law, but the wife cannot. Such circumstances have led inevitably to the creation of "limping" marriages, with all the attendant social and financial problems.
      The aim of the new clause is to give the courts the power to withhold the decree absolute when they are satisfied that there is a barrier to religious remarriage which it is open to a partner to remove. Endowing the courts with such a power would, I have little doubt, have such a deterrent effect that the present miserable exploitation of another's commitment to religious rules would cease, because it would remove from any partner the coercive power which exists and is too often abused.
      I am making this appeal within our plural society to ensure that our civil law is not circumvented. It would make nonsense of all our efforts during the proceedings on the Bill to obtain a just financial settlement for wives if we ignored the needs of those women who must be protected. The House alone can give the necessary protection, unless such people are to abandon completely their religious commitments.
      I am keenly aware that there will inevitably be blemishes and defects in the drafting of such a clause. These are novel circumstances, which are becoming more acute within our plural society. It is open to the Solicitor-General to point out the defects and blemises which clearly exist in the new clause.
      I hope that, with his forensic skills, the Solicitor-General will not merely sweep aside the new clause because of its technical defects, but will give a clear sign to those interested within the Jewish and Moslem communities that the Government have become aware of the problem and realise that it needs remedying, because it cannot be allowed to continue.
      I ask the Solicitor-General to tell those communities that are watching the debate with interest that the Government are sensitive to the problem and that if, as I hope, Moslem and Jewish communities make representations to the Lord Chancellor, it will be possible for
      928
      guidance and help to be given by having the matter reviewed by the Law Commission, and dealt with by a private Member's Bill or in another Bill. I hope that the communities can be made aware that the Government are not blind to the problems, nor are they unsympathetic towards any remedy which can properly resolve the difficulty. It is with that plea that I move the new clause and hope that the Solicitor-General will give it a warm response, which will be fully appreciated by the Jewish and Moslem communities.
      Mr. Peter Thurnham: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to speak on this new clause which stands in my name as well as that of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse).
      I did not serve on the Committee and I am not a lawyer, so I hope that I can speak adequately for that substantial minority of people in my constituency and elsewhere who suffer under the law as it stands. Those constituents are Moslem wives. At present they suffer from two injustices. The first relates to those wives who have obtained a divorce abroad which, although satisfying their religious requirements, does not provide for a financial settlement.
      I am pleased that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has confirmed that part III of the Bill is designed to remedy such an injustice. By giving English courts powers to recognise a Moslem divorce, or talak, the Bill enables financial relief to be awarded to a former spouse who might otherwise be destitute. As my right hon. and noble Friend said in a letter to me, wives are unable to
      "enforce any foreign financial order because no such order exists. Such a woman may thus face destitution, and her only source of support may be supplementary benefit. The fact that the former husband lives in this country, possibly in possession of substantial assets, makes no difference to the legal position."
      I welcome that. I welcome the fact that where funds are available in a family the burden on the welfare state should be lightened, and the wife freed of such a stigma under the provisions of part III.
      However, owing to an anomaly in the law, there is a second injustice that is not remedied by the Bill, which is why we are introducing the new clause. Although English courts will be given powers in part III to recognise a religious divorce overseas, they have no power to recognise a religious divorce in this country. That creates a predicament for Moslem women seeking a civil divorce in Great Britain. Under Moslem law a man may have many wives, but a woman only one husband. Thus, religious divorce is essential for a Moslem woman who wishes to remarry according to her faith, but a Moslem man can be content with civil divorce alone, as he does not have: religious inhibitions about remarrying as often as he wishes.
      Thousands of brides face that predicament. They are vulnerable to blackmail by their husbands, who will agree to a religious divorce only for a consideration. Such blackmail demands are scandalous and flout the intentions of the court when making provision for a wife. They should be prevented by passing the new clause, which demands the removal of religious barriers to remarriage as a condition of civil divorce.
      Cases have been brought to my attention in Bolton, of which my constituency is a part. In one case, the parties had gained British nationality but had been separated for five years with a decree absolute. The ex-husband would

      929
      not, however, grant a religious divorce. He demanded £5,000 and the return of the wedding jewellery as an inducement.
      In the second case, the husband and wife were married in India. After an unhappy relationship in Great Britain the husband sent his wife's passport to the Home Office in an attempt to get her removed, as she did not have British nationality. He eventually agreed to a religious divorce, but only if he did not have to pay maintenance and if she returned the wedding jewellery to him.
      In the third case, both sides had British nationality, and the matter was settled only after violent persuasion by the wife's family. Obviously, a solution that involves a breach of the peace is unsatisfactory and not conducive to good race relations.
      In the case of Mrs. Patel, her relatives fulfilled the husband's demands by paying him £4,000 and returning the marriage jewellery to obtain a religious divorce. In the fifth case, the wife was not a British citizen and her relatives paid money to obtain a religious divorce after the husband threatened to arrange a deportation.
      Therefore, there is considerable evidence to show that many women, some of whom are British citizens, suffer injustice under the present law through no fault of their own. What does Parliament intend to do to remedy that position? Surely the law should help to reinforce religious beliefs in the sanctity of marriage, whatever the religion, rather than ignore barriers to marriage, which are real and practical for this minority of Moslem women.
      The rights of Moslem women to remarry according to their religious faith should be facilitated by the courts. That is the purpose of the new clause. It does not introduce a new barrier to divorce, but seeks to remove an existing one. Besides, subsection (4) gives the court absolute discretion about the matter. Just as part III recognises the rights of Moslem women who have a religious divorce abroad, part I should recognise the need to remove religious barriers to a civil divorce in this country.
      The Lord Chancellor said that the courts would take conduct into account regarding financial provision, where it would be inequitable to disregard it. Likewise, Sir Jocelyn Simon argued in Qureshi v Qureshi in 1971 that not to recognise a talak would put the wife in a financially disadvantageous position with no right to reclaim her dowry. In Brett v Brett in 1969 the judge ordered that a lump sum payable by the husband should be reduced if a religious divorce were granted. Judges should not be put in the position of having to use a back door when policy and equity dictate that this should be properly set out at the beginning of the Act.
      I urge right hon. and hon. Members not to turn their backs on this unfortunate minority and to support the new clause in the interests of humanity. I ask the Government to give a commitment to act.
      4.15 pm
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The new clause, to be inserted into the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, seeks to enable a party to apply to the court, at any time before decree absolute on a petition for divorce or annulment, for the decree absolute to be delayed until the other party has removed any barrier to the religious remarriage of the applicant, which he has the power to remove, for example, by the pronouncement of a get.
      930
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for giving me the opportunity to express the views of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor about the proposal, which was first raised at a late stage in Committee by the hon. Member for Torfaen.
      The hon. Member for Torfaen hoped that I would not, with my usual forensic grace, sweep the new clause aside because it has drafting defects. It does not call for much forensic grace to do that. Moreover, I hope that I do not often do that to amendments tabled by hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are fairly substantial difficulties in drafting the new clause, which make it impossible to insert it into the Bill. I do not propose to waste time going over those difficulties, and I hope that the House will accept that substantial difficulties exist. I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware of some of them.
      I took special account of my hon. Friend's constituency cases. There is little better evidence of a problem than that which we accumulate in our constituency surgeries. I understand that a powerful case can be made for the intended change in the law. I see the force of the case that, if there is a bar to religious remarriage, which can be lifted only by the partner from whom one has been divorced, it provides, in unscrupulous hands, a powerful opportunity for blackmail. Both speeches made that point clear.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) also made that point clear to me. He passed on similar representations to me on behalf of the Jewish community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East said, case law has developed which has permitted judges to express effectively their disapproval of blackmail. That has provided protection for a wife from such abuse. I note what was said about the need to change the statute law. On the merits of the proposal, I doubt whether it would be right to prevent a marriage from being dissolved by a bar that was based on one narrow aspect of conduct. That is not necessarily the only way in which the problem can be addressed.
      The hon. Member for Torfaen knows that the Lord Chancellor discussed the proposal with the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) recently. The Lord Chancellor has authorised me to tell the House that although the Government firmly believe that the new clause is not suitable for insertion at this stage—for reasons which I outlined briefly — if at a later date representations were made to him so that he could hold proper consultations with representatives of religious bodies, which he has been unable to do, or if the new clause formed the subject of a private Member's Bill, he would not be unsympathetic to it. Although he could give no commitment, he would undertake to consult widely upon the matter and to give it the most thorough consideration.
      In the circumstances, the House would not expect me to go further, and I am not authorised to go further. But I believe that my remarks give the hon. Member for Torfaen that for which he asked—a recognition by the Government of a problem that has arisen, and an undertaking to consider the matter seriously if it is raised at a later stage. However, reluctantly, I cannot accept the new clause.
      Mr. Abse: In view of the helpful comments of the Solicitor-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 2

      INVOLVEMENT OF SOLICITORS
      Solicitors shall be entitled to appear in and conduct all family proceedings.".—[Mr. Weetch.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Ken Weetch: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Hon. Members will have noted that I am the only non-lawyer on the list of Members who tabled the new clause. Therefore, I am arguing the case with no professional interest to defend and, indeed, no interest to declare at all. No one could level the charge at me of being willing to make even a partial intervention on behalf of lawyers of any sort.
      Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): Does the hon. Gentleman draw an inference from the fact that all the other supporters of the new clause are members of the Law Society and that none of them is a member of the Bar?
      Mr. Weetch: That intervention comes a little early in my speech. I can say only that those who put their names to the new clause know their business best.
      Mr. Tony Favell: Does the hon. Gentleman know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) is a chartered accountant?
      Mr. Weetch: If I have accused anyone who is not a lawyer of being one, I apologise unreservedly. When I rose to speak I believed that I was the only non-lawyer, but I am grateful for that information.
      The general case for a divided legal profession — advocates and solicitors—was thoroughly investigated some time ago by the Royal Commission on Legal Services, and the last thing I wish to do is to go over that ground generally. There are many arguments for a unified profession as against a divided profession, but I shall not discuss those arguments.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the conclusion of the Royal Commission on Legal Services, which was strongly in favour of retaining the divided profession on the grounds that it provided a higher standard of legal service?
      Mr. Weetch: I read the Royal Commission's report carefully, and I am well aware of the conclusion. However, the new clause relates to only one area of legal work. I am not arguing the general case, but addressing my remarks to family and divorce proceedings. The focus of the new clause is narrow. I hope that it answers the hon. Gentleman's intervention to say that I am not concerned with the wide angle taken by the Royal Commission, although I understand that there may be some common arguments.
      The new clause would allow solicitors to appear in and conduct family proceeding cases without restriction. As a non-lawyer and as a man in the street, speaking for the consumer interest, I believe that that proposition is right. The current position, as I understand it—I stand to be corrected on technical matters — is that a solicitor is prevented by law from conducting proceedings in open
      932
      court in the High Court, but has full rights of audience in the county court. He cannot appear in a defended divorce suit or in an appeal from magistrates to the divisional court of the Family Division of the High Court.
      Part V of the Bill will give solicitors many more rights of audience and representation. Since it is likely—I put it no higher than that—that defended divorce suits will be heard more and more in county courts as a result of the legislation, solicitors will be entitled to audience in defended cases in those courts. Therefore, I concede that solicitors will be given more work as a result of the readjustment of legal and court responsibilities.
      However, a few no-go areas remain for solicitors, and I shall leave it to another hon. Member to explain what they are. It is inconsistent that, having taken this step to widen the area of advocacy for solicitors, the Solicitor-General was not able to take the matter to its logical conclusion. However, I shall argue the case as a layman and examine it from a common sense point of view.
      Sir Raymond Gower: Can the hon. Gentleman give me some guidance—I assure him that I am not hostile to his case — on the term "all family proceedings"? Does he mean that to refer to appeals to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords? It would appear so from the wording, and I suggest — as a solicitor, I am prepared to go along with him to a great extent—that the wording is too wide. Does he not agree that there should be some restriction?
      Mr. Weetch: I did not envisage sending the bulk of solicitors to appeal before the House of Lords. That was not in my mind. What I had most in mind were proceedings in the High Court.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: On that point, would you accept that: on the wording of your amendment—
      Mr. Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Hind: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that if we were to vote for the new clause it would imply that we would send solicitors to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords to deal with matrimonial finance and associated matters?
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Weetch: The answer is yes. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the wording of the new clause is too wide, he must exercise his judgment.
      Perhaps I may come to the common sense of the case. I have been interrupted so many times even before my speech has come up through the gears, but I shall hasten to make progress.
      First, in divorce and matrimonial matters many solicitors do a good job in sorting out many of the complex matters involved. They often make good advocates. I have come across many solicitors. who make far better advocates than their counterparts who specialise in advocacy, because they often have a better grip of the material, having prepared it. There are good solicitors in my constituency, and I take the opportunity to pay tribute to them.
      Secondly, the main point of the case is that solicitors are above all family practitioners, and these are family matters. Often they have to deal with other areas of family business and can bring a great deal of direct knowledge and practical experience of the human issues involved in

      933
      the whole framework of matrimonial proceedings. Solicitors are often advisers on a range of general matters. Therefore, the proposal in the new clause is appropriate and relevant.
      Thirdly, there is the argument of continuity. If a solicitor has conducted the advocacy before the magistrates court, it is to the advantage of all concerned that he continues the advocacy. He knows the case. He has cleared his mind about the principle and the detail, so I can see no advantage, in family matters, to change horses in midstream and hand the case over, especially if an advocate has to be instructed at the last minute and important details have to be read up literally while the advocate is on the bus on the way to the case, as frequently happens — although advocates do not often travel by bus.
      Fourthly, the new clause is in line with the Government's general philosophy of making a bonfire of restrictive practices. This restrictive practice would be highly anomalous if it were allowed to continue. The best parallel example to quote is the gradual elimination of dual capacity on the stock exchange, where the functions of jobbers and brokers are increasingly being combined. Dual capacity should ultimately go in the law, and we could make a start in family matters.
      Finally, there is the question of cost. It would be cheaper for the consumer, in this case the client. On cost grounds there is a strong argument for retaining the matter in single hands, if possible. We have had considerable debate from time to time about the cost of divorce proceedings and how necessary it is for the cost to come down. This is one way to do it. The public would be very glad of it.
      I shall be interested in the reply of the Solicitor-General, and especially to hear how many ingenious props he can manufacture to shore up a structure that has been decaying for years.
      Sir Raymond Gower: I regret very much that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) and those who support him have worded the new clause in this way. I think they would have commanded greater support if they had limited it to ensuring that there would be a wider right of audience only up to the level of the High Court and the Crown court in the trial of a matrimonial cause. Although the hon. Gentleman did not appear to agree with me at the time, surely on reflection he must agree that this general wording would embrace the possibility of an appeal to the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords. He said that he would not mind that.
      Mr. Weetch: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what would be so terrible about that?
      Sir Raymond Gower: I accept the validity of the hon. Gentleman's arguments when he says that it would be advantageous in many cases for the solicitor who had dealt with the matter at the lowest level to continue to deal with it at a higher level. But he must surely agree that when a case goes as far as the Court of Appeal, it is usually on a fairly important point of law or because it is a difficult case. In most cases an instructing solicitor or any solicitor dealing with it would want the benefit of specialised advice from an expert on the subject. He would not even
      934
      be content with the services of a barrister with a general practice. Even more would that argument apply if it was decided to take the case to the House of Lords.
      Mr. Abse: The hon. Gentleman is speaking as though the new clause would make it mandatory for solicitors to take these cases to the House of Lords. No solicitor who knew that he had a case of such complexity that it required a silk to deal with it would wish to go on himself in the interests of his client. I suggest that all my hon. Friend is trying to do is look after the client and not the Bar or solicitors.
      Sir Raymond Gower: It is entirely unrealistic to envisage a case being so important as to go to the Court of Appeal and to require the right of a solicitor to have audience there. By making the wording so wide in this sense the hon. Gentleman is lessening the support that he is likely to get in the House. Many Members who might have supported him as far as the High Court will be deterred because his wording goes much further.
      Mr. Tony Blair: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that all the new clause seeks to do is to give a choice, so that it is up to the solicitor and his client whether they want a barrister or a solicitor to represent them? For example, in the employment appeal tribunals, where a solicitor can appear, many people decide of their own choice to brief barristers, but it is not mandatory.
      Sir Raymond Gower: That may be the case. I may be wrong, but in my view by having the wording so wide hon. Gentlemen are lessening the chance of getting the amendment accepted. I am sure I shall be proved right in the event.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I make it clear at the outset that I speak for myself, not for my party, and also that I speak as a practising member of the Bar and with a frank interest and belief in the value of an independent Bar.
      I share the reservations expressed by the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) as to the breadth of the new clause. That apart, though, there are substantial objections to the principle behind it.
      Passing reference was made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) to the Benson commission—the Royal Commission on Legal Services. We must not forget the detail into which the commission went and the careful examination that it undertook. The short but valuable paragraph 18.40 on pages 212 and 213 of the report states:
      "The present arrangements ensure a system of objective selection which the proposed arrangements would lack. At present, to judge from the data obtained by our Users' Survey, a client goes to a solicitor, usually by way of personal recommendation, without any informed knowledge of his capacity for handling the class of work required. the number of firms available in a given area and likely to be known to a potential client is limited and the area of choice is not wide. However, when it is necessary to instruct a barrister, it is the responsibility of the solicitor to advise his client which of the barristers practising in the relevant field is fitted to take the case in question. The qualities required are more likely to be found by this method than by any other. Accordingly, we consider that, under the present arrangemens, the range of informed choice is wider and selection of a suitable advocate more likely."
      We are concerned with giving the lay client an informed choice of the best available advocate for his or her case. The Benson commission's conclusion was not only clear, but it was based upon a users' survey and consultation not only with the two parts of the profession, but with people with experience of litigation.

      935
      There is no doubt that many solicitors are extremely competent and would be able to conduct matrimonial causes in the higher courts. No one responsible, not even the most partisan member of the Bar or arguer for the rights of the Bar, would gainsay that. We are not questioning whether there are solicitors who are fit to conduct such cases because undoubtedly they exist. We are, however, talking about what happens when a client goes to the wrong sort of solicitor or a solicitor who is not competent to carry out work for him and is given an unsatisfactory service in court.
      Mr. Toby Jessel: A client could find the wrong barrister.
      Mr. Carlile: That matter was specifically considered by Benson, and if the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) had been listening he would have heard me describe the way in which Benson dealt with that.
      Many lay clients go to a solicitor in a general practice having walked into his office from the street, perhaps without knowing anything about him; or to a solicitor who is expert in some spheres, but not in others. Some solicitors will undertake almost any form of advocacy and any case in which they have the right to appear without necessarily being competent to handle it. That might be an unpalatable truth, but truth it is. All who practise have seen that happen from time to time. As Benson said, the lay client, having gone to a solicitor who is forced to instruct counsel to deal with the case because of the restrictive practice rule, is far more likely to have his case dealt with by someone competent.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) agree that his remarks about solicitors as a whole were a little intemperate? All solicitors are covered by compulsory insurance. If a solicitor makes a mess of a case, a remedy is available to the client. He can sue.
      Mr. Carlile: With respect to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who is an experienced solicitor and no doubt extremely competent in all areas, it is small comfort to a divorced wife who has been deprived of her child or settlement by an incompetent solicitor to be told that she can claim against an insurance company. The type of person who will be devastated by such an experience is most unlikely to want to stir the ashes of a desperately unhappy experience and go running either to the Law Society or—woe of woes—if she wants to claim against her solicitor, to another solicitor.
      Mr. David Sumberg: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is no possibility of a negligence action arising out of court proceedings, so that example could not apply in any event?
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Carlile: I know that the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) is right as regards the Bar, and I suspect that he is right in relation to solicitors. Many of us are familiar with the case of Rondel v. Worsley, which deals in general terms with such problems.
      If a lay client goes to a solicitor and the solicitor responsibly instructs a suitable member of the Bar to conduct the case, whether he is a specialist or a general common lawyer experienced in matrimonial law, there is a reasonable guarantee that a good standard of service will be given in court.
      936
      Another issue in connection with the new clause is of fundamental importance. It is inappropriate that the back door of a matrimonial law Bill should be used to hasten a far-reaching change in the provision of legal services. The hon. Member for Ipswich is 100 per cent. wrong when he suggests that his new clause involves a narrow sphere and that one cannot compare matrimonial advocacy with criminal advocacy. He argued that somehow the advocacy part of matrimonial cases is of less importance or requires different standards. Those who have practised in matrimonial cases in the higher courts know that the type of advocacy required may be strikingly similar in some matrimonial cases to that required in criminal or personal injuries cases, or in any other type of case where specialised advocacy and advocacy experience is required. Such changes in the provision of legal services should riot be made in this type of legislation.
      I declared my interest earlier. I think that the independence of the Bar is not only a cherished part of our legal structure, but an important part, in matrimonial cases as in any other. I recall an instance within my hearing when one advocate said to another outside the court room, "Just remember that we are not divorcing one another. We have clients."
      In matrimonial cases, above all others, the solicitor is likely to have a great deal of contact in his office with his client. He is likely to be under enormous pressure from his client. Emotional and financial considerations are involved, as well as considerations of high principle. A profession which is divided and retains the objectivity of the Bar is needed in the more serious matrimonial cases more than in any other sphere.
      Mr. Hind: The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) has put forward a cogent argument for the merger of the two sides of the legal profession, but we are not here to discuss that matter today. The hon. Member is striking at the fundamental basis of the division of responsibility within the English Bar and the Law Society. For that reason, we should look at it carefully and examine the much wider arguments that should be taking place about the clause. I suggest that this is nothing more than nibbling away at the rights of audience of the Bar in England.
      Sir Raymond Gower: And Wales.
      Mr. Hind: And Wales. I apologise to my hon. Friend and thank him for that comment.
      The reasons for rejecting the arguments are that the English legal system has traditionally been divided into two parts. When a barrister is brought into a case, he comes in as a skilled specialist advocate. For years, he has trained in certain fields. The Bar is no longer divided as in the past, when every barrister did every type of case. It is divided into specialists in criminal, matrimonial, patents and so on. The solicitor goes to such a specialist, and asks for his skill. The skilled advocate is trained to provide expertise in a specific sphere. Most of all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) said, he brings objectivity to the case of his client.
      A solicitor who has seen a divorcee off the street from the beginning of his or her case, and has gone through the case bit by bit, is not likely to be very objective. That solicitor has seen the client over and over again. When it comes to court proceedings, expert objective advice is

      937
      required. We should be considering all the rights of audience together, and not in relation to matrimonial matters only.
      I am sure many of my hon. Friends will agree with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) that the arguments that can be applied to the rights of audience in the Family Division can be applied equally to the rights of audience in any other part of the legal profession. The solicitor will be doing the criminal case in the Crown court, he will be doing the patents in the High Court, and he will continue to deal with all kinds of cases throughout the profession.
      The Bar has been encouraged to recruit people into the profession for a number of years. The stage has been reached where the number of banisters in the profession is more than equal to the amount of work available. The Bar is now considering reducing the intake into the profession, because the work is not available. The suggestion has been made that the position of the solicitor with rights of audience in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords who can get clients off the street is not altered, and that he acquires an area of work. The barrister, however, cannot go to the street and advertise his skill. He cannot take members of the general public into his office and take instructions from them, from banks, from building societies, or from insurance companies.
      I am sure that the hon. Member for Ipswich will join me in my next question. If hon. Members are prepared to vote in favour of the clause, are they prepared to accept the consequences of the vote, and give to members of the Bar a merged profession? Many members of the Bar think as I do, and would dearly like to have access to members of the general public, and to take instructions from them. One has to have one or the other. One cannot nibble at the two, and try to make something out of that.
      It has been suggested that we should consider sending solicitors to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords. Is that the intention of the clause? I think that the proposers of the clause have not fully considered the consequences. It would drive a coach and horses through the recommendations of the Benson commission, which advised how the legal profession should be run.
      Many solicitors, whom I know personally and who instruct me, are not sure that they want the right of audience. Cynically, I doubt whether they can make as much money appearing in the High Court as they can sitting in their offices taking instructions from the clients, wrapping their tape round the instructions and sending them out to counsel. I am sure that many of them will think twice about this.
      The hon. Member for Ipswich said that there will be a considerable increase in the number of cases conducted by solicitors. From experience, I say to the hon. Gentleman that that is nonsense. The number of contested divorces is few. Under the new court procedure for undefended divorces, the majority of divorce cases, and the ancillary proceedings of custody and property are dealt with in the county court in any event. This provision will be used without proper debate and appropriate legislation to open the door for rights of audience for solicitors in every other court in the country. This is not the Bill in which such provision should be included. It is a different matter from what the House is now considering. I urge hon. Members to reject the clause as inappropriate.
      Mr. Abse: I regret that so much heat should be engendered by a small new clause that I tabled and that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) was prepared to move. It is a demonstration of the disproportionate alarm that has evidently been felt by the Bar upon a matter which, as my hon. Friend stressed, is directed to a narrow area. From experience, I believe that there is a strong case for the solicitor to have the right to take through the proceedings, wherever they may go, if he has the competence and ability to do so.
      When a client sees a solicitor upon a matrimonial matter, he consults a man or woman who is to deal with the most intimate and difficult of personal problems that a human being may have. A solicitor has to listen, often for long periods—perhaps for much longer than he need—to get to know the facts on which to decide whether he can advise upon a petition. It is a denigration of the role of a solicitor to suggest that he merely breaks marriages. His capacity as a solicitor is tested when he acts as a listening post, which is often what is needed by people requiring a catharsis when they experience the emotional distress and woe that a divorce involves. When a party pours out his or her woes to a solicitor, a relationship is established that is quite different from that established when a person wishes to instruct a solicitor to draw up a will or to commence litigation over some commercial matter. By the very nature and quality of divorce, the relationship is bound to be an intimate one. It is erroneous to suggest that if a case goes to the High Court, after it has been dealt with to a great extent in the magistrates court by a solicitor, that solicitor, whatever his skills, can, by means of a brief, convey to a barrister the nuances and shades that have been conveyed to him.
      I am not concerned for the handful of cases involved. It is not a battle for work. I want to ensure that the client does not sometimes undergo the dismaying experience of a young barrister coming in utterly cold, and picking up a paper to deal with a matter that has for a long time been dealt with by a solicitor in whom the client has considerable confidence. It is important that the House should realise how small the problem is and how disproportionate is the reaction that is regrettably found among hon. Members who are also members of the Bar.
      In practice, in 1982 there were 344 appeals from magistrates to the divisional court of the Family Division of the High Court. That is what we are talking about.
      5 pm
      Mr. Hind: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is talking not merely about appeals, but about all divorce and ancillary matters, including custody, wardship, and so on, with which the Family Division of the High Court deals? Effectively, the provision gives solicitors a total right of audience in the Family Division of the High Court.
      Mr. Abse: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would use his skills as a barrister at least to examine the Bill to see what work may still be done exclusively by a barrister. I do not want to go into the details on which the hon. Gentleman insists, but the House should appreciate that at present a solicitor is prevented by common law from conducting any proceedings in open court in the High Court, but has full rights of audience in the county court and in chambers in the High Court.
      A solicitor cannot appear as an advocate in a defended suit in the High Court—a defended suit is at present

      939
      always heard in the High Court, but in future it may not necessarily be — he cannot appear as an advocate in proceedings in the High Court to commit for breach of an order of the court, including a breach of matrimonial injunction, and he cannot appear on an appeal from magistrates to the divisional court of the Family Division of the High Court. As I have said, 344 cases were involved in the latter instance in 1982, and the rest of the work is peripheral. In the majority of cases, a solicitor is unlikely to wish to conduct the case. He may advise someone that it would be wiser to instruct a barrister who has specialised in a particular area of law, embracing the issues involved in the particular case. So we are dealing with a very small number of cases.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: As solicitors now have the right of audience in chambers in the High Court on issues including the custody of children and financial matters — which means the overwhelming number of divorce cases—it would obviously be useful to know in how many of those cases solicitors claimed their right to represent their clients. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us?
      Mr. Abse: I cannot give the figure, and I very much doubt whether it is available. However, it is clear that a solicitor would not go into chambers in the High Court on such a contested issue unless he felt that he had the experience and skill to do so. Of course, some solicitors have expertise in divorce matters and others have not. Those who are barristers will know that an incompetent, bungling solicitor, who assumed the responsibility of going to the High Court without being equipped, would quickly learn that he was being more than foolish and unwise. The blunt fact is that it is only those who have the confidence to be able to deal with the issues who would seek to—
      Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
      Mr. Abse: I shall not give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman because, with respect, I do not want this debate. There are many more important issues to be debated in the House.
      In Committee, the Solicitor-General deployed an argument that will presumably be used again—that is that the Benson commission recommended that the rights of audience should not be extended. That was not overwhelmingly agreed, but it was accepted by the majority. That recommendation was made on the basis of certain beliefs. One of the most important was that solicitors were already overstretched and would be unable to assimilate the additional work proposed in the new clause. The Benson commission stressed that that was the important and practical consideration that moved it to make the recommendation. It was based on the assumption—indeed, recommendation of the Benson commission—that solicitors should retain their conveyancing monopoly. That recommendation will probably be overridden by Parliament. I welcome that, providing that we do not seek a change from a solicitors' monopoly to a monopoly of banks and building societies.
      It is in the public interest that such monopolies should be broken. Indeed, at the centenary lunch of parliamentary Lobby journalists in January, the Prime Minister said that she would
      "like the Governments which she led to be seen as Governments which tackled the vested interests which have been immune for years".
      940
      Naturally, she mentioned the trade unions, local government and
      "the monopolies in the professions".
      By trying to cling on to a particular area for which there is a special case, the Bar is behaving unwisely. The assumptions on which that Benson recommendation was made have largely been undermined. The Government are correctly prepared to override one recommendation. However, the Solicitor-General should not forget that in the House he is primarily not a barrister but a Member of Parliament, and as such his interest should be to protect not the Bar but the public interest. I believe that this measure is in the public interest.
      I am not scratching round as a solicitor so that 100 cases a year can be distributed to solicitors throughout the country while the Bar loses a little work. I am not saying that there should be a fusion of the professions. I do not believe in that. There is a strong case for proper differentiation in certain areas. But the Bar has even resisted the changes in the Bill which move falteringly towards family courts. I want to see family courts established, with freedom from the adversarial style that has unfortunately left such an impression on our divorce law, and emancipation from the attitudes in criminal courts that has been mentioned. The switch in work that is embodied in the Bill should go further. That will bring us a little nearer to the time when we can have what we all want—genuine family courts that are wholly free of the present miserable adversarial system in our divorce courts.
      Mr. Lawrence: Anybody who thought of coming to me with a divorce case would be advised to seek somebody better qualified to represent him or her in the courts. Therefore, I have no personal interest because the volume of my work will not be affected by the outcome of this matter, although as a practising barrister I have an interest in the integrity of the legal profession. It saddens me to notice that in a year when all has not been going well in the solicitors' profession, and in particular, although riot exclusively, it has been threatened with the deprivation of its right of conveyancing, it appears to have forgotten that we are all lawyers in the House, hated or loved as we may be, and have been for generations and centuries so, since Jack Cade's rebellion. The motto "United we stand, divided we fall", has been forgotten by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) and his supporters, who seek to turn their guns on the Bar.
      The position is bogus. Fusion is an issue of great importance and is worth discussing in the House. It is worth going into in great depth to see whether the recommendations and conclusions of the Royal Commission are the proper ones. Against that, I would have not the slightest complaint. The issue of fusion must inevitably arise out of a measure such as that suggested in the new clause. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) called it a narrow issue, and in that he seemed to have the support of the hon. Member for Torfaen. However, it is not a narrow issue to take away one of the central planks of the legal profession as it operates. The thin end of the wedge would soon be widened into a larger one. That issue and the debate are important, and I am not averse to discussing them. However, that they should be introduced into the law by a side wind through a Bill such as this is thoroughly objectionable and wrong.
      I have no objection to considering whether members of the Bar should take their instructions directly from the

      941
      public, whether they should be allowed to set up in shops in the high street in competition, whether they should have the right of election to the Law Society or whether they should be able to undertake conveyancing. It would be a good idea if at some later stage we discussed all these matters. But it is superficial to raise the issue of fusion in this way, particularly as, when one comes to examine it, there seems to be no basis for raising it.
      Labour Members have waxed long and eloquent about the relationship between the individual petitioner or an individual caught up in the miserable activities of divorce cases and the solicitor, and have talked about how close the relationship between the solicitor and the client is, and therefore how important it is that the matter be seen through to a conclusion by the solicitor who has that relationship. With that, we can all agree, but there is nothing in the existing situation and the existing state of the law that prevents that from happening. From the earliest stage to the latest, the solicitor who is in there first and who is the close friend, associate, adviser or confidant of the distressed person in the divorce case is there. That facility is not taken away.
      Also, there is already the objectivity to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) properly pointed. That objectivity is vital in all matters of important law, and particularly when the legalities are involved—not the facts—and the application of the law to the particular facts of the particular case.
      5.15 pm
      What do solicitors lack? They can be there at the beginning and right through to the end. They can appear in a magistrates court where they have the right of audience in all family matters from beginning to end. They can appear in the High Court in chambers before a tribunal that considers nearly all the issues that today arise in court divorce proceedings—financial matters and custody.
      It is a most interesting aspect of this new clause and its proponents that if there were so much pressure on the profession and the need were so great for solicitors to have the right of audience in the High Court, why on earth do so few of them take advantage of the right that they now have to appear in chambers, where the procedure is less adversarial and much more conciliatory? The fact that solicitors do not take advantage of the rights that they now have seems to show that there is no pressure for this change in the law that they are now demanding.
      Whether solicitors do not take advantage of those rights because it would be too costly to do so, and they can make more money elsewhere, I do not know. They may not consider that they are capable of raising the specific matters on divorce law that they could raise merely because their solicitor's practice is wide and diverse and there is a limit to the amount of time that solicitors can spend in being expert in a particular part of law. Whatever the reason, the opportunity now exists for them to appear in most of the cases heard in the High Court, and they do not choose to do so.
      The mainstay of the case advanced by the hon. Member for Ipswich seemed to disappear when the one remaining part of the divorce law procedures that is not open to the solicitor was surrendered by him. Sensibly and realistically, he conceded that, for the purpose of the appeals to the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, one
      942
      wanted an expert lawyer and he was not seeking to put solicitors in that position. The same point applies with equal validity to the other feature where the law is important, and that is appeals from the magistrates court to the divisional court, where again solicitors are not able to represent their clients directly, where a point of law is always involved, and a point of law essentially.
      Therefore, once the hon. Member for Ipswich concedes, as he did, that in questions of law the solicitor has less justification for representing clients than a trained, experienced and expert barrister, the whole basis of his case disappears, because in other material aspects of the divorce law the solicitor has access and the right to represent his client.
      Therefore, if there is no real pressure for this change, and if there is no call in the public interest for it—as the Royal Commission seemed clearly to show, after it had treated this as a very important matter that was necessary to be decided in the public interest—and if the only reason for this is that the solicitors' profession is going through an edgy, unhappy time and is looking around for ways in which it can divert some of the attention from itself to other practitioners, apart from saying that I think that that is a sad situation, I can only say that it shows that there is no justification for this new clause and that it should be rejected.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. W. Benyon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the new clause has been proved to be defective and is admitted to be so by the mover, is there any reason why we should continue with these proceedings?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The new clause has been selected by Mr. Speaker. Therefore, it is in order for debate, and the House is entitled to debate it.
      Mr. Bermingham: I did not intend to take part in the debate, as I regard the entire argument as asinine. I put it as simply as that. I put it to Conservative Members and to the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that the contributions opposing the new clause have in no way served the bench, the Bar or the solicitors' profession. At the end of the day it should be remembered that there is a client, whose interests should be paramount.
      I have my own views about fusion, but this is not the occasion on which to air them, although I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that the subject needs to be discussed at some stage. However, if the primary debating Chamber in the land is to discuss whether High Court cases should be dealt with by solicitors or barristers, those who take part should at least know something about the way in which the other side works.
      Specialisation is in no way peculiar to the Bar. Many of the major firms of solicitors have highly specialised divisions dealing with particular areas of business. In my former practice, for example, the people in the matrimonial, criminal or conveyancing departments did not cross those boundaries or become involved in any other type of work. That kind of specialisation is necessary in a modern legal practice, whether it be at the Bar or in a solicitors' practice. The argument that one part of the legal profession is more specialised or does not have enough work in a particular sphere is an insult to the entire profession and falls ill from the lips of those who make it.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the other side of the coin, which is that there are still many firms of solicitors in which the partners are not competent to conduct matrimonial proceedings in the High Court and do not have the experience to deal with difficult matters of that kind, and that problems arise because they sometimes attempt so to do? Does he agree with the Benson commission that the nearest one can come to guaranteeing competent representation for the lay client is to retain the present system, subject to the changes made by the Bill?
      Mr. Bermingham: I note with interest the multitudinous questions raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I should be the first to admit that there are solicitors who lack the competence necessary to deal with certain problems and areas of the law. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman will acknowledge in return that there are also barristers who are not competent to deal with particular matters. Both sides of the profession are becoming increasingly specialised. That is important and right, because that is the way to provide a proper service for the client.
      I should make it clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am well aware of the effect of Rondel v. Worsley, which deals only with advocacy, and that solicitors are equally protected in their advocacy, but there is far more to the conduct of a case than mere advocacy. There is all the preparation, advice, and so on. Those are the areas in which I referred to the client having a remedy, whether it be against the solicitor or against the barrister.
      I shall not detain the House long, as the new clause does nothing for the Bill which we are here to improve. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) that I do not intend to support the new clause, because I do not believe that this is the time or the place for the argument involved. Nevertheless, if the argument is to continue, let the two sides of the profession stop sniping at each other, as that serves no one in the profession well and certainly does not serve the interests of the client.
      Mr. Richard Alexander: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and to concur with much of what he said, but I intend to support the new clause.
      It is sad that we have almost reached the end of the discussion of the new clause without any Conservative Member speaking in support of it. There has been a good deal of rather unseemly wrangling between the Bar and the solicitors, and we have heard a good deal about professional privileges, but I regret that it has been left to the Opposition to emphasise the interests of the client.
      I declare a general interest as a solicitor, although I do not practise in matrimonial cases. I was delighted to hear the paeons of praise for the efficiency of solicitors from the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), and I welcome his belated conversion. I believe that his main point remains valid. The solicitor has the general conduct of the vast part of the case involving the client. One of my hon. Friends referred earlier to clients coming in off the street, as though they were scroungers or scavengers. They are clients, from whom one takes instructions. One has discussions with them in one's room. They are not something off the street, to be regarded as beneath contempt. They are the people for whose interests we act
      944
      in a detailed and, I trust, caring manner. There is nothing disgraceful in that. To refer to solicitors taking people off the street is to demean the argument.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, on the recommendation of the Law Society, to which he belongs, solicitors have put signs in their windows—I commend them for it — advertising that they are solicitors and inviting people passing by to walk in off the street and seek advice for their legal problems? Does he accept, therefore, that it is quite wrong for him to suggest that I intended to demean the client by using that phrase?
      Mr. Alexander: The hon. and learned Gentleman does me an injustice. My remarks related to a Conservative Member.
      My main concern is to give the other side of the case from the Conservative Benches. So far, I have been the only Conservative Member to do so.
      Mr. Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Alexander: No, I must get on.
      If the new clause is not accepted, we shall allow a restrictive practice to continue in an area of great importance to the client. The House may wish to continue the restrictive practice, but it should be aware of exactly what it is doing. Excluding the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, when barristers are used in the High Court it is not usually for earth-shattering matters requiring specialists. There is scarcely anything at High Court level to which a competent solicitor cannot attend on behalf of his client. Even if that were not the case—I believe that the hon. Member for Ipswich made this point—it is not the specialist barrister who is called in to deal with the case, but the average junior member of the Bar. He is given the brief by the clerk of the chamber, who must find someone to take on the case.
      There may be cases when a specialist is needed. Obviously, those cases are more likely to arise in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords. If the new clause is accepted, there will be an opportunity for solicitors to deal with this matter if their clients wish. If we do not pass the new clause, we shall perpetuate a restrictive practice.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Sumberg: I shall be extremely brief, because I sense from the mood of the House that there is a desire to proceed to more fundamental matters. I speak to the new clause because, like several of my hon. Friends, I am a practising solicitor and have been for almost 20 years and because I served on the Standing Committee which discussed the new clause. I departed from the actions of most of my professional colleagues during the debate in Committee when voting and speaking against this new clause, and I see no reason this afternoon to depart from that course. I have considered this matter in great detail, and nothing I have heard this afternoon and nothing I have read since the debate in Committee has persuaded me to change my mind.
      My reasons for being against the new clause are twofold. My first reason is one of principle and my second' is of a more practical nature. With respect to the reason of principle, I believe that the organisation of the English legal profession works for the advantage not only of the profession but, more importantly, of the client. The organisation of the profession is based fairly and squarely

      945
      on the fact that each branch—the Bar and solicitors—has a separate, defined and distinct function to perform. It is necessary for that process to continue so that both branches can grow and flourish.
      The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) said that the new clause is limited in scope, and I accept that. It affects only a small number of cases. If the new clause is passed, whether its supporters like it or not, it will open the door to future arguments and pressure for a general extension of the solicitors' right of audience and, hence, a diminution in the effectiveness of the Bar and of my profession.
      The principal argument in favour of the new clause—the one that has been repeated ad nauseam—is that it would allow the client to have the benefit of one advocate to conduct the case from start to finish. That argument can be applied to every legal action that comes before the courts. That is what I fear will happen if the new clause is passed.
      My second reason for being against the new clause involves practicality. I believe that solicitors face a serious threat to the independence of their profession. That threat is dangerous for all of us. We need every friend that we can get, but we have not helped our cause this afternoon. The Bar is our natural ally. I believe that the debate has advanced the day when we may face further threats.
      I realise that, because of this speech, I shall not gain favour with my professional colleagues. I realise, too, that I have written off my chances of ever becoming president of the Law Society. I do not believe that the mass of solicitors want this change. On their behalf, as well as mine, I ask the House to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Jessel: I support the new clause. I am not a lawyer. I believe that the cult of professionalism has gone too far and is worsening. Far too many professional people in Britain are interested more in impressing other members of their profession than their clients or the general public. One finds barristers who want mainly to impress other barristers; solicitors who want mainly to impress other solicitors; doctors who want mainly to impress other doctors; farmers who want mainly to impress other farmers; engineers who want mainly to impress other engineers; accountants who want mainly to impress other accountants; soldiers who want mainly to impress other soldiers; and architects who want mainly to impress other architects are about the worst. We all know that that is true. Some people do not question that aspect, but it should be questioned. The tendency is worsened by closed shops, professional rings and restrictive practices of all sorts.
      On the whole, barristers are not bad people. Some of my best friends are barristers. I believe that if one speaks to hon. and learned Members one by one, and not in public, they will acknowledge that in some ways they are part of an inward-looking profession. The new clause will tend to make barristers a little less barrister-oriented and a little more client and consumer-oriented. That is entirely healthy. I have great pleasure in supporting the new clause.
      The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): Some politicians seek to influence others; some politicians at least amuse others.
      This new clause, which was described not in the words of the Lord Chancellor as his little ewe lamb but in the
      946
      words of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse), as a little new clause, is much more than a little new clause because it will provide a right of audience, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower), not only in the High Court but in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords.
      At present, solicitors have a right of audience in all county court proceedings, but no right of audience in any superior court, save in the High Court when the court is sitting in chambers. I take very much on board the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who pointed out the many occasions on which that right is not taken up. I suspect that there are two reasons why it is not taken up. First, the solicitors simply do not have the time to hang around waiting for their cases to be called. Secondly, they do not have the experience or the expertise in which the Bar has always tried to specialise. Expertise is an important aspect of this matter. There are some very difficult divorce cases, especially when considering custody and wardship, in which the expertise of some of those who practise in the family division is much sought after, because they may produce the result wanted not only by the client but by the solicitor instructing the barrister.
      I have a sister who is a judge in the family division, and I often discuss with her the problems that she has. They are major problems that require a great deal of expertise and knowledge to find, in the end, the fair and true result for the client. The public interest is, therefore, being respected.
      The rights of audience of solicitors and barristers were considered by the Royal Commission on Legal Services. A majority of the Royal Commission recommended that there should be no further general extension of solicitors' rights of audience. That recommendation was accepted by the Government in their response to the Royal Commission's report. I remind the House that that matter was raised as recently as 3 May in a question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who, in referring to the Royal Commission's recommendation, said that the Government had accepted that advice in 1983 and it was too early to reconsider it.
      It is curious that there has been no debate on this matter during proceedings on the Bill in the other place. The matter was not even raised until a late stage during the debate in Committee. It may be that the timing is of some interest. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General pointed out in Committee that there had been no consultation on the subject and that, even if the time were ripe for reconsideration, which it was not, an essential first step before any conclusion could be reached would be to carry out consultation not only within the legal profession but among the public generally.
      The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) spoke about this being a back-door approach. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) said that he was in favour of fusion. It seems clear that the Bill is not a suitable vehicle for such a provision. This may well be the first shot in what we know to be the Law Society's campaign to secure full rights of audience for solicitors in the proceedings. I am not suggesting for a moment that any hon. Member who has spoken in favour of the new clause is party to that.
      Curiously enough, the Government have not received any formal request from the Law Society to reconsider the restrictions, although, for what it is worth, it is fair to say

      947
      that a copy of the press notice announcing the campaign was sent to the Lord Chancellor. In its evidence to the Royal Commission the Law Society did not seek extended rights of audience in the High Court, although it did for the Crown court, and the minority of the commission who favoured those extended rights of audience did so only for the Crown court.
      There was lengthy discussion in Committee on whether the provision even fell within the scope of the Bill. It would seem to us to be wrong to attempt to deal piecemeal with rights of audience in the superior courts in a Bill of this nature. It is perfectly true that this involves the public interest. Because of that it cannot be slipped in through the back door. If the decision of the Royal Commission needs reconsideration, that must clearly involve the widest possible public consultation. So far there has been none.
      For those reasons, I recommend the House to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Weetch: I shall make no reply to the debate, but I shall seek to divide the House.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 189.

      Division No. 363]

      [5.42 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Leighton, Ronald

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Loyden, Edward

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Madden, Max

      Blair, Anthony

      Malins, Humfrey

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Maxton, John

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Cohen, Harry

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Park, George

      Cowans, Harry

      Pavitt, Laurie

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

      Pawsey, James

      Dixon, Donald

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Douglas, Dick

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Eastham, Ken

      Sheerman, Barry

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

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Forrester, John

      Strang, Gavin

      Foulkes, George

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Tinn, James

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Wainwright, R.

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Home Robertson, John

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jessel, Toby

      Mr. Ken Weetch and Mr. Richard Alxander

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Kirkwood, Archy

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Amess, David

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Ashby, David

      Bright, Graham

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Brinton, Tim

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Baldry, Anthony

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Batiste, Spencer

      Burt, Alistair

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Benyon, William

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Best, Keith

      Cash, William

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Chope, Christopher

      Bottomley, Peter

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

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      948

      Cockeram, Eric

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Conway, Derek

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Coombs, Simon

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Cope, John

      Maclean, David John

      Couchman, James

      Madel, David

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Major, John

      Critchley, Julian

      Mather, Carol

      Dicks, Terry

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Dover, Den

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Dunn, Robert

      Murphy, Christopher

      Durant, Tony

      Nelson, Anthony

      Dykes, Hugh

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Evennett, David

      Onslow, Cranley

      Fallon, Michael

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Farr, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Page, John (Harrow W)

      Forman, Nigel

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Parris, Matthew

      Franks, Cecil

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Pawsey, James

      Freeman, Roger

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Freud, Clement

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Fry, Peter

      Powley, John

      Gale, Roger

      Raffan, Keith

      Galley, Roy

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Good lad, Alastair

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Gorst, John

      Rowe, Andrew

      Gow, Ian

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Greenway, Harry

      Sayeed, Jonathan

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

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Ground, Patrick

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Sims, Roger

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Harris, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Spencer, Derek

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Squire, Robin

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hayward, Robert

      Steen, Anthony

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Stern, Michael

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Hill, James

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Sumberg, David

      Holt, Richard

      Tapsell, Peter

      Hooson, Tom

      Taylor, Rt Hon John David

      Hordern, Peter

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Howard, Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

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

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

      Tracey, Richard

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Viggers, Peter

      Hunter, Andrew

      Waddington, David

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Walden, George

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Waller, Gary

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Watson, John

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Watts, John

      Key, Robert

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Whitfield, John

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Knowles, Michael

      Wolfson, Mark

      Latham, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lester, Jim

      Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Donald Thompson.

      Lilley, Peter

      Luce, Richard

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 3

      ABOLITION OF TIME RESTRICTION IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS
      'Section 3 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (in this Part referred to as "the 1973 Act") (which provides that no petition for divorce shall be presented within three years of marriage unless the leave of the court has been obtained) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Best.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Best: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 1 in page 2, line 8, leave out clause 1.
      No. 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 15, leave out 'one year' and insert 'two years'.
      No. 3, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'one year' and insert 'three years'.
      Government amendments Nos. 27, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 46, 47, 57, 48, 58, 59, 49, 50, 51, 53 and 55.
      Mr. Best: I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not mind my pointing out that there is a free vote on new clause 3—one of those rare and delicious moments when there is a sense of freedom on the Government side of the House. One can vote according to one's conscience, completely untrammelled, and in the interests of justice.
      I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends the Government Whips, whom I hold in the highest regard and affection, will not in any way seek to congregate by one of the Lobbies when I seek to divide the House later this afternoon and try to cast doubt on the validity of my statement that this is a free vote.
      I am very grateful to the Department of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, which has given me assistance in drafting the new clause. If it were passed in conjunction with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse), to which I put my name, it would effectively do away with clause 1, and the new clause would fit neatly into the Bill. It would all make sense and the Bill would go forward as a sensible piece of legislation.
      The new clause will enable anyone to present a petition for divorce at any time after the celebration of the marriage. I need not dwell on the existing law, as I am sure it is well known to hon. Members. In effect, there is a discretionary bar on the presentation of a petition for divorce in so far as a person is not entitled to present it within three years from the date of marriage, unless he or she can show "exceptional hardship or depravity." That is an infelicitous phrase, if I may say so with respect to the learned draftsman who coined it, and it has proved difficult of judicial interpretation.
      It is a welcome move that the Bill seeks to do away with the difficult ground of "exceptional hardship or depravity." The Bill proposes to do away with the discretionary bar, which has been in existence since 1937, and to impose instead an absolute bar for one year. In other words, it will be impossible in law to present a petition for divorce within one year of the celebration of the marriage.
      I shall adumbrate some examples of hardship that may well occur as a result of that proposal if the Bill is
      950
      unamended. I have no doubt that right hon. and hon. Members have other examples to cite if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I appreciate the fears of those who believe that to do away with a bar, even a discretionary bar, and to import what I would describe as the draconian imposition of an absolute bar — a novel feature in our divorce law — would be a signal to the public that the House is cheapening the institution of marriage. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that view.
      I speak as one outside the pale of marriage. I shall be put right, no doubt, by those hon. Members who have the happy institution of marriage behind them, if I have got it wrong. I believe people do not think of divorce as soon as they celebrate the marriage ceremony. Perhaps it would be ridiculous to pretend that they do so.
      I believe that very few people know of the law of divorce, unless and until they suffer the misfortune of marital breakdown. I suspect that lawyers—I shall not resume the debate that we have just had within the profession—collectively entertain the happy thought that the public know far more about the law than they really do. I believe that there is general ignorance of the law of divorce until people have little choice but to interest themselves in its provisions.
      The evidence from Scotland, where there is no time bar on the presentation of a petition for divorce, does not support the view that marriage is thereby cheapened and leads to more divorce. Indeed, the Law Commission's report No. 116 on family law, time restrictions on presentation of divorce and nullity petitions, is set out so succinctly that I hope the House will forgive me if I merely quote from it. It states:
      "in England and Wales the number of divorces in the first three years of marriage is low compared with that for subsequent years of marriage and that (as is to be expected given the existence of the three year restriction on divorce) the proportion is lower than that in Scotland for the same period. In England and Wales the figures, however, increase rapidly in the fourth and subsequent years; and by the seventh year the proportion of marriages ending in divorce in the two countries has become almost equal. This statistical comparison may well be thought to weaken the force of the argument that the three year restriction has a positive role in buttressing the institution of marriage."
      6 pm
      That applies equally to the concept of one year. The quotation continues:
      "If it be accepted that the main effect of the present restriction is to delay rather than prevent divorce, it would follow that the restriction only preserves, for an arbitrary period of time, the legal bond between some couples whose marriage has in fact irretrievably broken down. The restriction cannot compel them to live together, but it can and does prevent them from creating a new legally recognised relationship. This (it may be said) is tantamount to imposing a penalty for having made a mistaken choice of partner: and the penalty may in some cases be severe — for example, a wife deserted soon after marriage might wish to re-marry and have children; a wait of three years"—
      again, that applies equally to the concept of one year—
      "could make child-bearing difficult or dangerous for the mother and imperil the health of her child. Such cases undoubtedly involve hardship, but possibly not such as would qualify as 'exceptional' for the purposes of an application for leave to present a petition within three years from the date of the marriage."
      Mr. Favell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. My intervention will save me making a speech later. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
      I have studied the figures for divorces in Scotland and England for three years and subsequent years. It is

      951
      interesting that the figures are now the same after the fifth year. By the end of the fifth year, the proportion of divorces in England is now greater than in Scotland, although in the first three years it is extremely difficult to get divorced. The most important point is that if parents are compelled to live together for three years, or have to remain married, children could be born who will ultimately suffer. Children suffer from divorce more than anybody. To encourage people to stay married who, subsequently, will be divorced, and who might have children who otherwise would not be born, is a grave mistake.
      Mr. Best: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The approbation that greeted his comment that he would not make a speech will have been exceeded only by the approbation as a result of what he has just said. He has helped me a great deal.
      The present law is not an absolute, but a discretionary bar. A person can present a petition for divorce within three years as long as he can show exceptional depravity or hardship. Those of us who practise in the matrimonial courts will know that that has become a fiction in many respects. The case of Fay v. Fay in the House of Lords requires a recitation of the allegations that are made, which only increases the bitterness in divorce. Before that case, it was easy for someone to go before a particular judge, who might have thought that the provision of exceptional depravity and hardship did not add a great deal to the law, and be granted an application to present a petition for divorce within three years, more or less on the nod. I say, without identifying the judiciary before which it happened, that I found that within my own experience. I have no doubt that many of my hon. Friends who are lawyers have discovered the same thing. There was great disparity between judicial interpretations of exceptional depravity and hardship.
      It is interesting that a petition for divorce could be delivered before the expiry of three years if people made an application under those provisions. That contention is supported by the figures. The Law Commission, in its report No. 513 of the 1982–83 Session of the House of Commons, found that a high proportion of applications for the presentation of a petition for divorce within three years of marriage were successful. In fact, it was found that the failure rate was only 5 per cent. In other words, under the present law, 95 per cent. of those in England and Wales who wish to present a petition for divorce within three years and hang it on the basis of exceptional hardship or depravity can now do so within three years. Therefore, effectively, there is no bar at present. I hope that that is an endorsement of what I am seeking to do in the new clause—to ensure that what is now largely the practice is enshrined in legislation.
      Mr. John Page: My intervention may save the House a speech from me, too.
      Has not my hon. Friend put an Exocet on his own case? The fact that 95 per cent. of cases succeed means that there were exceptional reasons for that. Therefore, it is sensible to leave things as they are, let the exceptional cases be obviously shown and let the other people go on to try and make the best they can of the dicey business of trying to stay married for three years.
      Mr. Best: I am afraid that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend, much though I am loth to disagree with him. I am
      952
      forced to say to him that the Bill proposes an absolute bar for one year. The exceptional cases will have no relief and no chance. Those people will have to live in misery for 12 months, technically married, although they may not live together, before they can present a petition for divorce.
      Mr. Anthony Nelson: Surely the point is that things will not remain the same. The point of the clause is that a new restriction will be introduced by the Bill which will cause great hardship, unless my hon. Friend's new clause is carried.
      Mr. Best: Again, with unerring accuracy, as we have come to expect, my hon. Friend has put his finger on the point. It is a new restriction since 1937; it is a novel concept in the law of divorce that there should be an absolute bar on the presentation of a petition for divorce. That is one of the reasons why it is entirely wrong for the clause to be in the Bill.
      I said that considerable cases of hardship might occur. By "considerable" I mean considerable in extent rather than numerically. Only a few people who might be affected by an absolute bar would want to present a petition for divorce, although the statistics do not show that to be so at present. The numbers of those who want to remarry within one year of a divorce or the presentation of a divorce petition, or who want to form another relationship, which is sexual and might lead to marriage, might be small, but are we in the House to say that just a few do not matter? Are we to say that willingly and knowledgeably we are visiting hardship and distress on those people simply because, numerically, they are few? I hope that that is not the intention of the House.
      Those people might form another association within that year, when the marriage has irretrievably broken down and there is no hope of saving it. There might be a sexual relationship, but the Legislation that the House will pass will show that we care little about adultery. That is precisely what will happen. There will be adultery — condoned condoned adultery if you like—because those people will not have the chance to present a petition for divorce within three years.
      By preventing people from presenting a petition for divorce within three years, those people who find themselves in difficulty in marriage, who go to a solicitor, who then perhaps initiate proceedings for divorce and who now get the benefit of court welfare officers and all the support that the divorce court can give, will be denied that assistance for that period of 12 months.
      The fundamental objection to what is proposed in the Bill is that any bar is illogical. The sole ground for divorce under our divorce law is the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. That can happen at any time after the celebration of marriage. Why put a bar of 12 months on it?
      When we say that irretrievable breakdown is the sole ground for divorce, why do we say that it cannot happen before the expiry of 12 months? Why not 18 months, two months, two years or any other period? Not only is there no logical reason for saying that it should be 12 months, but there is no logical reason for saying that there should be a bar at all when one considers that a marriage can irretrievably break down at any time subsequent to the celebration of the marriage.
      The reason for there being a 12 months restriction in the Bill is clear. It is "a purely social compromise". The only real reason for a one-year bar
      "is historical and the result to which the history gives rise."

      953
      Those are not my words but the words of Sir John Arnold, President of the Family Division of the High Court. He began his submission to the Special Standing Committee, on which I had the privilege of serving, by saying:
      "The purpose of Section 3 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 was no doubt to help to preserve marriages which encountered early difficulties. The justification, if there be one, for the alteration sought to be introduced by Clause 1 of the Bill is that the provisions of Section 3 have not been successful in achieving that objective. While it undoubtedly is true that the persons affected by the provisions of Clause 3 are most often young and that the marriage has not yet, in many cases, become established at the point of which the relevant stresses occur, these factors by themselves do not establish that any greater maturity in the spouses or in the marriage should be likely to lead to its prolongation. This is not only because there is no inherent reason to suppose that any particular marriage would, if prolonged, be likely to succeed but also because the embargo contained in Section 3 is an isolated embargo against divorce and not one which in any sense controls the alternatives available to those who are disenchanted with their marriage; these include a legal claim for judicial separation which is not subject to any time bar, an informal separation either within the home or by leaving it and the establishment of a new, though unhallowed, relationship. All these courses are wholly destructive of marriage but do not provide any socially acceptable alternative. The escape provided within Section 3 is not widely embraced. There were 1,906 such applications in 1982. This figure may be compared with 147,763 decrees nisi granted in that year".—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee; 22 March 1984, c. 75.]
      It is, therefore, apparent that not many people are waiting for the expiry of the three-year period before wanting to present a petition for divorce.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Humfrey Malins: Given that the first few months of marriage are often the hardest, when couples are finding it difficult to settle down together—I am not speaking of myself and my wife—does my hon. Friend not fear that if there were no bar to divorce couples unhappy in their first few months might quickly try to get divorced, whereas a bar of, say, a year—remembering that we in this House, the churches and many others want to buttress the institution of marriage — might result in those marriages staying together, thereby slightly strengthening the institution of marriage?
      Mr. Best: The statistical evidence is against my hon. Friend. The comments that I have made arising from that statistical evidence, and the experience in Scotland, are also against him. In any event, it should not be the function of this House—nor is this House capable of doing so—to force people to remain married when the marriage has irretrievably broken down. It can only cause misery if we force people into that situation.
      My hon. Friendthe Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) must appreciate that temporary difficulties in marriage—within, say, the first few months—do not amount to irretrievable breakdown which gives rise to the presentation of a petition for divorce. Unless he thinks that the courts give no scrutiny to these matters and do not impose the law, his argument falls to the ground.
      We in this House want to see legislation which will strengthen and support the family, but that is not achieved by ill-conceived and logically insupportable legislation. At present, we see in Britain the tragedy of one third of all marriages failing. Why do they fail? Therein lies a
      954
      capacity for a great debate into which I shall not be tempted. However, a much respected body, the Study Commission on the Family, recently reported:
      "We do not know the incidence of marital breakdown in the past, but the evidence supports more than a hypothesis that the divorce figures simply reflect increase in marriage and easier financial support for divorce. The most plausible explanation of the divorce figures for the past two decades is that they reveal a decline from the post-war numbers, followed by a rapid and equally continuing rise which is related to social and cultural changes much more fundamental than amendments to the terms of a somewhat limited welfare scheme."
      Moreover, because the increase in divorce is a widespread phenomenon in Europe, and is not exclusive to this country, it cannot be levelled at our present divorce law. The figures for divorce, sad though they may be, have increased steadily in the last 25 years. Even if one wanted to blame the law for the increase—and I have no doubt that some hon. Members wish to do that, and it is true that there has been a sharp increase since 1971 — the problem, if there is a problem with the law, lies in the change from a fault to a no fault concept of divorce and has nothing to do with a restriction placed on the presentation of a petition for divorce. The two are completely separate issues.
      I shall not enter into that argument because it goes outside the ambit of this debate. But I ask those who are seeking to blame the law for the increase in the incidence of divorce to blame the substantive law in changing from a fault to a no fault concept, rather than seeking to blame it on the absence of a restriction on the presentation of a petition for divorce. I do not believe that the law has caused an increase in divorces, but that is a debate for another day.
      I am not alone in believing that there should be no time bar to presenting a divorce petition. The noble Lord Denning in another place moved an amendment to abolish any time restriction. I know that some hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, may not always agree with some of his views, but it is universally acknowledged that he is extremely experienced in divorce and has been largely responsible for our present divorce law.
      The noble Lord said that, as a matter of general principle, he wanted to see an amalgamation of the laws of Scotland and England. He thought that they should be uniform on this matter. He felt that if the two countries remain separate it would be easy enough for a couple to live in England and know that they must go to the divorce court in England and wait for three years, or whatever the period may be. He asked what would happen if a Scotsman married an English woman, or vice versa. To which jurisdiction should they go? It involved complicated research into the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 to determine that matter because a wife can and does have a separate domicile from her husband.
      The noble Lord also pointed out to the other place that the Law Commission had drawn attention to the good working of the Scottish system, where there is no time limit and where a few marriages only break down within the first two or three years. In the noble Lord's experience, those marriages broke down only in extreme cases where the husband or wife went off with another person and perhaps had another child. That may answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West.

      955
      I believe this to be an important new clause, and I hope that the House will forgive me if I have been somewhat lengthy, but I wanted to deploy all the arguments that I believed to be valid.
      No one can produce any evidence to show that a three-year bar, albeit discretionary, has saved one marriage, but we know of the considerable hardship that can occur from a one-year restriction. Should we in the House say that we must support legislation when we know that there will be hardship but cannot be sure that there is any benefit? A restriction —
      Mr. Jessel: How would anyone have heard if the three-year bar had saved a marriage?
      Mr. Best: If my hon. Friend is seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, no doubt he will have done his own research and will be able to give the figures, if he has been able to find any. If he has not been able to find any, my point holds good.
      "A restriction on the presentation of a petition for divorce can only shape an attitude of mind; it cannot save a marriage."
      I use those words in answer to my hon. Friend because they are not mine; they are the words of the Law Commission. The Law Commission's working paper argued for an outright abolition of any restriction and used the words:
      "The evidence does not suggest that there would in fact be any significant number of precipitate divorces."
      I use the Law Commission to answer my hon. Friend. I do not pretend to have sufficient evidence or knowledge and I am a lawyer.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: Is not my Friend making a non-point? There is no statistical evidence one way or the other.
      Mr. Best: With respect to my hon. Friend, no. We know that considerable hardship could occur if there were to be an absolute one-year restriction on the presentation of a divorce petition. I have given some examples. No doubt others will be given during the debate.
      Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My hon. Friend has spoken as a divorce law practitioner. Has a couple ever come to see him to whom he has said, "You have only been married a year. You have not yet been married for three years. There is no exceptional depravity", and the couple has said, "If we cannot have a divorce for three years, we will have a reconciliation"? I doubt whether my hon. Friend has ever had that experience.
      Mr. Best: I have not had that experience. My experience is that where people have discovered that their marriage has irretrievably broken down they dig up all the muck that they can to ensure that they can prove to a judge that there are grounds of exceptional depravity or hardship so that they can present a divorce petition within three years. That marriage will not be saved by having a one-year restriction or by them looking to the law to find that the law says that irretrievable breakdown cannot occur within 12 months. That is what the House will be saying if we pass the Bill unamended.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) who supports this new clause spoke in the Special Standing Committee — [Interruption.] I hope that that strengthens my case. I am sure that it does. My hon. and learned Friend is a most persuasive advocate. He came to the conclusion that people are ignorant of the three-year restriction on divorce,
      956
      so it cannot affect their attitude or that of the public to marriage. That is the sole reason for having any restriction. There cannot be a time bar that has the dichotomous effect that for one year it makes people wish to stay married, but all of a sudden thereafter makes them want to divorce. If we abolished the time bar, all that the new clause would do would be to signal that divorce is not a matter that should be undertaken unless circumstances justify it.
      If the Bill is passed, it will concentrate people's minds on divorce after 12 months by saying, "You can now think about divorce if you want to." It is not right that the House should do that. Divorce should be contemplated only where a marital breakdown has tragically occurred. Legislation should not point people towards divorce. That is what would happen if the Bill were passed without the new clause.
      There is a duty on the House to pass good law which can be defended in logic, is of benefit to people and does not create terrible hardship for a few. If the Bill goes through unamended, we will bear that responsibility, and that is why I urge all hon. Members to support my new clause.
      Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) were to be successful and his new clause were to become part of the Bill, it would be incompatible with clause 1 as it stands. For that reason, as I understand it, my hon. Friend has put his name, as have I and the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse), to amendment No 1 which seeks to delete clause 1. In that case, Mr. Speaker, will you say that you will allow a separate Division on amendment No. 1?
      Mr. Speaker: Yes; that is exactly what would happen.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Alex Carlile: In so far as there is evidence, it suggests that the average man or woman does not know how long he or she must wait before he or she can petition for divorce. The first time that the potential petitioner discovers when he can petition for divorce is when he walks into his solicitor's office and asks for advice. In almost every case, he walks in without the other spouse. If less than three years have passed since the date of his marriage, the solicitor tells him that he cannot petition for divorce until he has been married for three years, unless he can show exceptional depravity or exceptional hardship.
      The petitioner, aided perfectly conscientiously and honestly by that skilled solicitor, and in difficult cases by the advice of counsel, can easily construct a convincing case of exceptional hardship and depravity. As the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) said, that is why 95 per cent. of cases succeed. It is not because there is exceptional hardship or depravity in 95 per cent. of cases. Anyone who thinks that is totally naive, has no experience of the subject or the jurisdiction, and does not appreciate that the skills of lawyers aided by the exaggerations of their lay clients, and sometimes by the misogyny of some judges, can easily obtain leave for divorce within three years. It is wrong that the law should be in that state, and that the present bar should be a discretionary bar, through which the client and the legal profession can wangle their way so easily.

      957
      The hon. Member for Ynys Môn, who moved the new clause so ably and fully, will agree that the decision in Fay v. Fay makes little difference. Advisers must be more careful, put more paragraphs in their affidavits, be more lurid in their descriptions of alleged depravity, and more pathetic in their descriptions of alleged hardship. The present law does little credit to Parliament, the legal profession, the institution of marriage or the regrettably necessary institution of divorce.
      The problem presented by clause 1 highlights some of the major faults in the Bill. The Bill and the clause represent part of the piecemeal reform of matrimonial law. It is wrong that we are discussing a Bill containing provisions to alter the time bar, however that may be done, which does not also include meaningful provisions for conciliation.
      The remedy against divorce in the early stages of marriage is not to be found in general moral judgments. We must face the fact that any time bar imposed by Parliament involves a general moral judgment. The remedy against divorce in the early stages of marriage is in conciliation, bringing the parties together, discussing the issues which have arisen as differences between them and persuading them, where appropriate—in some cases it would be inappropriate — that they should give marriage another try.
      I do not believe that a time bar assists conciliation or that people will be discouraged by a time bar if they have fallen out so seriously within a few weeks or months of marriage that they are going to solicitors to seek to petition for a divorce. A time bar would simply make them wait a few more weeks or months.
      This subject was fully debated in Committee, and I commend to right hon. and hon. Members the views of Sir John Arnold, President of the Family Division of the High Court, which the hon. Member for Ynys Môn mentioned, and the views of Lord Scarman, who appeared to believe that a time bar provision was illogical.
      There was no time bar for divorce before A. P. Herbert's Bill in 1937. It was difficult to obtain a divorce because it was expensive and legal aid was not available. The time bar arose as a parliamentary compromise when that Bill was being discussed. For 45 years that parliamentary compromise continued, albeit in an amended form as the years passed, against fierce and cogent criticism.
      Mr. Stanbrook: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman considered that before 1937 it was difficult to obtain a divorce because of the restricted grounds for divorce? When the new measure was passed, the natural response of the majority was to say that at least under the new liberal conditions for easier divorce there should be a restriction within the first three years. Was that not reasonable?
      Mr. Carlile: I do not wish to return to the difficulties that obstructed divorce before 1937. It created much unhappiness and hardship in the community. We are specifically debating time bars. Clause 1 and the next new clause represent yet a further parliamentary compromise, without coming to grips with the logic and merits of the issue. For those reasons, I shall support this new clause.
      Sir Edward Gardner: Clause 1, which we are considering carefully because we must reach a decision
      958
      about it, reflects exactly the recommendations of the Law Commission. It removes from our divorce law what many people consider to be an obnoxious provision — the three-year bar except for cases of exceptional depravity or hardship.
      When we consider the problem, it is essential to make the clear distinction between an absolute bar and a discretionary bar. The present three-year bar exists to prevent a divorce petition from being presented for three years of marriage and it is a discretionary bar. The court hearing the facts of the case can make up its mind whether the bar will prevent the parties from presenting a petition. However, the court has only two grounds upon which to make up its mind—exceptional depravity or exceptional hardship.
      The House should realise as a matter of fact that since 1949, when the case of Bowden was decided, the courts have not administered the law strictly. They have been more and more inclined to grant petitions merely on the plea of exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity. What is more important—not everyone in the House may know this—the judges in the Family Division are disinclined to allow a divorce on the ground of exceptional depravity. If both grounds are pleaded, judges will almost always grant a divorce on the grounds of exceptional hardship.
      As has been said at least three times — I do not apologise for repeating it—it was only in 1937, when Sir Alan Herbert's Bill came before the House, that the three-year discretionary bar was introduced into our law. Clause 1 removes that three-year discretionary bar and substitutes a one-year absolute bar. Another important factor that should be considered before anyone decides how to vote tonight on whether we should keep the law as it is or whether we should have no bar, or a one or two-year bar, is that only the parties to a divorce who have had to rely on the grounds of exceptional hardship and exceptional depravity can understand the distress and humiliation that they bring to the parties. Anyone who must rely on those grounds plunges into a sea of acrimony that drowns, and must in almost all cases drown, any hope of future understanding between the parties and, more importantly, with their children. Those who make such allegations and counter-allegations have hardly any hope of coming to sensible and unemotional decisions about the future of their children or, indeed, about the financial arrangements that will ultimately govern their lives.
      I am sure that no one—I speak with confidence—in the House wishes to weaken the institution of marriage or undermine family life. However, I believe—if I did not hold this opinion firmly and steadily I would not say that we should have a one-year bar as set out in the Bill—that no law passed by Parliament will mend a broken marriage. No law that the House can pass will make a failed marriage succeed or keep together the two parties to a marriage if one or both of them have decided to separate. The edicts of the Church and the consciences of its communicants may achieve that, but the civil law never can.
      6.45 pm
      The difficult question is, what purpose does a time bar serve? It has been rightly said that the Scots do not have a time bar. They have never had one, and when it was suggested that they should they rejected the argument out

      959
      of hand. The Law Commission discovered that there was no convincing evidence that a time bar buttressed a marriage or generally helped the stability of marriage.
      My fear is that, if we remove the time bar completely, we shall risk misunderstanding in the country at large. We could give the impression, although it would be false, that Parliament did not have the respect for the institution of marriage that it clearly does.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): It could equally be argued that the country might believe that we have once again learnt from Scottish experience, as we have often been proud to do.
      Sir Edward Gardner: That view troubles many people, including me. It is difficult to answer my hon. Friend's point. There are many reasons why I support that view, but I take into account what was said in evidence to the Special Standing Committee by Sir John Arnold, the President of the Family Division. He believed that, if we removed the time bar altogether, the country might believe that we were denigrating the institution of marriage.
      Lord Scarman said something which hon. Members might wish to bear in mind when they go into the Division Lobby. In his evidence to the Special Standing Committee he said that the positive effect of a time bar might be slight,
      "but it acts in favour of impressing upon"
      the minds of young people the fact
      "that marriage is not an ordinary contract, but a very important institution."
      The House will agree with that, and it is because of those words that I turn my back on logic and certainly on my instinct that the Scots have something that we should follow. Perhaps my argument is as much psychological as logical. But I shall support the Bill as it stands.
      Mr. Abse: I believe that the only difference between the view presented by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) and that presented by the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) is that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn is urging upon us that we create a framework of law in which a man can get married on Monday, quarrel on Wednesday and file a petition on Friday, whereas the hon. and learned Member for Fylde, going along with the view of the Government, tells us that we should create a new framework of law which has the effect of a man or woman being able to marry without excessive difficulty every 12 months.
      The House has so far been presented with only two choices—either that there should be no bar at all, or that there should be a bar of 12 months. Those are not the alternatives before the House. That is why, for the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have put down an amendment, the effect of which would be to wrench clause 1 completely from the Bill. I shall explain to the House in due course what should be done.
      At a time when Britain is heading to the top of the divorce league in Europe, and when, if the present trend continues, one in three marriages will end in divorce, it is extraordinary that we are being asked by the Solicitor-General to ensure that in future anyone should, without procedural or substantive restriction, have the right to petition for divorce, not as now after three years, but after 12 months of marriage.
      Whatever justification may be advanced for this extraordinary proposition by the Solicitor-General, surely it defies all the canons of common sense and mocks at all
      960
      our talent for political divination when we are told that, despite making divorce so rapidly available, the electors will not believe that, by the clause we are being asked to pass, we are declaring marriage to be a transient state, capable of being repudiated almost at whim.
      We are being invited by the Government, fortunately in a free vote, to take this step without any legislative approval, to save legal aid money by connivance between the Treasury and the Lord Chancellor's Department, after the special procedure system has been introduced by order with such effect that almost all divorce decrees are granted without any kind of judicial supervision, judicial care or judicial hearing. We are asked to pass this clause, knowing that despite the fact that we are dealing with so young a marriage as to be measured only in months, and despite the fact that constant pleas have come for our divorce procedures to have in-built conciliation procedures, the Government are still brooding over the painfully inadequate recommendations of the Treasury-dominated interdepartmental committee on conciliation.
      Worse, we are being asked to grant this easing of divorce to a very young marriage at a time when, far from augmenting reconciliation and conciliation services, the Government in their Home Office paper of 1 May revealed that they are hell-bent on withdrawing probation officers from matrimonial work, refusing to accord it the priority it desperately needs.
      Many of us are opposed to the clause, as the debates showed in Committee. Although we are congruent in our conclusion that we do not want the clause, we present our anxieties with different emphases. Some find it morally offensive, some oppose it on pragmatic grounds, and some are outraged by its absurd illogicality, although let me say, in fairness to the Solicitor-General, that logic is the one attribute which he has never claimed for the clause to which he, like the Lord Chancellor, is so strangely attached.
      The first and oft-repeated justification for the proposed change is that the existing rule, which requires that anyone seeking a divorce within the first three years of marriage has to establish exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity, causes distress and ill-will. That is the first argument that we have heard justifying it. Since, in cases of exceptional hardship, ill-will in any event is almost inevitable since much of the distress can be avoided by waiting for three years before obtaining the right to remarriage, and since, in the meantime, a decree of judicial separation can be obtained without difficulty which in every respect, apart from the capacity to remarry—maintenance, property, custody and access to children—safeguards the petitioner, I do not find that argument overwhelming.
      I know that we live in an era of instant politics and that there is a mood around of "now, now". Perhaps those of us of my age who had to wait years—in my case six years because of the war—before we took the step at quite a late age to marry have a different sense of time. When copious tears are shed because people may have to wait before they have another marriage, and when we hear of the hardship that is caused, I think of the divorce rate of those who remarry. Common sense tells me—there seems to be a lack of it in discussing this matter—that there are good reasons, not bad reasons, for delaying remarriages. There is a syndrome known as the rebound,

      961
      and I see no reason why we should incite people to jump out of bed from one marriage and jump into bed with another.
      Mr. Best rose—
      Mr. Abse: The hon. Member has had his say.
      The Lord Chancellor may savagely tease the Church, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn did in effect when he said that in opposing this the Churches are encouraging people to live in sin. I find such language, which has been used elsewhere, anachronistic and, in the pill era, totally unrealistic. For my part, aware that 40 per cent. of second marriages end in divorce, I do not understand the enthusiasm of the Lord Chancellor to create a framework of law which will facilitate the exchange of marriage partners every 12 months.
      The second reason justifying the change is that there is an unacceptably wide divergence of judicial practice throughout the country in interpreting the requisite degree of hardship or depravity. That may be the subjective view of some, but the very figures which the hon. Member for Ynys Mon was quoting show that that is not happening. When he tells us that 95 per cent. of those making applications each year for a speedy divorce have their applications granted and that only 5 per cent. are rejected, surely it is a little droll to plead that we have to change the law because of a diversity of this kind.
      Mr. Best rose—
      Mr. Abse: Other hon. Members want to speak. The hon. Member has to face the fact that that 5 per cent. consists of only 31 cases. The slight delay—it is only a slight delay—which they suffer before being able to remarry, and the inconvenience of the judiciary in having some interpretative difficulty, seems little enough reason for a clause to be passed which brings with it—
      Mr. Best rose—
      Mr. Abse: No—the certain danger that the House will be believed by many outside to be condoning the easy in, easy out, view of marriage. If we make divorce easier to obtain after 12 months of marriage we will correctly be widely regarded as condoning a further erosion of the stability and dignity of marriage.
      Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that there is now a facility for granting applications for divorce within three years, on the ground of exceptional hardship or depravity. He knows as well as I do that, following the House of Lords' decision, if such a petition is presented to a court a whole lot of muck has to be raked up and put in affidavit form, which is not commensurate with amity in such tragic matters. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He accuses me—
      7 pm
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. Interventions must be as brief as possible.
      Mr. Best: What will the hon. Gentleman say to the lady who is reaching the time when she can no longer have children and who will not be able to have children if she has to wait three years to celebrate marriage?
      Mr. Abse: That is clearly a case of exceptional hardship. In such a case there would be no difficulty in
      962
      obtaining a divorce under existing law. I argue, not that we should keep indefinitely an unsatisfactory law, but that we must have the capacity to tolerate doubt. We must not try to resolve the problem without taking account of the consequences to far larger numbers of people than the few who suffer exceptional hardship.
      Mr. Lawrence: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Abse: I am anxious to continue. It is clear that many hon. Members wish to speak.
      The move is partly the result of the way in which the press and television present the issue. It is certainly not the inevitable public perception which causes me to resist the clause. The prime duty of the legislature when considering divorce, and the only overwhelming reason which the legislature has for intervening in an essentially personal matter, is to ensure that the legislation protects the weak and disadvantaged. Others attempt to justify intervention by the legislature in divorce. I understand the churchmen's claims that those views are weighty, but I believe that our duty to interfere in such personal relations when a marriage ends stems from the need to protect the weak and, above all, the children.
      The House should take account of the number of births conceived pre-maritally or in the first year of marriage and realise how dangerous it will be if, without any conciliation procedures, we increase the opportunities for divorce as soon as 12 months of marriage have elapsed.
      Of the 570,000 legitimate live births in England and Wales in 1980, more than 70,000 were in the first 11 completed months of marriage. Another 70,000 were to mothers whose current marriage had lasted for between nine and 20 months. Most of the children were conceived in the first year of marriage.
      As only 14 children each year are involved in marriages which are dissolved on the ground of exceptional hardship, the House must understand that it is putting at risk 140,000 babies each year whose parents, unlike at present, will find that without any legal plug or prohibition they can proceed to divorce.
      It may be argued that I cannot prove that couples will take the opportunity to divorce after 12 months if it is given. It is not for me to prove anything. The Law Commission rightly said:
      "The difficulty of predicting the effect on public attitudes of any changes in the law casts a heavy onus on those who seek to justify reform."
      We are not asking for the change. Those who are must satisfy us that the change will not put at greater risk young marriages in which couples have hardly settled down.
      I have been married for 30 years—to only one wife. I have quarrelled during the whole of the 30 years and have had reconciliations throughout the years. If I did not quarrel, I should not experience the sweetness of reconciliation. The tolerance threshold of young people is probably lower than ours. As I get older my threshold of tolerance becomes higher. I believe that I indulge my wife—as she indulges me—more than I did in the first 12 months of marriage.
      Those who want the clause have a duty, which they have not yet discharged, to satisfy us that the change will not put at extra risk marriages which would otherwise survive and within which 140,000 children a year are born or conceived. It is no use arguing that children can be born or conceived after three or four years of marriage and the parents then petition for divorce, or that a woman could

      963
      be carrying a child, perhaps unknown to her husband, in the fourth or fifth year of marriage. The statistics show that large numbers of children are born or conceived in the first 12 months of marriage. Many couples decide to marry when they find that the girl is pregnant. That might hasten the marriage. Some couples decide to marry in order to have a child. We should not be surprised that the statistics for the first 12 months of marriage are so high. We should realise the danger in the proposal.
      We shall invite trouble if after 12 months we give the opportunity to a young parent to dash, without legal constraint, to the divorce court after the inevitable quarrels in the early settling down months of marriage. The House must weigh the risks of more men becoming fathers only after they have ceased to be husbands against the claimed advantages of the clause.
      I shall vote against the clause, and I ask the House to wrench it from I he Bill, because I believe that it will delay the coming into effect of a divorce law emancipated entirely from the miserable doctrine of the matrimonial offence. Today we effect to have a divorce law founded on the doctrine of matrimonial breakdown. Hon. Members may ask how we can keep marriages together when they have broken down. We must face the fact that all that is required today is not real evidence of breakdown, but evidence that a partner has been unreasonable in his or her conduct, or committed adultery. Adultery may not be evidence that a marriage has broken down. Sometimes adultery is a plea for help rather than an affirmation of breakdown.
      Our divorce law is founded on the doctrine of matrimonial breakdown, but evidentially the breakdown is established by declaring matrimonial offence. As a result, miserably we emblazon abroad, to the detriment of the children and the partners, the fact that one partner is said to be vicious, cruel or unreasonable and the other perhaps adulterous. Fortunately, the law commissioners are currently seized of the matter and are examining the grounds of divorce and the issue of breakdown, and we all know the way in which they and, indeed, all who are concerned with the present position are moved.
      Lord Scarman, in his evidence to the Committee, knowing what we were moving towards, said:
      "From what I have seen of the moving social picture, I believe that a change in the grounds for divorce—if such a change comes — is likely to be the introduction of one year's separation as the ground for divorce. It is likely to be exclusively on that ground, so as to eliminate conduct from the consideration of the petition for divorce. If that happens, the new ground will have built into it the one-year bar."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 22 March 1984; c. 83.]
      If the clause is passed, what Lord Scarman and I look forward to, which is almost universally yearned for, is less likely to be brought about speedily, for we will have made divorce easier, and we will be seeking later, when eliminating conduct, to make it more restrictive.
      All my experience in divorce law shows that to relax rules and then seek to tighten them is a formidable political task. It is because of this that so many bodies are urging us not to make this change until the law commissioners have reported. That is the strongly expressed view of those who wish finally to free us from the anachronistic and severely damaging doctrine of the matrimonial offence which is so conductive to acrimony and hatred between the parties and their children.
      All around us there is a plea for postponement. This is asked for not only by the Law Society. It has been asked
      964
      for by the Conservative National Women's Council, the Association of Conservative Lawyers and by numerous bodies from all parts of the political spectrum. What is this desperate hurry while the law commissioners are sitting? We have suffered the inconveniences, which I do riot dispute, since 1937. Why are we now being urged at all costs to make this change? 'Why should we implement a bad clause, inherently illogical, when a little toleration of delay until the Law Commission has reported could result in a clause which would free us from a matrimonial offence, yet have sufficient weight for it not to be perceived, as the clause will be, as the establishment of quickie divorces devaluing the institution of marriage?
      To those hon. Members who say that the delay will be too long, I say that we should tolerate some delay. I say to those hon. Members who maintain that the law commissioners may take years, and that the change will not be implemented for years, that they should remember that part II of the Bill arose originally from an Adjournment debate, in which the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) and I spoke, and that it was followed by the setting up of an all-party committee. I had the privilege of being chairman of that committee and of making repeated representations to the Lord Chancellor, who was wholly opposed to part II of the Bill at the time, and, because of our persistence, here we are already in 1984 considering a comprehensive Bill dealing with the financial considerations.
      If we have the political will, of course we can expedite the Law Commission report. If the Lord Chancellor would pay more attention to the law commissioners, and if he would augment his staff, who are sadly depleted, I believe that there could be a speedy report on this matter, in the same way as we have had two reports on the financial matters.
      Therefore, I say to hon. Members, do not be tempted, do not be seduced into believing that we have to do something. There are difficulties, but they are not of such a kind that they need to bring about a change which will be seen outside the House, whatever sophisticated arguments are advanced, as indicating that we are careless of the institution of marriage, and indifferent to the consequences that divorce has upon the family.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Roger Sims: I agree with one or two of the last sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse), although I would not necessarily reach the position from the arguments that he used.
      The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said that the matter had been fully debated in Committee. That is correct. Hon. Members who have had an opportunity to read the debates in Committee will agree that that is so. Nevertheless, I am sure that it is right that such an important issue should be fully debated on the Floor of the House, should be voted upon by all hon. Members, and should be decided on a free vote.
      The present position, as has been clearly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) and other hon. Members, is that a petition for divorce cannot be presented within three years of marriage unless exceptional hardship or depravity can be proved. The Law Commission report effectively deployed the case against continuing the hardship and depravity conditions. One effect is that members of the legal profession, when handling a divorce case, are liable to look round for a

      965
      judge believed to have, shall we say, a flexible approach to the conditions—a practice which must surely be a bad thing, and must bring the law into disrepute. Another effect is that the parties and the solicitors compile the most horrific cases of hardship or the most unpleasant accounts of depravity that they possibly can.
      It is not difficult to understand how distasteful and unpleasant this procedure and the court hearings which accompany it must be, particularly the effect that it must have upon the relationship between the parties to the divorce. Many hon. Members would like to see more emphasis given to conciliation—to discussions between parties when a marriage is dead to get a sensible arrangement, financial and otherwise, when the divorce is completed.
      What hope can there be of such an arrangement if, before that stage is reached, both parties have been scratching around for the most unpleasant and distasteful accusations to throw at each other? For that reason, I strongly support the abolition of the conditions of depravity and hardship. Therefore, I am against amendment No. 1, which would retain the depravity and hardship conditions.
      If we abolish those conditions, and do nothing else, we shall be left with the minimum period of three years before a divorce petition can be presented. It will not be possible to initiate divorce proceedings, whatever the hardship involved. That would be the effect of amendment No. 1. The Bill proposes that for one year there should be a complete bar so that it would be impossible to bring any divorce proceedings within the first year.
      The effect of new clause 3 is that there would be no restriction whatever, and a divorce petition could be brought at any time after the marriage had taken place. My concern is what the effect of whatever change we finally decide upon will be. I cannot do better than quote from the report of the Law Commission in paragraph 213:
      "In social terms we are concerned about the attitudes people have towards marriage and divorce. We believe that it is in the interests of society that the institution of marriage be respected and that divorce be regarded as regrettable. It follows that there is an obvious danger that any move which would appear to make divorce easier to obtain would be seen as further eroding the stability and dignity of marriage."
      Sir Peter Mills: I agree with my hon. Friend. Is there not a danger, if the time is reduced to one year, that the impression will be given to the public that it is almost like having a season ticket for marriage?
      Mr. Sims: My hon. Friend has anticipated the comment that I was going to make. Indeed, I call in aid my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General who, in Committee, said:
      "The commission concludes that it is important not to send out a signal that might be misinterpreted as Parliament saying that marriage is of less importance." — [Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 20 March 1984; c. 13.]
      I fear that some of the proposals before us, including the one in the Bill, will send out exactly that signal.
      Mr. Robert Rhodes James rose—
      Mr. Sims: I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind if I do not give way, but I should like to develop my argument.
      966
      The family is the foundation of our society, and the basis of the family is marriage. There is, of course, a religious aspect to the issue. Many of us who are of the Christian faith believe that marriage should be for life—although, of course, most of the Christian churches accept that we are all imperfect and fallible and make mistakes.
      I confess that I should have liked a lead to have been taken in this important matter by Church leaders —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They are very quick to make comment — sometimes, I fear, somewhat ill-informed—on issues such as the British Nationality Act, the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, and the proposals regarding the GLC, but alas, on an issue such as this, on which they are knowledgeable and informed, they speak with divided and muted voices.
      However, let us look at the issue purely from a secular point of view. It must be in the interests of society to support marriage. It cannot be good for Parliament to appear to diminish the status of marriage. Sir John Arnold told the Committee:
      "I said that the bar was widely regarded as something of a deterrent to divorce, and that it was therefore to some extent a buttress to the institution of marriage. For that reason, I do not think that you would be justified in removing it altogether, because that would denigrate the institution."
      The Chairman turned to Lord Scarman and said:
      "Would you agree with that, Lord Scarman?"
      Lord Scarman replied:
      "Yes, I agree." — [Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 22 March 1984; c. 91.]
      I do not suggest that couples considering marriage will look at the divorce law and consider its effect. I do not suggest that they will say, "After all, we can get divorced in one or two years, so let's give it a whirl." However, I am concerned about what the perception of marriage and its importance will be. To use a term with which many politicians are familiar, I am concerned about the image of marriage. In Committee, there was some reference to any bar being purely symbolic — as though it was therefore unimportant. But symbols play a very important part in our religious and secular life. They are all-important. Indeed, there is one only a few yards from us, which we all consider to be very important. Even if a bar is purely symbolic, that is an important reason for keeping it.
      Mr. Alistair Burt: Does not my hon. Friend agree that divorce and its consequences are just symptoms of the real problem, which is that couples do not prepare thoroughly for marriage? If we reduce the bar, is there not a danger that couples will be dissuaded still further from considering what they are entering into? It just will not be worth the candle to prepare as deeply for marriage as they should do, as they need not go into it considering anything other than the fact that they can easily get out of it.
      Mr. Sims: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. That is all part of the general impression of marriage and the way in which people approach it. I am concerned as to what the general image of marriage would be if it became known that Parliament had approved the idea that people could enter quite lightly into marriage and that if it did not suit them, they could get out of it in a year, or—if my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn has his way—tomorrow.
      We can well imagine what the headlines could be in some newspapers tomorrow. They would not go into all

      967
      the finer legal points that have been debated today. They would immediately say, "The Quickie Divorce", "The Tomorrow Divorce", "Divorce within One Year", or whatever. We can well imagine the effect of the reports that would appear in the newspapers before long, about people entering into a second marriage within 18 months of their first. What would that do for the image of the institution of marriage?
      Mr. Sumberg: Why does my hon. Friend think that there would be a different headline in the newspapers tomorrow if his amendment for two years was passed? What is the great merit in the extra year?
      Mr. Sims: If my hon. Friend gives me a moment or two, I shall of course come to that point.
      It has been argued that if a marriage has broken down irretrievably, the sooner it is ended the better. But we all know from experience that the first years of marriage, particularly the very first year, can be among the most difficult—especially with the arrival of the first child. There is a case for a minimum period before which a petition for divorce can be presented. Even if the marriage has irretrievably broken down, we should not lose sight of the fact that there is such a thing as judicial separation, which gives all the benefits of divorce except the right to marry again.
      If we agree to amendment No. 1, we are left with the status quo, and the depravity and hardship conditions, which are quite unacceptable. If we accept new clause 3, we are then agreeing to the idea of immediate divorce. I believe that to be harmful, for the reasons that I have adumbrated.
      That leaves us with the choice of a complete bar for three years, which is the effect of amendment No. 3. In effect, it would make divorce more difficult than at present, because we would be removing the hardship condition. The alternative is to reduce the three years to one year, as provided for in the Bill. As I have said, I fear that that would clearly make divorce much easier than it is now.
      In Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said that this was a matter of compromise. Of course it must be a matter for compromise, but I am not at all satisfied that the one-year bar gets the compromise right. That is why I have tabled an amendment suggesting a two-year absolute bar. I believe that to be a satisfactory compromise between the present three-year conditional bar, and the one-year absolute bar in the Bill. This is not an issue of black and white, or right or wrong. We are looking for a compromise and for the least worst solution to an extremely difficult problem.
      I believe that a two-year absolute bar would be the best compromise, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will reject new clause 3 and that I shall have their support when I formally move amendment No. 2.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Benyon: When I first considered this matter I took the same view as the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse), and so convinced was I by the arguments that were put to me that I nearly voted against Second Reading. However, when I sat down and read the report of the Law Commission and, more importantly, the debates in the other place, I found my view changing. I found my view
      968
      approximating closely to what is now in the Bill. Since the proceedings in the other place we have had the deliberations of the Committee. It, too, has come down on the same side. Divorce is a tragedy, and, as has already been said, we are top of the league in the percentages of marriages that go wrong. This is a serious situation, and none of us can view it with any equanimity or satisfaction.
      The choice seems to lie, and this was put clearly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner), between what we have in the Bill—with due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims)—and the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best). I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's explanation of the proposals in the new clause, but I could not follow him when he started to describe how unjust it would be to have an absolute bar for one year. With the best will in the world, and taking into account all one's experience with different couples in this situation, I cannot find myself agreeing that one year produces an unnecessarily long period of hardship.
      The real answer to all this is that the law has lost its place in this deliberation. I do not blame the changes in the law for the large number of divorces that now take place. I am convinced that other matters play a very much more important part in this. Therefore, the proposals in the Bill are a logical tidying up of the law and an effort to be fairer to all the parties. My point is that all the efforts, going back to the A.P. Herbert Bill in 1937, and the efforts of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) have led towards making divorce easier, to correcting what has seemed to be the hardships of the people who are thereby involved, and to safeguarding the position of children.
      Now is the time to put the emphasis the other way and to ensure that the greatest action that the Government can take goes towards preserving and strengthening the institution of marriage, whether by education, counselling or by supporting financially those organisations that are set up to help and strengthen the institution of marriage. That is where the effort should go now, because the effort before has always been the other way—towards divorce and the break up of marriage and the family.
      Rest assured, we must do this in the circumstances. If the present trends continue, the social fabric of this country will be greatly damaged. Enormous problems result from the breakdown of marriage and divorce, whether it is juvenile delinquency, financial cost to the taxpayer in so many ways or the difficulties in housing. Only last Friday, when I was holding my advice bureau in my constituency, a couple in perfect harmony came to me after their divorce had taken place. They had three children, aged six, five and four, and they could not understand why the council could not give them two homes, because they had joint custody. I mention that in passing, because this is the sort of social implication that we are finding all the way through.
      I confine myself simply to the secular side. I have not mentioned any of the moral considerations which concern many of us. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst has said things with which I heartily agree. However, I think that the Government have this legislation about right and I shall support it.
      Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I have listened to the many discussions, this evening and in many other places, on this matter, and nothing that I have heard has changed my view that clause 1, which proposes to

      969
      shorten the time bar, or new clause 3, which proposes to abolish the time bar in which couples can apply for divorce, will weaken the social fabric of marriage. As we have heard, provision already exists for special cases under section 3 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
      This aspect of the Bill has aroused much opposition, particularly from churchmen, women's groups, welfare organisations and some magistrates, many of whom are often directly involved with the problems from which divorced couples and their families suffer. I am sure that we are all concerned for the stability of family life. About 170,000 divorces a year take place, one in three marriages appear destined to fail, and of those, seven out of 10 divorces involve children. We have to be concerned with what happens to the children of people who divorce.
      As a magistrate, I have faced the heart-rending decision of taking children into care. Let no one underestimate the tremendous impact and the traumatic effect that this has, not only on the children, but on the parents, even if they are divorced. On the social ground of the family, and the caring ground of the children disturbed by broken homes, the Bill will be a backward step in the compassionate care of all families.
      I understand that those who find that they have made a painful mistake should have the opportunity to rectify that mistake, but I do not feel that the Bill will help those people. Time needs to be given for couples to reflect on what they feel is a mistake and also for planning for the future, not only for themselves, but for their children.
      The number of illegitimate children born in England and Wales last year soared to a record 99,200, an increase of 10 per cent. A report issued yesterday by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys discounts the idea that promiscuous teenagers are responsible. It says:
      "Numbers of illegitimate births increased to women in all age groups; but the increase of 6 per cent. for teenage mothers was only half the average increase in the number of illegitimate births to women in their 20s and 30s."
      The blame for this increase in illegitimate births is put on the increasing unpopularity of marriage among young people. Fewer people married in 1982 than at any time in the previous 12 years. The statistics suggest that what we have heard this afternoon about downgrading the institution of marriage is true.
      Are we further discouraging young people from getting married by reducing the value of marriage by putting too little value on the time that a marriage should last before a divorce can be applied for? I suggest that in the Bill that is what we are doing. As we have heard, marriage is a partnership, a working together, and there must be time in those early stages, which many of us know, and some of us can remember, are difficult times, for people to adjust to each other and to their circumstances. We must not take away that opportunity.
      This has been a long debate, but we have heard very little about conciliation, which is and should be a growing service. Indeed, it is often provided by or at the instigation of solicitors because they see at first hand so many of the problems of early divorce.
      Amendment No. 3 will leave the provision as it now is and I believe that that is the right course to follow.
      Sir Ian Percival: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) that the present bar should go, although I believe that he
      970
      underestimated its significance. At one stage he seemed almost to suggest that the present provision was no bar. It is a very real bar for honest people whose marriages have broken down, even when there is depravity or hardship, if they are not prepared to exaggerate the situation. Those people face a real bar for three years. That is most unfair, because those prepared to lie and exaggerate can fool the courts.
      In a previous incarnation, I had something to do with the work of the Queen's Proctor and I know that it is not possible to check on every case. The present system thus constitutes a real bar for the honest but no bar for the dishonest. Indeed, for people determined to obtain divorces whether or not they are entitled to them, the present system is a great temptation to exaggerate the position. The present bar is wrong in every way and I have no doubt that it should go.
      We must then decide whether to have no bar at all or an unqualified bar of one, two or three years. I believe that it would be wrong to have no bar at all. Personally, I plump for a one-year bar, but that is a matter of judgment. No evidence can be advanced for that period rather than a two-year period. I have just one reason for believing that there should be a bar and I have narrowed it down to one year because a longer period is not necessary to achieve the purpose that I wish to achieve.
      Mr. J. F. Pawsey: My right hon. and learned Friend refers to the problems of getting rid of the bar, but would it not be easier to re-examine the conditions attached? Does not the problem lie in the clauses setting out the conditions rather than in the bar itself?
      Sir Ian Percival: There would be force in that argument if anyone could suggest any better conditions, but I have been in the law long enough to know that as soon as qualifications are introduced the result is a beanfeast for the lawyers and a further set of unfair comparisons. That is my view as one who has some experience of practising in that division of the law.
      I have solid reasons for favouring a one-year bar and I should love to develop those reasons, but I am conscious that time is short. I believe that there must be a bar of some kind and it should be an absolute bar, because, with the best of intentions, introducing qualifications creates difficulties of the kind that we now face.
      I plump for one year not on any logical grounds or because I can produce any evidence to support it but because I believe that it is sufficient to meet the purpose for which the bar should be retained. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn said that there was no logic in the bar, and that is so, but there is no logic against it either. We all know that "irretrievable breakdown" is a matter of judgment. Who is to say whether something really has irretrievably broken down? Many of us have thought that many young and not-so-young men and women could have had a very good future before them if they had put a little more effort into seeking it rather than giving up the ghost too early and concluding that their marriages had irretrievably broken down when there were good reasons to have another go at making them work. Logic does not come into it either way. I do not base my case on logic, but nor do I believe that there is any logical argument against it.

      971
      7.45 pm
      On the subject of hardship, I agree—not for the first time, although not always—with the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) and with my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) and for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). What really is the hardship? I shall be careful not to exaggerate my case, as exaggeration never helps any argument and I believe that the hardship aspect has been exaggerated. Is it so much hardship to have to wait 12 months even if the marriage has irretrievably broken down, assuming that it is possible to come to that conclusion within 12 months? I find it difficult to imagine any circumstances in which the danger of hardship—a largely hypothetical danger, I believe—is such that we should act in advance to meet it in a way that in my view could denigrate the most important institution in our lives.
      My positive reason for wanting a bar of some kind is that in my view there is a real danger that the absence of any bar at all will further denigrate the institution of marriage. I take the word "denigrate" from the evidence of Sir John Arnold to the Special Standing Committee from which we have already heard quotations today. I remind the House, too, of the comments of my noble and learned Friend Lord Scarman, who agreed with Sir John Arnold that doing away with the bar altogether was not justified because it would denigrate the institution of marriage and took the view that some kind of bar should be retained to show that marriage was not just another contract but a very important institution.
      The House of Commons has a very special responsibility in this. I am always influenced by the observations of persons such as the president of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division and my noble and learned Friend Lord Scarman because they speak from experience, but this House has an added responsibility, because in the past 20 years we have cheapened the institution of marriage by making divorce so easy that another inch down the road would make it a straightforward post office job. We must thus be extremely careful not to take any further step, however small, in that direction.
      I believe that getting rid of the present bar and substituting an absolute bar of one year would allow us to do something positive in this respect. How it will appear to the public will depend on how we sell it. I hope that the House will get rid of the three-year bar and replace it with an absolute one-year bar and then explain clearly to the public that we have got rid of a totally unsatisfactory provision—which is a real bar for the honest but no bar for the dishonest—and put in its place a sensible bar that cannot be got round and which gives people 12 months to consider seriously whether they cannot make a go of their marriage. If we do not do that, we shall further denigrate the institution of marriage. If we get rid of the present bar and institute an absolute bar of one year, we shall be able, if we wish, to sell that measure as a positive step in restoring the picture of importance that we attach to the institution of marriage.
      I hope that the House will leave clause 1 alone, because it does what it should do. I shall vote against the new clause, and I ask other hon. Members to do the same.
      Mr. Blair: As a member of the Special Standing Committee I found it enormously helpful to have a procedure to take evidence from a wide range of people
      972
      who were experts in their field. Having taken that evidence, it is perverse for the House to ignore its effects and simply to put the evidence to one side.
      Two points emerge clearly from the evidence. I came to this conclusion with a completely open mind. The first point is that the Law Commission, when proposing the measures contained in the Bill, decided, for especially concrete and positive reasons, that a one-year absolute bar was the right measure. The Law Commission did not decide by some type of instinctive psychology that a one-year absolute bar was the right measure. Instead, the commission had an argy-bargy among its members—the commission took it slightly less coloquially, but that is more or less what it did—on whether there should be a time bar. At the end of the day, the commission decided to compromise between nought and three years and, therefore, one year was taken.
      The second and most important point to emerge from the evidence given to the Committee was that there was nothing to suggest that a time bar affected people's predilection or otherwise for divorce. There was nothing to suggest that marriage would be one wit strengthened by the existence of a time bar. It is difficult to ascertain how the evidence could have shown otherwise, because in Scotland, where no such time bar exists, although the grounds for divorce are similar to or the same as those applying in England, the record on divorces in the first year of marriage is better than the record in England. The proposition that the time bar should be retained because it somehow strengthens the institution of marriage is entirely contradicted by the evidence we heard in Committee from Sir John Arnold and others who have experience of this aspect of the law.
      I appreciate that there are no statistics to prove that statement, but statistics are not the only evidence. One can judge also by the experience of people practising in certain aspects of the law and during their lives. As a member of the Committee—I hope a fairly reasonable one—I had to take account of what several people told me was the case.
      I say to the House — and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) who, with respect, I believe went slightly over the top in some of his rhetoric—that it is not sensible, when considering the position realistically, to assume that people will get divorced because of the time bar. The truth is that the time bar has nothing to do with the grounds for divorce. Petitioners for divorce in any case must show irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. There is no question that people can come to a court after a week of marriage arid say, "We want a divorce." They must show irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. That irretrievable breakdown exists either within or beyond the first year of marriage, as the case may be.
      I ask Conservative Members who may support a time bar to listen carefully when the Solicitor-General presents the Government's case. They will not hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman an assertion that the time bar affects the strength of marriage as an institution. The Government's case will be that it is important to give the right signal to the public and that, if the time bar is removed, the signal will be wrong.
      Sir Ian Percival: The hon. Gentleman has come near to the point I was querying. Does he agree that there is a world of difference between saying the measure will not

      973
      strengthen the bonds of marriage and saying that the lack of the measure will weaken those bonds? They are two separate aspects. The evidence given to the Committee seemed to support the second aspect, though not the first.
      Mr. Blair: The Committee was given evidence that the existence of a time bar would not adversely or positively affect the strength of marriage as an institution, but it may affect the public's perception of marriage as an institution. The Government's case was that it was necessary to retain the time bar; otherwise the wrong signal would be sent to the public.
      I shall explain what seems to be the fallacy inherent in the Government's case. The Government say that we shall send the wrong signal to the public if we abolish the time bar. What signal do we send to the public if we assert that the time bar is important to the institution of marriage, and that that is why we retain it, but reduce the period from three years to one year? That is the absurdity of the Government's position. The Government end up with the worst of both worlds because, on the one hand, they assert the relevance of the time bar to marriage by retaining it—that is their justification—but, on the other hand, they reduce the period from three years to one year. That is why practically any other proposition is better than the one put forward by the Government.
      Mr. Sumberg: The hon. Gentleman misses the essential point that the present position is not a three-year absolute time bar but a three-year discretionary time bar. It is a matter of going not from three years to one year, but from three years with discretion to a one-year absolute. That is an important distinction.
      Mr. Blair: That is, indeed, an important distinction, but it is not the distinction that will come across to the public. The public will not grapple with that distinction. Hon. Members have quoted the headlines that appeared in the papers when the proposal was first made. The hon. Gentleman is right, but I do not believe that that meets the point. I do not believe—nothing that I have been told shows otherwise — that the time bar affects the institution of marriage. If that is right, is it correct for me to support a time bar?
      Symbolism in politics can be important. Statutes enshrining symbols can be a perfectly acceptable way of proceeding. If we believe that symbolism is not based on any sensible appreciation of the truth about a particular matter, we engage in putting forward not symbols but postures. We should not be engaged in that action.
      The institution of marriage is valuable. The institution is strengthened not by the law but by public respect for and the attitudes of those engaging in it. A time bar will not assist marriage in any way. Given what I heard in evidence as a member of the Committee and given what my beliefs and instincts tell me, it is my duty to vote for no time bar. In doing that, I shall say clearly to the public that we do not believe that the institution of marriage will be weakened. In fact, the evidence points to the institution not being affected by the time bar. The sensible, logical, coherent and most psychologically correct thing to say is, "Let us get what we believe truthfully to be the real position." That is why I shall support the new clause.
      Mr. Stanbrook: I can speak briefly to amendment No. 1 because of the excellent speeches made in support of the
      974
      general proposition, which is that the law should stay as it is and should not be amended in the way the Government wish.
      It is curious to note that so many of our biggest social, legal and religious changes have been initiated outside Parliament. We have often legislated only after the argument has been made elsewhere and we have accepted that argument without proper thought and consideration and often contrary to the will of the people.
      8 pm
      The Law Commission is a vehicle for this sort of change. Indeed, the change that it made for mistresses to obtain a share in the estate of a deceased against the interest of the widow was made against the will of the majority of the British people. However, that is now law, largely for the reasons that are now being urged for this change.
      The Law Commission, an institution composed of the most excellent lawyers and judges, does good work within its proper terms of reference. Judges are excellent at choosing the truth from different circumstances, evidence and facts. They are good at applying principles and the law to individual cases. But they are not good at making political judgments. That is the whole purpose of this place. We have to make political judgments and if we abdicate that responsibility—as we are asked to do in this case—to a rather bureaucratic body which is not elected and is not responsive to the needs of the people, we are doing democracy a disservice.
      The procedure which we adopted in the Special Standing Committee was excellent. It enabled hon. Members to hear the views of experts in matrimonial law and to question them. Many of the defects in our understanding of the subject were removed as a result. That applies with especial force to parts of the Bill other than part I. I am satisfied that much of the argument about the Bill, other than part I, is about semantics. Indeed, as some of our witnesses suggested, the law which has to be applied by this Bill is largely the law which is being applied by the courts at the moment, without the need for statutory change. To that extent, the procedure of the Special Standing Committee was good in that it enabled those of us who were members to understand the changes and therefore to have our misapprehensions and misunderstandings corrected.
      But part I goes beyond lawyers' law. It has to be judged not in terms of the expertise of Sir John Arnold, an excellent man and judge, or Lord Scarman, or any who gave us the benefit of their judgments. We have to make a decision in the interests of the public. We have to make it about a subject which it must be admitted impinges upon a small minority of the population.
      I feel a sense of humility in discussing this matter publicly in the knowledge that I have been particularly fortunate in the happiness I have enjoyed over the past 38 years of my marriage. I appreciate that it is not for me to add to in any way or to perpetuate any hardship which may be suffered by less fortunate individuals as a result of the existing law. Nevertheless, we owe it to the public to pass laws which we believe to be right and just which are designed to ameliorate differences and difficulties among people. Therefore, I simply do not believe the argument that clause 1 is a proper and acceptable compromise.
      The present law provides for a three-year bar, with the power of discretion in the courts. That formula is and

      975
      should be acceptable and is far better than any of the suggested solutions and compromises which have been advanced either by the Government or by my hon. Friends. I do not understand the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) that the bar cannot be dispensed with completely because that would give a bad impression but that it can be reduced from three years to one year, which would not give such an impression. What is so bad about dispensing with the bar of three years which does not apply to reducing it from three years to one year?
      What is worse is to substitute an absolute bar, with no discretion. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who is my constituency neighbour and whose judgment I value, thinks that it would be acceptable as a compromise—as if one had to compromise in such a matter where the existing law is right and appropriate—to have an absolute bar for two years. There must be some injustice about that. It is bad enough for the Government to say that there must be an absolute bar to divorce for one year. Is it not far better to accept what we have—a three-year bar but provision for exceptions? It is so easy to choose a middle position and say that it is right.
      From where does the pressure come for such a change? The Committee received many memoranda. I have piles of documents which were sent in either by institutions or pressure groups, as well as the official briefing documents from the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I also received hundreds of letters from individuals wanting to give the Committee the benefit of their experience and suggesting how the law should be changed in one way or another. Working through those documents, it was difficult to avoid being confused. One is bound to come to the conclusion that no good argument has been made for changing the law at all.
      Three years with discretion in the court is a sound and wise provision which in the long run does less injustice than any of the other provisions which have been suggested. For that reason I ask the House to support amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The conclusion to which I shall come is that reached by the hon. Members for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) and for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). It is the wrong time to change the law in the way proposed by the Government. We speak in this debate as individuals, and the debate is much the better for that. We are all learning and respecting much more the opinions of colleagues than we often do and should.
      I start from the position that marriage is a Christian institution, which is ordained. Like many others, I believe that the creator of mankind ordained it as the best form of relationship—not for everybody, but where possible. It is now generally accepted—certainly in Britain and also in many other countries—that in social and sociological terms it is the best form of relationship. So our secular law has also come to ordain marriage and to sustain it over the years in a way that enhances the good ordering of our society.
      I start from the viewpoint—I came into this place a Christian, having been a Christian for some years and, as one who is no better or worse than a non-Christian—that it would be wrong for me to legislate to bind others by the laws that I derive from my faith. All of us speak from the knowledge that a minority in England subscribe
      976
      to the Christian faith and we respect and understand other minority faiths. But the majority have no faith, or are uncertain what it is. They are seeking to come to faith or are not yet confronted with the need to do so. We are legislating, therefore, primarily for people who do not accept the premise from which I begin. We must legislate for them in secular terms, as well and as properly as for anyone else.
      My initial view was that it would be proper, except where there were children, for couples married by the state to divorce as and when they liked and that it was wrong for me to tell them that they should regard their secular marriage—a marriage of the state, ordained by the state—as an institution with sacramental or permanent value from which they could not divorce themselves by agreement in the same way as they had brought themselves together in the first place.
      My view was that it would be proper, therefore, to segregate the secular from the religious, as many European countries do. We are all aware that in many continental countries one goes first to the town hall for a secular, civil marriage ceremony and then to a church ceremony if that is wished. The state gives a contractual basis and the church will give couples a sacramental partnership ordained for life. For Christians its derivation is from the Gospel teachings, which are clear and unequivocal on the subject.
      The problem with the differential approach, of which I was eventually persuaded. is that the institution of marriage was ordained for everyone, whether or not he or she believed that it was the sacrament ordained as the most appropriate relationship for the best ordering of society. Therefore, the same rules and law should apply whether one is a Christian believer, a Buddhist, a Moslem, a believer in any other religion or not a believer at all.
      Having come to that view, we must work from the present legal position in England and Wales, which is different from that in Scotland. Since 1937 in England and Wales there has been a restriction on the time after marriage before which one can divorce or institute proceedings for divorce. In Scotland that is not the case and it is probably correct — the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was right in his analysis—that there might not be a substantial change in the number of divorces in England and Wales, and that it might be more logical and consistent if we changed to the position in Scotland. I understand and appreciate that view.
      8.15 pm
      However, we are not starting from the same position as that pertaining to Scotland. We have a three-year bar, with discretion. In most cases that are argued for discretion on the ground of exceptional hardship or depravity, that discretion is exercised by judges and leave is granted for a petition to be presented within three years. We have heard that few people are refused permission in those circumstances.
      I believe—we must all make this judgment—that before we change the present position, under which the public perceive that marriage is instituted for at least three years under secular law, but from which, in certain circumstances that make it unbearable, unsuitable or unjust to continue, they can escape, the right way to reach a more logical position is first to await the evidence. The hon. Member for Torfaen reminded the House that eminent bodies are working to produce more evidence

      977
      about the effects of irretrievable breakdown and other facts on divorce. More figures and research will be available to us within a year or two. We should wait for that evidence and then be sure to proceed in a way that upholds the institution of marriage.
      My judgment is that to move from a general rule that marriages will last for three years to a rule that marriages must last for one year would be perceived as devaluing marriage as an institution. I must ask next, therefore, whether it is right to adopt the proposal in amendment No. 2 and opt for a two-year bar. That may be a way forward, but it would mean a two-year bar without a discretionary let-out for those sad and irretrievable cases where it must be right to permit the marriage to end. It would be wrong in such cases for any of us to prohibit that. There are examples of marriages in which there is severe injury, humiliation of one partner by another, physical imprisonment or great drunkenness. Those of us who have practised in the family courts well know of such cases, which come before the courts every day.
      It would not be right to change the position to get rid of discretion, unless there was no time limit and a couple could divorce straight away. The right course is to bring forward proposals that uphold and support the institution of marriage which the Bill does not do, so that a positive package will result that is of benefit to the nation. If we set about that process, a framework for conciliation is needed, a move towards a structure of family courts will be needed. We must remove adversarial disputes from divorce cases. Those of us who have been involved in them know that they continue for months, to the detriment of all concerned.
      The other missing factors in our present systems are methods to make sure that those who decide to marry are given the encouragement and support to continue a relationship in marriage, as far as possible, especially where children are involved. We all know—it must be a truism by now — that when marriages with children break down, more often than not it is the children who are affected most, in the short or long term, in terms of cash, in physical terms, or in emotional and moral terms.
      The Bill which most should be before us should not deal with matters such as financial provisions, with which I am not most concerned tonight, where there should be changes, although not fundamental changes. The Bill we need most must bolster marriage where that option is chosen by our fellow citizens. I believe that marriage should be chosen only after careful consideration.
      It is not right that our society should take the view that relationships outside marriage are generally promiscuous, or that the young are any more promiscuous than older citizens. Many people enter into a permanent relationship, but they may not choose to make it a marriage relationship. They should be entitled to that. As a Liberal, I believe that they have a right to do so. It is not for me to provide that they should feel badgered into making marriage out of that relationship.
      Some people choose marriage. It is a fundamental human right to get married, but it is also a choice. When people make that decision, its importance must be reflected in our laws and supported and sustained as one of the key pivots of the ordering of our society. When marriages work, families work, relationships are effective, and an enormous amount of social legislation becomes
      978
      irrelevant. An enormous amount of money can be saved. An enormous amount of harm can be prevented by people working out their crises and recovery, through the periods of difficulty and darkness, light and joy and all the day-to-day struggles of everyday life. We are all struggling to help those who come to this decision.
      Mr. Greenway: I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I am concerned because it seems that he has thrown his argument about the Christian principle overboard and is saying that people can do as they like. Is not that a sad situation?
      Mr. Hughes: I am saying that, just as in politics it is my job to convert people to my way of thinking but they have the right to reject my view of political life, so people come to a Christian faith or any other faith by choice. I can try to persuade them but they must elect to make their response to the Creator whom I declare is the Creator of us all. People must make that choice in society as well.
      One of the tragedies in the Church today is that under the law of the land vicars and priests are obliged to marry people who come to church not wanting anything other than the social context of a church for their wedding. I do not suggest that they are not entitled to that, but it is so much better when they make a choice to marry wholeheartedly knowing what they are letting themselves in for. Therefore, if people choose not to be married and not to see their relationship in a sacramental or religious context, that is their choice. It is the job of myself and other people of religious faiths to win them to a different view of life, and why we are here, but we should not legislate to prevent them reaching other conclusions.
      Therefore, for the time being, let us, if we can, reject the proposal to change the present law. I accept that the exceptional two circumstances now provided are probably too tightly drawn. We should probably adopt the Law Commission's original suggestion in its working paper, which is that in the interim we could say that if, in less than three years, the marriage has irretrievably broken down and one of the facts for divorce has been proved, that would provide the let-out. We could make that amendment.
      However, let us wait for the rest of the evidence that has been commissioned and then make a proposal for changing this law, at the same time as taking other steps that many of us are awaiting with great hope and interest, for family courts, conciliation and other things. Together, they could provide a package which does not undermine marriage, which I trust is something we all want to sustain. However, marriage will be at risk to a degree which none of us can evaluate and which many of us suspect will be more than minimal if we remove the present restriction and reduce the period from three years to one.
      Mr. Pawsey: I support amendment No. 1, leaving out clause 1, moved by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse), because I believe that the one-year limit is calculated to reduce and diminish marriage and that marriage may be regarded simply as a one-year stand.
      The clause, with its time limit, will serve to underline not the permanence of marriage but a new and somewhat casual contract of rather doubtful worth. It seems that if a marriage does not work, people should not try and try again to make it work, but simply divorce and then try again with a new partner. If that partner does not suit, the person should change, discard, and marry again and if

      979
      necessary again. Increasingly, marriage would become a form of lottery; a lucky dip. If one did not like one's partner one would change. Is that really what couples promise each other when they get married? Is it what the sacred vows are about?
      I was particularly interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) said when he referred to the churches and the lack of lead that had been given. One might say that the silence of the churches on this issue has been deafening. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee), who represents the Church Commissioners, speaking on that point.
      Sir William van Straubenzee: If I am called.
      Mr. Pawsey: Indeed, but that is not a matter for me.
      The Churches have maintained a silence on the issue that is less than understandable. One would have thought that here was a case on which they might make a clarion call. They should have stressed their views on this all-important subject. However, it seems that at times the voice of the Churches—I refer to all the Churches—is somewhat clouded and their vision is obscured by more temporal issues, whether it is the Greater London council or the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. That is most unfortunate. They should have given the House a clear lead on the matter. It is unfortunate that they did not do so.
      The clause is less about marriage than about a break. Its very existence will ensure that more marriages break down. Often, the first 12 months of any contract are the most difficult months, and I wonder how many five and seven-year commercial agreements would run longer than 12 months if break clauses were inserted. If one tried putting the clause, as statute, into any rental or leasing agreement, what a howl of anguish would go up from the finance houses.
      Mr. Sumberg: Is not the distinction that should be drawn as follows? If the parties want the contract to continue, it will, but if they do not wish it to continue, it will not. That is the issue. It is not what the law is; it is what the intention of the parties is.
      Mr. Pawsey: With respect, my hon. Friend misses my point, which is that often in commercial law parties may disagree about the issue at stake, but the law will hold them to the terms of the contract into which both parties freely entered. This case is the same.
      Often, the first 12 months are difficult. I speak from the experience of having been married for 28 years. There is an old saying that one has to live with someone before one really understands that person. It is equally true, however, that, given time, solutions can be found to difficulties and that two very different people can discover each other's virtues. Twelve months just is not long enough. The clause will reduce the incentive for couples to stay together and find the solutions that so often exist. The clause will ensure that, instead of divorce being the final option, it will become the first.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) mentioned psychology. It seems that, psychologically, if both parties are aware that a break clause exists at 12 months, the incentive to persevere will
      980
      be diminished. Simply because the 12-month clause exists, it will be used, and I believe that it will be used frequently.
      8.30 pm
      Much has been said about exceptional hardship and exceptional depravity, and I fear that we may encourage the bringing of such charges. As has been said, the discretion given to the courts on this issue accentuates marital discord. It has become such a positive factor in martial discord because, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, many solicitors and counsel are aware of the existence of the clause and doubtless some of them refer to it when discussing matters with their clients.
      If one party requires a quick divorce perhaps in the face of some opposition from the other partner, that party may plead exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity and hope that that plea will be accepted by the court. That appears to be borne out by the report of the Law Commission, which said:
      "The effect of this provision is said to be to encourage, if not actually to require, the petitioner to make the most unpleasant allegations possible about his or her spouse in order to make out a convincing case."
      I am sure that the original intention of those two definitions was to free one partner from a particularly difficult situation, but I doubt whether those who drafted the provision and steered it on to the statute book could have anticipated where their well-meaning efforts would lead and that the provision would be used to justify a one-year marriage licence.
      I do not argue that exceptional hardship and exceptional depravity do not exist. They do, and they must cause a great deal of misery in a minority of cases. It might help the House to bear in mind the numbers involved. In 1982, 1,900 applications were received under section 3 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which deals with exceptional hardship and exceptional depravity. Of those, only 843 had decrees promulgated. In that same year, 145,000 divorces went through the courts. In other words, cases involving exceptional hardship and exceptional depravity represented less than 0·5 per cent. of the total. I hope that that brings the figures firmly into perspective, because it is clear that that issue is having a decided effect on this debate.
      In seeking to reduce the misery of a small minority, we are likely to increase the misery—for any divorce must bring misery in its train—for a much larger number. This House passes legislation for the best reasons, with every Act being designed to improve the lot of the majority of our fellows. That is the intention, but the reality is sometimes different. The Divorce Reform Act 1969—the easing of divorce—has not, in my view, increased the sum of human happiness. Rather the reverse, if my surgery is anything to go by.
      The victims and the problems of divorce are the children, the break-up of the home and the division of property, all of which have served to multiply the hardship, bitterness and unhappiness that undoubtedly go with divorce. All, I believe, are greater today than they were in 1968, and that has been due to that well-intentioned Act which we passed in 1969.
      The figures are important. In 1958, there were 22,500 divorces. In 1969, following the implementation of the Act, the number had doubled to 51,310. In 1980, following further procedural reforms, including the

      981
      introduction of the so-called quickie divorce, which at that time cost between £25 and £30, the figure had risen to 148,300 divorces. Today even that appalling total is exceeded, with 176,000 divorces a year. One marriage in three fails. If there was ever a time for a change in direction, that time is now. For too long we have gone down a road which has increasingly led to unhappiness and misery.
      It is said that 70 per cent. of couples have children, a point dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). More than 200,000 children each year are therefore affected by the divorce of their parents. That number of children now grow up in broken homes with only one natural parent. The House would do well to concern itself with the delinquency problems that we are storing up for ourselves. The far-reaching consequences of the increasing number of divorces—and, therefore, the number of such children—should occupy our thoughts.
      I accept that the clause has been drafted in its present form for the most compassionate reasons. It will, however, exacerbate an already appalling situation. The present legislation is far from perfect, but clause 1 will not only not help; it will worsen an already bad situation.
      One might take the view that the reform suggested by the Law Commission, a group possessing such expertise and knowledge of the law, must be right. If we accept that view, we will be heading towards government by expert rather than by elected Member. This House must be responsible for the political consequences of its acts. Hence, we must reach a decision based on our collective mind and not necessarily based on expert advice, however proficient that advice might be thought to be.
      It might just be that the view of the Law Commission is based on experience not so much of "normal" marriage or what might be termed "normal" divorce, but of a relatively small number of particularly unpleasant cases. It might also be thought that the Law Commission is recommending throwing out the bath water and the baby. I urge hon. Members in all parts of the House, in a free vote, to oppose the clause.
      Mr. David Amess: The purpose of amendment No. 3 is to protect the institution of marriage and discourage divorce. As an enthusiastic supporter of the Government, it grieves me on this matter to take issue with them. I am always ready to quote the election manifesto which we put before the electorate, but, much as I have searched to find something about this provision in our last manifesto, I have been unable to do so. Indeed, I was shocked when I first heard of this measure being suggested by the Government, for it is a most unconservative piece of legislation. I regard clause 1, as drafted, as utter madness, ill-thought out, ill-conceived and downright stupid. This is a matter on which the consequences of what is proposed are mere conjecture.
      Although not a member of the Special Standing Committee, I have read the evidence presented and I am unconvinced by the arguments advanced. I believe that the family is the foundation of democracy and an ordered society. The protection of the family and democracy are fundamental traits of Conservatism in all its forms.
      The increase in marriage breakdown, illustrated by the number of divorces, has now reached a crisis of alarming
      982
      proportions. It has deep political, social and religious implications for our national life. Unfortunately, there are 1·5 million children now living in 1 million single-parent families. The number of one-parent families in Basildon district, which includes my constituency, rose to 1,332 between 1971 and 1981. As the divorce rate has risen, there has been moral decay with the rate of illegitimacy, abortion, children in care and juvenile crime increasing proportionately.
      The financial cost to society is over £1 billion a year, and 50 per cent. of second marriages fail. All that has happened, yet for 2,000 years the Church has preached that marriage is for life. We are only too well aware that the evil Abortion Act introduced by the leader of the Liberal party opened the floodgates to abortion, as happened to divorce after the passing of the Divorce Reform Act 1969.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Oh come on — this is cheap invective rubbish.
      Mr. Amess: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but he was not here at the time.
      From 1901, the number of divorces per thousand of the married population was 0·1; in 1961 it rose to 3·2, and in 1982 to an appalling 12·1. We have the third highest divorce rate in the world. The highest is America, followed by Russia. We have the highest divorce rate in Europe, whereas Italy has the lowest.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
      Mr. Amess: I am deeply worried that the clause might encourage more young couples to rush into marriage than at present. The clause will enable those who have not given marriage the thought that it requires the opportunity to marry on an experimental basis.
      One year is not even a fraction of the time needed to evaluate the true merits of marriage intended to last for life, but it is sufficient time to produce children. Do we want a society in which single-parent families are the norm and where the courts decide the level of opportunity for a majority of children at an early age?
      The clause gives people whose marriages experience temporary difficulties, which are surmountable by mutual efforts, the easy way out. It takes a great deal of patience, thought and time to sustain a genuine marriage, as I often tell my wife when I arrive home after being here. The clause eliminates the need for thought.
      8.45 pm
      I deal now with the danger of the absolute bar for one year during which no petition may be presented. As has been said, it is a feeble compromise. The clause is a facade which seems to have the effect of loosening the legal restrictions while tightening up the process. It falls between two stools and satisfies no one.
      Those hon. Members who share my views about the clause will no doubt leave themselves open to all manner of charges, such as being unfeeling, impractical, not accepting reality and not understanding the traumas of couples who wish to divorce. Such a criticism is grossly unfair. I should not for one minute underestimate the heartbreak of couples who intend to have a divorce. There is no doubt about the seriousness of the matters that we are debating. We are setting the moral code for future generations. This measure will unquestionably give the wrong lead.

      983
      The Conservative party continually draws to the attention of the public the need to return to a stable family life. I believe that this part of the Bill does nothing to strengthen marriage, which means, under present circumstances, that it will weaken marriage.
      If the new clause is passed, will the Synod be required to amend the marriage oath to read, "For better for divorce, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, until one year's absolute bar do we part"?
      It gives me no great pleasure to suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that if we put through these changes tonight we will open the floodgates to divorce and regret the day that we ever took the decision. Surely we should create a climate that makes people think more carefully before entering marriage, if we believe genuinely in the institution.
      Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
      Mr. Amess: There is no doubt that in the minds of the general public we are easing matters and giving the impression that the concept of marriage has altered. Society today needs more than ever the solidity that traditional marriage gives.
      Mr. Carlile rose—
      Mr. Amess: It will be a sad day for our nation if we are unable to see that.
      Sir William van Straubenzee: I sense that it would be in accordance with the wishes of the House that those of us who are fortunate enough to be called—I believe that we have all sat, as we should have done, from the start until now — should exercise extreme brevity. I will speak shortly and discard almost all that I would have said, because much has been said so much better by others. I cannot be sure whether I can match the moderate language of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).
      First, mention has been made of the Special Standing Committee procedures which were exercised in relation to the Bill. If ever we needed a justification for that alteration to our procedures, which I have always thought was the most important that we have made in recent years, the Bill and the Special Standing Committee that preceded it gave outstanding evidence of its value. I am grateful to it, because I have, as I am sure have other hon. Members who were not members of the Special Standing Committee, read virtually every word and profited greatly from it.
      I have gently to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who is once again, happily, with us, because he says that I answer for the Church of England.
      Mr. Pawsey: No, the Church Commissioners.
      Sir William van Straubenzee: I believe that the record will show the first version, but he corrects himself and I gratefully accept the correction. I do not believe that anyone could answer for the Church of England. I am anxious to get that right, or heaven knows what questions will be put down to me. I answer only for the Church Commissioners.
      I should like to reflect the regret that has been expressed in a number of speeches that on an issue so fundamental as marriage we Anglicans—I should not presume to speak for any of the other Christian churches, such as the great one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth belongs—have been given virtually no guidance. The appropriate commission of the Church of
      984
      England gave evidence to the Special Standing Committee and the Bishop of Birmingham has a letter in The Times today. I find it strange, but it is the case — I have examined it closely — that, although his staff made a great many calls to the two Whips' offices, they would not confirm that there was a free vote on the new clause. [Interruption.] I have been into the matter carefully and that is what I am assured that they were told. I wish to establish that there is no doubt—all hon. Members saw the implication in the Bishop of Birmingham's letter—that we are totally free to make up our own minds. My friends in the Church of England are spending a deal too much time on purely political issues—sometimes at the expense of the sort of moral issue which is before us.
      A third matter troubles me greatly about the Bill. It is rather personal, so I shall treat it with care. The House has been extraordinarily fortunate in having been guided ministerially by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. He has guided us, as ever, with judicial detachment, wisdom, fairness and courtesy, which all hon. Members associate with him. Although we may not all enter the same Lobby, I want to make that point clear.
      I did not feel that there was that same detachment in another place. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has an emotional commitment to the provisions of clause 1, which may, for the first time, have out-weighed his supreme judicial judgment and great services to the nation. That is not a wise way to legislate, especially for delicate legislation such as this. It troubles me profoundly. Some of his outbursts in relation to the bishops of the Church of England — [Interruption.] I mean to speak with care about a much-respected public figure — caused great offence to members of the Anglican Church.
      Finally, I shall vote to keep the status quo, not because I think that it is perfect — I am aware of its imperfections—nor because I shall never be prepared to change it, but—this point was put well by other hon. Members—because I wish it to be changed as part of a wider package. Members of the Church of England are for once entitled to be heard on this issue because we produced the report "Putting Asunder" which was the basis of importing into our legal system the concept of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. I was a Back-Bench Member of the Church team that confronted the judiciary at a remarkable meeting at All Souls.
      The opening statement by a leading judge was that the issue we were putting before them was not justicable. The team, headed by the then formidable Bishop of Exeter, carried the day, and we moved forward considerably. Unfortunately, we added the concept of the matrimonial offence. If we could move further, and as part of a larger examination of matrimonial law—it is under way—bring in conciliation, consider family courts and—I am not sure how far this could be done by law—consider marriage preparation, bearing m mind the hideous break-up rate of the very young, as a package, I should certainly not stick upon the conditional bar for three years. I wish the change to be part of a whole.
      If we cannot achieve that tonight, second best — I cannot do this because of the order these things appear on the Amendment Paper—would be my hon. Friend's new clause, and no absolute bar. That may surprise my right hon. and hon. Friends. I urge hon. Members to reread the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who made a blistering critique of the concept of an

      985
      absolute bar, whether for one, two or three years. I am deeply worried that we may substitute a very poor alternative for an admittedly inadequate existing provision.
      That is why I shall plead, not as a rigid, conservative man, but as one who has taken part in debating and changing matrimonial law, that we maintain the status quo pending wider consideration of the whole matter. That would be the proper way to proceed, and hon. Members would do, as we all wish to do, our proper duty in supporting the institution of matrimony.
      Mrs. Jill Knight: Marriage is not only the concern of the two people involved. It is not even the concern of the couple and any children they may have. Marriage and family life are the hearts and cornerstones of society, and, when this institution crumbles, the whole fabric of society breaks down. Therefore, it follows that Parliament should do everything in its power to strengthen, preserve and support it. I believe that tonight we are being asked to weaken it fundamentally.
      The cost of marriage breakdown to the taxpayer is immense and is rising fast. Three years ago legal aid costs for all matrimonial proceedings in the High Court and the magistrates courts were about £30 million. Today, the sum is nearly £50 million. Three years ago legal advice and assistance in connection with divorce and judicial separation was almost £8 million. Today it is £12·8 million. Three years ago one-parent benefit cost £52 million a year, and today it is £122 million. It is important to recognise that we are talking about a period of three years in which those costs soared.
      9 pm
      The social cost of divorce is also ruinous. Of course, I do not imply that all the children of divorced couples get into trouble, but the cost to society of difficulties with children from broken homes and one-parent families is vast in terms of delinquency, vandalism and juvenile crime. The Government know that and they deplore the breakdown of family life, but their case is that the Bill does not damage the institution of marriage. I believe that they are wrong, but I admit that, had I been forced to listen to some of the experts who addressed the Committee, I would have been very confused. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made some excellent points on this matter.
      I was amazed to read that one witness told the Committee that the courts should not apply the law of the land strictly. Does that mean that we are wasting our time passing laws and then selecting experts to come to our Committees and say that the law should not be applied strictly? I went through all the Committee reports, some of which stood reason on its head. I shall mention only a few moonbeams from the general lunacy. For example, one witness said that a one-year bar buttresses the institution of marriage, and to remove the bar would denigrate marriage. Is it buttressing marriage to tell couples about to be married that they can get divorced after one year? Would it denigrate marriage if it were not hammered home to the starry-eyed couple that the marriage could last for only one year? The Committee was told that the one-year bar is a compromise. A compromise between what—three years and one day?
      986
      We were told that available evidence shows that marriages in which the wife is aged between 20 and 24 are about 20 per cent. more likely to end in divorce than are marriages in which the wife is aged between 30 and 34. We are told:
      "Apart from marriages in which the wife married as a teenager, the younger the wife at marriage the longer the marriage tends to last before divorce."
      That is a most puzzling statement.
      However, it is clear that problems will not be solved by having a one-year bar. We were also told that
      "people do not many with a view to early divorce if the relationship does not work out; that young couples tend to stay married several years before resorting to divorce; that a period of years usually elapses between separation and divorce; and that the irretrievable breakdown of marriage culminating in divorce is not prevented by the three-year time bar."
      In that case, why are we introducing a one-year time bar? It is difficult to see the reasoning behind the evidence given to the Committee. The more I see of experts, the more I mistrust them, because it is difficult for them to agree even among themselves.
      I am extremely worried, and I beg my hon and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to appreciate that the worry about this clause and the fear that it will weaken marriage goes far beyond the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) was right to rebuke the Church for not giving clear guidance. I have no doubt that in the Church and in the general public many extremely worried people are asking themselves, "What on earth are the Conservative Government doing?" Whichever way one examines the matter, the clause suggests to a couple that they need be married for only one year before they can get a divorce. That must weaken marriage.
      I was attracted to new clause 3 solely because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) said, a time bar points people to divorce. However, I did not agree with his statement that it is completely intolerable and unacceptable to have even a one-year time bar. I have been most impressed by the arguments of hon. Members on both sides of the House on the advisability of amendment No. 1, which seeks to leave out clause 1. I am a signatory to amendment No. 2, but I would rather have amendment No. 1. We shall make a grave mistake if we introduce the one-year bar, and I shall vote against it.
      Mr. Lawrence: This has been a fascinating and enlightening debate, although I found some difficulty in taking seriously the lament of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) that he had received no guidance from the Anglican Church, since no one in the House is better able to think for himself so sensibly, constructively and elegantly than my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) seemed to think that the Bill was contrary to Conservatism. My reading of Conservatism is that we are the party that believes in sensible change when it is called for. That is why this is a very Conservative Bill.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who, I think, missed his vocation, suggested that we should wait even longer for evidence. What is not generally appreciated is that the process by which we have come to this day started as long ago as 1979. Countless committees, commissions, bodies and organisations have considered how best, if necessary, to reform the law. A total of 45 organisations and 469 private individuals wrote to or spoke to the Law Commission.

      987
      My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said that there was no sound reason for changing the law. I find that difficult to accept when the President of the Family Division, various Lords of Appeal, including Lord Scarman, the Law Commission itself, the chairman of the Family Law Bar Association, Mr. Joseph Jackson, QC., countless Members of Parliament and Lords all think there is something wrong with the law and that it needs changing. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) implied that the law was not operating so badly that it needed change. I think she is wrong.
      The question that we have to consider is whether clause 1 undermines marriage, reduces the security of children and weakens the fabric of society, as those who wish to see no change maintain. I have been written to by churches in my constituency and by lay persons who are concerned and who have worked themselves into quite a high state of anger at the suggested changes in the law. Therefore, I have thought it important to consider the matter with great care.
      I do not think that the existing situation is better than the suggested changes, and one suggested change in particular. There are two reasons why I do not think the existing law is working particularly well. First, whether we like it or not, we live in what has come to be called the permissive society. One aspect of that permissive society is that women in particular, but also men, have different expectations in their relationship from those that they would have had at the time of the Marriage Act 1937 or what preceded it. No longer are people expected to know their proper place in society, and whether they are happy or not they must stick together and live in a sort of resignation, which may or may not be short of misery. Expectations now are very different and the law is wrong if it takes no account of those expectations or of the immense amount of misery involved in outdated legislation that does not relate to a changed situation in society.
      Great misery and suffering are involved in dragging people who cannot live together in pleasure and happiness through the courts of law. I do not have to repeat all that has been said about the disgusting procedures involved in proving exceptional hardship and exceptional depravity. They leave marks on the character of people which often make it impossible to reach reasonable conclusions about financial arrangements or the future of the children. One effect of the present three-year bar is that when people can no longer live together—cannot bear to live together—they go to live with someone else. The result is a very large number of illegitimate children.
      A headline in the Burton Mail reads:
      "JP attacks new divorce plans".
      The article that follows says:
      "The plans to allow divorce after one year instead of three should be rejected for the sake of the children involved, according to Burton magistrate, Mrs. Eleanor Hayward, the Chairman of the Burton branch of the Church of England Society".
      I wonder whether people consider the suffering caused to illegitimate children as a result of parents not being able to divorce and remarry. That is an important aspect which has not yet been mentioned in today's debate. It is part of the misery and suffering created by the present law.
      I also think that the existing law is bad because it is ineffective. My colleagues argue that there is a bar, as if it were an effective bar. They have said that it is a
      988
      discretionary bar. In fact, no bar exists because anyone, the day after marriage, can apply for a judicial separation. About 70 per cent. of judicial separations are applied for within the first three years of marriage. Judicial separations usually result in divorce. The problem with that system is not that it acts as a bar to divorce, but that it involves going through the law twice, which is expensive, distressing and unnecessary.
      The bar is not effective and the misery caused by the existing law invites us to change the law, as it invites so many of the distinguished people who have considered the matter year in and year out. Those distinguished people have considered not only the hard cases. All our judges have worked in the Family Division. The chairman of the Family Law Bar Association deals with nothing but divorce cases and has massive experience. Not one colleague to whom I have spoken who practises at the divorce Bar thinks that anything is wrong with the Government's proposal, because the existing law is so painful and unnecessary in the causing of misery and is so relatively ineffective.
      What kind of change is needed? The change must involve a time bar. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who made a most effective speech, has left the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham thought that his speech was a blistering demolition of the time bar concept. I do not agree.
      There can be two kinds of time bar—that which causes the misery experienced today, and that which does not cause misery. A one-year time bar has been hit upon as a reasoned and enlightened compromise, because it is believed by those who work in the divorce courts that., since it takes three to six months to get a divorce going, an extra six months will not cause untold misery and hardship. Twelve months seems reasonable. We are left to decide whether we agree.
      The pressures for not having a time bar are great, but the public—who are perhaps unjustifiably worried—are entitled to have their views reflected, to some extent at least, by us. The public would be reassured not only by the fact that there is a one-year bar, but by the fact that it is an absolute time bar that is stronger in the protection of marriage than the existing situation, in which the bar is discretionary and in which anybody can go running to the magistrates court the day after their marriage and get a judicial separation. Such a time bar will reassure many of the public who have elected us, and who certainly do not wish to run down the institution of marriage.
      We are all agreed that marriage is an excellent and vital institution. However, we are discussing divorce, not marriage. We are considering the abolition of misery, where possible, and the substitution of rules that may alleviate some of that misery. This is no more than damage limitation.
      The Government have just about got it right in the Bill. I therefore support the Government's formulation, and I reject the formulations advanced by other hon. Members.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I declare an interest as a member of the Church of England, a member of a diocesan synod and its board of social responsibility, and a member of the board of advisers and pastoral committee. To that extent, I have advised many couples

      989
      in matrimonial difficulties. That may seem strange, as I am obviously one of the youngest Members and have been married only three and a half years.
      I believe in giving marriage a chance. I greatly value the institution of marriage. I have always understood that marriage is for life. We have all heard the phrase "Till death do us part." The proposed clause denigrates the value of marriage. We need to learn about each other, and we cannot do that in a year. We do that every day. There is something new in marriage every month and every year, and marriage grows on one. It is to me, and to many people, the most important decision in life. It is far more important than buying a house.
      I am concerned at the ease with which one can obtain a divorce. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) that couples must be carefully prepared before marriage. If clause 1 goes through, one could be married for only a year, and the time bar would be allowed. I hope that strong emphasis will be put on that, because one does not just walk into marriage. If it is to be for one year only, some of the young will experiment and say, "We need not be married for long. We can get out of it in a year." They have nothing to lose, because they can get a divorce. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said the one-year absolute bar would do that, and I agree.
      I ask my hon. and learned hon. Friend the Solicitor-General whether a shorter term will strengthen family life and public morals. I do not think that it will. We live by example, but by whose example? I mentioned learning something new each day and each month. The first few months in any marriage are the most difficult. Having recently married, I speak with experience. It takes a long time to understand what is happening. What is wrong with waiting for three years? I cannot understand why people are not prepared to do that. Two of my closest friends in different marriages are going through divorces. I know both sides of their arguments. Both are prepared to wait the full three years. Indeed, one is reluctant to have a divorce, because he believed that he had married for life. Even though the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the idea of getting divorced is abhorrent to him, a Christian with Christian values and moral decency.
      There is the reverse argument that couples may grow out of marriage many years later, and one ought to consider that, too. The divorce figure for women aged over 44 is 6·6 per cent. At that age, it may be easier to divorce, because the children have grown up and a couple do not have so many responsibilities. It is obviously terrible to have a divorce, but they could at least accept it at that time. An immediate divorce leaves any child born just in or out of wedlock with a very poor start in life. My great friend, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), spoke about more illegitimate children appearing on the scene. Obviously there will be many more illegitimate children if people can get divorced in that first year. In many of those marriages the lady will already be expecting a baby. A period of three years would help the child. It would give him a start in life. He would have the influence of his father or mother, whereas, after the divorce, he will obviously miss out on that. In the formative years at least, parents should try to stay
      990
      together. However, I am glad that the Government are prepared to help financially in an alternative clause, and that is welcome.
      I am also worried that many young people at school may suddenly think that they should avoid exams and get married. A year later they may be divorced, with no qualifications behind them. What a start in life! What a future for them!
      If it is easy to obtain a divorce, people will get married again and again. It concerns me that it does not seem to be a case of just remarrying once. However, can we blame people from going round in a circle if they can get divorced after a year? I am very worried about that. As Parliamentarians, we must lead by example. The public and the country need an example. They need to know that there are good, decent values. We need to show them what family life is all about, and how this country can be protected by avoiding the devaluation of the marriage vows.
      I believe that marriage vows are sacrosanct. Marriage is a serious undertaking, and no one should ever undertake it lightly. The one-year provision would encourage people to take it lightly. This debate is not about politics. It is marvellous that, for the first time since I became a Member of Parliament, we can have a free vote. The debate concerns Britain's morality, and our society. Society expects us not to destroy but to protect marriage. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) spoke about the high rate of divorce in this country. Under the new clause, there will be an even higher rate of divorce, and that is very worrying. We should do better.
      I know that the Government are well intentioned in introducing the clause, but, with great reluctance, I have to say that they are wrong. It is the public who should be listened to. I say that we should leave the law as it is with a three-year discretionary bar. I shall have no hesitation in supporting amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Greenway: It is a great honour to bring up the rear in this historic debate. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) spoke about a Church of England lady. From what he said, I should have thought that she was speaking not against the children of divorced people having properly married parents, but against the suffering of those whose lives are broken by parental divorce. That is how I read it. Although I almost always agree with my hon. and learned Friend, I must say that this debate concerns not divorce, but marriage. Indeed, if it is not about marriage, I cannot have been following the debate as I should have been doing.
      My views are based on a lifetime's teaching experience, culminating in running a school of 2,000 children. I saw hundreds of children who were the result of broken homes and broken marriages. At the same time, I am a member of the Church of England and have always accepted the sacrament of marriage as one of the Church's seven great sacraments. It is a principle that marriage is sacred, and for life. That does not mean that I do not understand modern society, or that there has to be provision for divorce, but, as other hon. Members have said, we should all aspire, while accepting the fallen nature of man, to that principle.
      I have consulted my constituents widely on this matter and have had discussions or correspondence with members of every church of every denomination. They have all

      991
      shown great compassion in their thinking on the matter, and also great firmness in thinking that marriage is a matter for the holy spirit of God rather than for man. That is why I say that this debate is about marriage and God's interpretation of it, not about man's legal interpretation of marriage, because it is a gift of God.
      I echo the unhappiness of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) who referred to the Lord Chancellor's strong and distressing remarks in the House of Lords, which upset a large number of members of the Church of England and other faiths. We need to admit, and not be afraid to say, that there is a higher authority than the Lord Chancellor, and that authority is God himself.
      The Law Commission, whose recommendations are being supported by the Government in the Bill, received overwhelming endorsement for a change in the existing law. At present the court has discretion to admit petitions for divorce in less than three years of marriage, but only in cases where exceptional hardship has been suffered by the petitioners or exceptional depravity has been committed by the respondents. It is argued that this discretion positively accentuates divorce because it encourages the petitioner to make the most unpleasant allegations possible to make a convincing case. Afterwards, the financial settlement and arrangements for any children are thereby made most acrimonious.
      As I understand it, each judge has his own idea of what is exceptional in these cases and no consistent standard can be set, and that is one of the central problems. This makes divorce arbitrary — of that there is no question. Some people are tempted to opt for no time bar on divorce because such a system has worked well in Scotland and because they feel that the most Christian emphasis is to prevent pain and suffering. There is no convincing evidence that a time bar operates as an external buttress to the stability of marriage, as the Law Commission said. The number of marriages dissolved by the end of 10 years of marriage is no higher in Scotland, where there is no time bar, than in England and Wales. The increasing numbers of judicial separations and petitions, most of which are followed by divorce, demonstrate that the time bar is ineffective in bolstering failing marriages. Some say that no time bar would be the most rational step, but we are not operating in terms of pure logic—that is the burden of what I have already said and what the House should take on board.
      We must take into account the public's perception of the proposed change and the Christian tradition of this country. Our role as legislators must be undertaken with these things in mind above all else. It is most important that marriage remains, and is seen to remain, as the bedrock of our society. In the Bill the grounds for divorce are not changed—they are still irretrievable breakdown of the marriage—but the proposal to introduce a one-year absolute ban in place of a three-year discretionary one is not the correct step.
      One year is too short, for several reasons. First, it persuades people that divorce has been made easier. Second, it devalues marriage in the public eye and gives the wrong emphasis. There is a great need to reinforce family life within marriage, to strengthen family unity and to give children the security and help that come from the psychology of happily married parents.
      Third, it shows a lack of respect for Christian marriage vows and the ideal of a union that is permanent and
      992
      lifelong, for better or for worse, although many, of course, fall short of that ideal. We can have only one law in England and Wales to cover all types of marriage, but I believe that a ban of only one year would show lack of respect for our Christian traditions and vows. I support a two-year absolute ban, which I believe better meets the public interest, if I may argue it in secular terms.
      9.30 pm
      Two years may also be long enough to deter those contemplating sham marriages to achieve British nationality. I hesitate to mention that, but we know that it can happen. If there were no time limit, that might become a serious problem in some areas. Such an abuse would also seriously undermine the institution of marriage. A two-year period is also long enough to dismiss the thought that divorce has been made easier, but it is not so long to wait for those who have fallen short of the ideal marriage and may be suffering the traumas of a broken relationship, which in a minority of cases are very real and horrible and are admitted within the three-year period even under the existing law. Case history includes the wife who is pregnant by another man and the other party having syphilis, a wife going back to a former lover immediately after the honeymoon and a husband going off to be a homosexual within a few weeks of marriage. Those cases are part of legal history.
      There is a small minority of cases—
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: There "are," not "is."
      Mr. Greenway: There is a small minority. A singular subject takes a singular verb. The hon. Lady should remember that I used to be a schoolmaster. As I am currently marking a thousand English papers, I am somewhat sensitive about these matters.
      It should be remembered that 90 per cent. of all divorces are uncontested or completed by post. We must decide whether to prolong the agony in a small minority of cases for a little longer and enshrine the value of marriage in law or to be seen as making divorce easier for all and undermining the institution of marriage. I believe that we should make it clear to the public that we value marriage as the bedrock of society. The law must be concerned with strengthening family life. I support a two-year ban rather than a three-year ban, but certainly not a one-year ban.
      The Solicitor-General: I begin by expressing my gratitude for the extraordinary high quality of all the speeches that I have heard, and I believe that I have listened to all but about one and a half of the contributions to this debate. I am also grateful for the kind remarks made about me by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee). My hon. Friend spoke delicately, as he put it, because he wished to make a personal comment on the handling of matters in the other place by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I must say at once—I wish to get it over at the outset—that I cannot accept my hon. Friend's gentle strictures on the conduct of my right hon. and noble Friend.
      The bishops have the good fortune to occupy a Bench in the House of Lords presided over by one of the great figures of our public life, and fortunate it is that he is robust, or he would not still adorn the place that he does.

      993
      Certainly my right hon. and noble Friend argued his Bill with vigour—had he not done so, I should have thought that he was ill—but he did not, I believe, argue it with discourtesy, although he perhaps argued it under some provocation from the ecclesiastical shortcomings so accurately identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. I believe that my right hon. and noble Friend's resolute leadership should be seen as an example, not a source of grievance.
      Throughout the debate the story kept coming back to me about the papal audience granted to Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce, the new United States ambassador to the Holy See. The story is that, after a mere half-hour of being addressed, the Pope observed faintly, "Ambassador, I am a Christian, too." I, too, am in favour of marriage as an institution and wish nothing to be done to weaken it. I, too, believe that the family is the foundation of society and I regret the prevalance of divorce. The same is true of the Lord Chancellor.
      All of us are faced with a statutory provision that is actively and seriously harmful. It has been found to be harmful by judges, practitioners, voluntary agencies working in this connection and the law commissioners after substantial consultation and research. The law commissioners looked at the matter not as gurus or experts but as people carrying out research. That the provision is harmful was not denied by any of the witnesses whom the Special Standing Committee called, whether legal, ecclesiastical or lay.
      The debate was very complex, because a number of amendments and new clauses were helpfully grouped together, although it is not especially helpful for me in having to reply to them all. I thought it might be helpful to the House, in giving a framework to my reply, to summarise the advice that I shall offer the House. First, the abolition of all time restrictions—this matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best)—might well be unsafe in its influence on public opinion, although a logical case can be made for it.
      Secondly, the amendment No. 1 option of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) to keep the present law unchanged would extend the harm done at present and would not be tolerable.
      Thirdly, I believe that any future time bar should be absolute, because no satisfactory alternative conditions to the present one have been devised, nor do I believe they can be devised. Fourthly, the amendment No. 2 option of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for a two-year time bar would often cause gratuitous hardship to innocent people, and a three-year time bar, as proposed in amendment No. 3, would be worse. Accordingly, I invite the House to accept that the clause, as drafted, is right.
      I shall substantiate those propositions. The Law Commission recommended the change that is embodied in the Bill because of the harm caused by the present law, about which there is general agreement. The trouble is that there is a three-year conditional bar on presenting a divorce petition which, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) reminded us, is not effectively a bar. The conditions in which that bar can be lifted — exceptional hardship and depravity — are incapable of consistent enforcement, because they are
      994
      conceptually absurd. Is anyone proud of the concept of normal or non-exceptional depravity as distinct from exceptional depravity? That measure hardly adorns the law.
      The conditions in which the bar can be lifted cause increased bitterness and reduce the chances of conciliation, because the allegations needed to substantiate the charge of exceptional depravity encourage the use in a petition of damaging and exaggerated allegations of a distressing and painful kind, which flow over into the subsequent negotiations to matters such as access, custody, maintenance, and so forth.
      The evidence is all one way. It is very damaging and it goes plumb against what is now the common ground that if, regrettably, a marriage comes unstuck our divorce procedures must permit the legal shell to be done away with with the minimum of humiliation, distress and indignity.
      Lastly, for all those reasons, the conditions are harmful because they do harm to the children. Small wonder that Lord Scarman described it as
      "an ugly and objectionable discretion which is causing embarrassment to judges and a good deal of hardship and bitterness to the parties whose marriage has broken down."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 1983; Vol. 445, c. 63.]
      In that castigation he was supported today by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner), whose speech I greatly admired, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst, supporting the two-year option, but in no doubt about the harmfulness of the present situation.
      Therefore, my advice to the House has to be that an overwhelming case has been established for some change to be made. It is argued, as it always is, that we should do nothing yet because it is premature. The only difference is that it is normally argued by civil servants that it would be premature to make any sort of move proposed by politicians whereas here it is politicians who are arguing that it would be premature to make any move until the Booth committee has reported on procedure, until steps are taken to introduce further provisions for conciliation, and until the Law Commission has reported on its study of the grounds for divorce. Yet those with experience of the Law Commission and these matters generally consider that it may well be five, six or seven years before new grounds are enacted and brought into operation. That was the evidence to the Committee.
      The last point of the hon. Member for Torfaen was that he hoped we would not go ahead with this because if we did it would delay the day when the sole ground for divorce was separation for one year. I am not so sure that everybody in the House—certainly on the Conservative Benches—wishes to see that day arrive. Be that as it may, five, six or seven years is surely too long to go on tolerating the harm that has been so universally identified and condemned. That is not to say that progress cannot be made on matters such as conciliation, the family court, and so on.
      My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is proceeding with a study of ways in which conciliation can be brought forward. The conciliation services do a valuable job, but they have not proved to be particularly effective at preserving marriages that have broken down in the early days. Indeed, the primary objective of conciliation is to enable parties to resolve the issues

      995
      between them in as amicable a manner as possible. Reconciliation is not the objective, although in some cases it can be a welcome side effect.
      My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has some money available, which he has devoted to a further study of conciliation and how conciliation services can better be encouraged, and movements are afoot for progress in the areas that have been identified, but they do not in the main require primary legislation. Therefore, we should conclude that a change should not only be made but be made now. Therefore, we should reject amendment No. 1.
      That is all very fine, but what change should be made? I entirely agree that this is a matter of practical judgment, as has been said by so many hon. Members tonight. No great issue of principle or dogma is engaged, as may be seen from the rich variety of alternatives on the Amendment Paper. None of us wants to make matters worse. None of us wants to signal that Parliament somehow thinks less of marriage and regards it as an ephemeral state, not to be cherished as an institution. We all want to make our divorce procedure work acceptably and we all share a desire not to encourage more divorce.
      The judgment of the Government agrees with that of the Law Commission in that, whatever change is made, it is preferable on balance to keep some time restrictions and that any such restrictions should be not conditional, but absolute.
      9.45 pm
      I owe it to the House to explain why, on balance, we think that there must continue to be a time bar, restricting the commencement of divorce proceedings. It is an opinion that is rooted in compromise, and none the worse for that. If there were more compromise in marriage, there would be less divorce. There is no doubt that an attractive and logical case can be made for having no time restriction at all. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn for that and for his remarks about the help that he was given by the Lord Chancellor's Department in drafting his new clause. The drafting is all right, but I advise the House that, on balance, its effect is not.
      Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is the sole ground for divorce these days. Perhaps that is a pity, but it is so. Therefore, we can say that once marriage has broken down irretrievably according to the tests laid down by the law, there should be no time bar. Breakdown is established through one of the four states of fact that the House already knows about: adultery, unreasonable conduct, separation and desertion. It is at once apparent that, by these statutory criteria of whether or not a marriage has broken down, it can break down irretrievably within months, or less, of the wedding day.
      Lord Denning gave examples. Within a day or a week of marriage a wife went off with her former lover and lived with him. The husband was left alone, and the wife became pregnant by her former lover. That was an actual case, and leave was given without question for an early divorce.
      In another case, immediately after the wedding there was a honeymoon with an entirely heterosexual relationship. After three weeks, the husband went off with a male cousin, committed homosexuality with him, lived with him and discarded his wife. Of course, early divorce was permitted.
      996
      Early breakdowns of marriage leading to early divorce are not negligible in number—the House should attach some importance to that — although they are a tiny proportion of the total. An hon. Member rightly said that we must never regard cases as unimportant because each concerns the lives of human beings. The cases have not been negligible in number over the past three years. I can give figures if they are wanted.
      An answer is needed to the question why, if the marriage has died in fact and it would be held to have died in substantive law, should procedural law insist on ensuring that its legal existence may not be ended?
      The case that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn is reinforced by the Scottish experience. I shall not say more about it as it has been adequately and effectively canvassed in the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival). Scotland never had and does not have a time bar now.
      The Law Commission concludes from the Scottish experience that a time bar defers but does not deter divorce. There has been much support for that view in the House this afternoon. It is further reinforced by our legal history in England and Wales. We did not have a time bar after the civil courts were granted jurisdiction over divorce in 1857. What a revolutionary change that must have seemed—the green light for divorce. Yet, for all that, no time bar was imposed, and for 44 years of Queen Victoria's reign and for the first 37 years of this century there was no time bar at all, and none, evidently, was thought necessary.
      Some of us reflect with nostalgia on Victorian values. If there was a greater respect for marriage in Victorian times, it owed nothing to a time bar on the commencement of divorce proceedings, for there was none, and none was thought desirable. If it is said that times were different, nevertheless adultery was still adultery, even in 1857, and divorce was available for it. If it is said that the public's attitude to marriage is different now, it has coincided with the period of the three-year time bar. As Prebendary Gladwin of the Board for Social Responsibility said, has it been caused by it? I face the fact that there is much to be said for new clause 3, but there is a difference between sticking to what has always been the arrangement and suddenly switching from a three-year bar, albeit conditional, to none at all.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Matins) made that point in his intervention, and it was made by many others. That change, which is not apparent in Scotland, might be invested with a significance, a drama, deriving from the very fact of the change itself. It may send a false signal that Parliament cares little for marriage. I entirely agree with what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde and others. That thought was expressed in the evidence given to our Committee by the President of the Family Division, Lord Scarman, and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), whose contributions to our proceedings were of such great benefit to us all.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: Referring to the point that the Solicitor-General has just made, for how long has the rule in Scotland been different from the rule in England?
      The Solicitor-General: For 400 years or more. I wish that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) were here, because he would explain how long the Scots have had this rule. They have had it for 400 years or more. It serves them well. They have rejected opportunities to make a change.
      This is a matter of practical judgment, but this was the reasoning that turned the Law Commission away from recommending that we adopt the Scots arrangement, with no time restriction at all. On balance, the Government agreed, so clause 1 still provides a time bar.
      Mr. John Morris: Given the evidence before the Committee, which I have read, that very few people knew the time limitation before one could bring a divorce petition, is the only argument of substance against that of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) that a false signal might come from Parliament to people who are now wholly unaware of the position?
      The Solicitor-General: It is very much the most important argument against new clause 3. Perhaps not many people know that the period is now three years. However, many more will know that we have had this debate and made the change. That is the answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
      It is for all right hon. and hon. Members to decide for themselves. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, who said that it is for us to decide, and that we might bring more to the debate than experts in the Law Commission and so on. My advice to the House is to reject new clause 3 for the reasons that I have given.
      However, that leaves the question, "What kind of bar?" Should it be conditional or absolute? The old conditions must go. That is common ground. Because amendment No. 1 retains them, I advise the House to reject the amendment for that reason, if for no other—and there are others.
      Are there any other conditions that will serve viably to hold the line, as it were, against frivolous marriage and instant divorce, on the one hand, while giving the flexibility that is needed to prevent hardship, on the other? I can say only that no conditions have been suggested by any witness, and the Law Commission could think of none. Some got as far as saying that it should not be beyond the power of Government, and it should not be impossible to find them, but none ventured to put any forward.
      There is a letter in The Times today from the Bishop of Birmingham, the chairman of the Board for Social Responsibility. That board gave evidence to the Committee through its vice-chairman and its secretary. I should like to read a passage from the evidence which showed that they said one thing in June and virtually the opposite the following March. I can only say of the Board for Social Responsibility, in this regard, that its trumpet hath sent forth an uncertain note. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said about that. One of the witnesses of the Board of Social Responsibility told us:
      "We find it rather difficult to suggest ways of handling the immediate needs",
      and added that the board was "rather unsettled" about that. The Government must decide how to handle the immediate needs. We do not think it right simply to remain "rather unsettled" after the Law Commission's inquiry and report.
      998
      I hope that the board is not of the view that for marriages which, it agrees,
      "never get established and which, in the light of what is discovered in the early stages of the marriage, have no reasonable hope of ever being successful in any meaningful sense",
      a three-year absolute time bar should apply in the civil law of divorce. I hope that it is not saying that. If it is, I do not think that many would see that as representing a reasonable attitude.
      While the board rejected a one-year bar, it did not feel able to say what it would approve. In the absence of any satisfactory alternative conditions, the Government are clear that the Law Commission was right in recommending an absolute, not a conditional, bar. I must allow, therefore, that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 have that merit in that they are absolute bars.
      In the opinion of the Government, even a two-year absolute bar is too long. If we are changing from a three-year conditional bar to an absolute bar, it is self-evident that the absolute bar must be shorter than three years. The reason is that we must cater for the kind of case recalled by Lord Denning, to which I have referred, of the almost instant breakdown with no blame on the part of the deserted spouse.
      It is not to be assumed that such a person will never wish to marry again. Why should it? Every one of the benefits of marriage was withheld from her first marriage, which died almost before it began. She never tasted marriage at all. No doubt that wife will not wish to remarry at once. To postpone, until a year has elapsed, her first step on the road to remarriage might cause inconvenience but surely not hardship.
      I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn that there would be hardship. The hon. Member for Torfaen dealt with that, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon), who made an impressive speech in favour of clause 1, as drafted, having thought differently to begin with. My right hon. and learned Friend.the Member for Southport said much the same.
      To postpone for two years the right to start down the road to remarriage is very different indeed, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington that that would be hardship. Why should a woman whose marriage crashed in those hideously distressing circumstances, almost at once, be made to wait for so long before she can even start to rid herself of that marriage's legal shell, and then perhaps a further six months before she is able to marry again?
      I regret that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), having made a speech, is not in his place. He spoke of marriage being an ordained state, and with that I agree, as do many of my hon. Friends. What is the most poignantly described of the purposes for which we are told incomparably in the Prayer Book that marriage is ordained? It is the mutual society, help and comfort that the one should have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. That is just as true of marriage in a registry office as it is of marriage in a church.
      Why should that woman be denied those precious benefits for so long by a state which permits divorce and recognises as lawful a second marriage? Is it argued that in her adversity she has no need of comfort and merits no help? Suppose she does not want to live with a man to whom she is not married. It has been suggested to me by a distinguished churchman that it is perfectly all right for her to live with him so long as they do not get married.

      999
      Suppose she does not want to live with that man, however fond of him she may be. Suppose she does not want to bear his child. I hope that such an attitude is not so old-fashioned that the modern Church cannot applaud it.
      It has been said that we are against illegitimacy. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) rightly deplored the increase in illegitimacy. I ask her to reflect, with respect, whether by making someone wait two or three years before they can even start on the road to remarriage that will encourage or discourage illegitimacy.
      I shall remind the House of how it is argued. The written evidence on behalf of the Board for Social Responsibility may be consulted. It states:
      "In any case it needs to be asked"—
      which I find is Church language for a statement that the opposite is the truth—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That at this day's sitting the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Hunt.]
      Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Solicitor-General: To continue:
      "In any case it needs to be asked whether it is in the best interests of those who made such a disastrous choice of partner in their first marriage that it crashed within a few months of its commencement to be given freedom to contract another union almost immediately, rather than after two or three years.—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 20 March 1984; c. 38.]
      I heard the Bishop of Birmingham say the same thing on television at lunch-time today.
      That is an approach that I find—the House may agree with me or not—highly unjust and unattractively presumptuous. It is one that is incompatible with the basis of our civil law of divorce, which is founded on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. It is the penalty to which the Law Commission referred and to which my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn and for Stockport referred. [Interruption.] Not Southport, Stockport. I know the difference between the two because I went to one of them on Friday. I went to the other at the general election. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members not to press me.
      If there is to be an absolute time bar, my advice to the House agrees with that of the Law Commission — that unacceptable hardship may well result if it is longer than one year.
      Of course, I must face the fact—and I have not left it to the last because I wanted to get away from it—that there remains an assertion that this will send forth a damaging signal to the country, and that it will be misunderstood. I do not believe it. For the first time, we shall be imposing a time bar with no exceptions in place of a discretionary bar which is lifted virtually whenever an applicant asks for it without any close investigation. As has been made clear, it happens in 95 cases out of every 100. For the first time we shall be making the real quickie divorce impossible. This is a sterner, not a weaker, rule.
      I venture to suggest that if there are people who misunderstand this, if it is explained to them, as has been said, they are not in any event likely to reshape their own attitude to marriage accordingly. I suspect that they will continue to be formed by numerous other influences and be quite unmoved by anything that we do.
      1000
      I advise the House, therefore, to vote for clause 1 as it stands. This has been a tricky debate to which to reply and to do justice, and I cannot claim to have done that.
      To abolish all time restrictions might well be unsafe, and that is new clause 3. To retain the present law—amendment No. 1—would be harmful and intolerable. It would retain the quickie divorce available on demand. I hope that my hon. Friends will reflect upon that.
      An absolute time bar is, on balance, preferable; yet two years would frequently cause gratuitous hardship to innocent people, and three years would be worse. With the Law Commission, we believe that the right compromise lies in the one year absolute, which will cause no hardship and yet will serve as a valuable symbol.
      I commend with the greatest respect the speeches of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes and my hon. and learned Friends the Members for Fylde and for Burton.
      I hope that I am no less ardent than any of my hon. Friends in support of the family, marriage, or the reputation of the Government or the party. I do not believe that by closing the door on the real quickie divorce we cart be accused of cheapening marriage. If, by new clause 3, we insisted on retaining it, we would seem odd indeed. If we carried amendments Nos. 2 or 3, we would seem to be harsh and insisting on law that is out of touch with reality. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 seek absolute bars for two or three years respectively to be considered as an alternative to the absolute bar of clause 1. For the reasons that I have given, each of those would give rise to gratuitous hardship to innocent people, and probably to greater illegitimacy. That cannot be justified. That is why I invite the House to reject both amendments and to support the clause as it stands.
      Mr. Best: When my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General practised at the Bar, he may have come up against the chilling experience which sometimes confronts me. When I have presented a case to a judge and he starts with the words: "Mr. Best, you have said all that could have been said on behalf of your client. You have put it in the most persuasive way, but I have to say to you … ", I know that I have lost.
      My hon. and learned Friend said all that could be said on behalf of the Government in support of clause 1, and said it in a most persuasive way. Nevertheless, some hon. Members, including myself, will not have been persuaded by his comments. I hope that he will understand me when I say that his argument about the difference between Stockport and Southport was as persuasive as his argument about the difference between a one-year absolute bar and no bar.
      I thank my hon. and learned Friend for much of what he said, because it appeared to support new clause 3. He said that there was much to be said for new clause 3, and I am grateful to him for that. There was not even a poisonous sting in the tail, as I expected. He deployed persuasive arguments in favour of new clause 3. The gravamen of the argument against new clause 3 is whether the abolition of a bar, such as the present discretionary bar, and the failure to substitute for it an absolute bar of one year, as is proposed in the Bill, might send a false signal. That is a matter of speculation. Against that, one can be certain that hardship cases will be caused if there is a bar

      1001
      on the presentation of a petition, whatever the length of the period. Examples of that have been put forward by hon. Members, including the Solicitor-General.
      I accept that that may occur in only a few cases if there is a one-year absolute bar but, as my hon. and learned Friend said, we must consider people as individuals. If individuals will suffer hardship, as they will do if the clause is made law, that is a reason to scrutinise the clause even more carefully and to vote against it.
      The Solicitor-General said that clause 1 might cause inconvenience, as of course it will. But why should it cause inconvenience and hardship when we can ensure that they do not occur? He argued against the two-years bar. Would he have argued so persuasively against a 18-months for 13-months bar? I wondered at what point he would change from his vehement opposition to the two-years absolute bar to his support for the Government's one-year absolute bar. There is no logical point at which that could occur.
      I listened with great care to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner), who put his finger on the point. He said that it was against logic and his instinct not to support new clause 3, and that his argument was as much psychological as it was logical. I respect deeply what he said, because it obviously came from the heart. I ask the House to vote logically, not on the basis of a perception that, on the evidence, does not exist in the general public. Far from being a signal that marriage has been cheapened, if we pass new clause 3 it will be a signal that we believe that marriage is for life but that, in circumstances where it has irretrievably broken down through the misfortunes that can occur, those people should be helped at whatever time the breakdown occurs.
      That is the message that should go from the House tonight, and I hope that hon. Members will support me in sending it.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 45, Noes 162.

      Division No. 364]

      [10.10 pm

      AYES

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Madden, Max

      Batiste, Spencer

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Mikardo, Ian

      Blair, Anthony

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Nellist, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Nelson, Anthony

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Norris, Steven

      Cowans, Harry

      Ottaway, Richard

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

      Parris, Matthew

      Dicks, Terry

      Pike, Peter

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Raffan, Keith

      Favell, Anthony

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Skinner, Dennis

      Haynes, Frank

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

      Hayward, Robert

      Spencer, Derek

      Home Robertson, John

      Thurnham, Peter

      Hooson, Tom

      Tinn, James

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

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Wood, Timothy

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Knowles, Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Mr. Keith Best and Mr. Alex Carlile.

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      McWilliam, John

      1002

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Alexander, Richard

      Hunter, Andrew

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Amess, David

      Jessel, Toby

      Ashby, David

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Key, Robert

      Baldry, Anthony

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Benyon, William

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Lilley, Peter

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Maclean, David John

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Major, John

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Malins, Humfrey

      Bright, Graham

      Mather, Carol

      Brinton, Tim

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Burt, Alistair

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Chapman, Sydney

      Newton, Tony

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

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Conway, Derek

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Coombs, Simon

      Pawsey, James

      Cope, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Powley, John

      Deakins, Eric

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Dover, Den

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Dunn, Robert

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Durant, Tony

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Dykes, Hugh

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Evennett, David

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fallon, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Farr, John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Shersby, Michael

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Silvester, Fred

      Forman, Nigel

      Sims, Roger

      Forrester, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fox, Marcus

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Franks, Cecil

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Freeman, Roger

      Stern, Michael

      Fry, Peter

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Gale, Roger

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Galley, Roy

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Sumberg, David

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Gow, Ian

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Greenway, Harry

      Thome, Neil (Ilford S)

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Tracey, Richard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Viggers, Peter

      Harris, David

      Waddington, David

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Walden, George

      Hawksley, Warren

      Waller, Gary

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Watson, John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Watts, John

      Holt, Richard

      Weetch, Ken

      Howard, Michael

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Whitfield, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Whitney, Raymond

      1003

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Yeo, Tim

      Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Michael Neubert.

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      BAR ON PETITIONS FOR DIVORCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF MARRIAGE
      Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 2, line 8, leave out clause 1.—[Mr. Abse]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 147.

      Division No. 365]

      [10.22 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Jessel, Toby

      Amess, David

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Ashby, David

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Lilley, Peter

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Bright, Graham

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Chope, Christopher

      Powley, John

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Dicks, Terry

      Silvester, Fred

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Evennett, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fallon, Michael

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Farr, John

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Forman, Nigel

      Walden, George

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Franks, Cecil

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Gale, Roger

      Watson, John

      Galley, Roy

      Whitfield, John

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Wood, Timothy

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Yeo, Tim

      Hawksley, Warren

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hind, Kenneth

      Mr. Christopher Murphy and Mr. J. F. Pawsey.

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Chapman, Sydney

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

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

      Baldry, Anthony

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Conway, Derek

      Batiste, Spencer

      Coombs, Simon

      Benyon, William

      Cope, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Cowans, Harry

      Best, Keith

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

      Blair, Anthony

      Deakins, Eric

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dover, Den

      Brinton, Tim

      Dunn, Robert

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Burl, Alistair

      Durant, Tony

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      1004

      Favell, Anthony

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Nellist, David

      Forrester, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Neubert, Michael

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Newton, Tony

      Freeman, Roger

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fry, Peter

      Norris, Steven

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Ottaway, Richard

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Parris, Matthew

      Gow, Ian

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Pike, Peter

      Greenway, Harry

      Raffan, Keith

      Ground, Patrick

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Harris, David

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Haynes, Frank

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Hayward, Robert

      Rowe, Andrew

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Shersby, Michael

      Holt, Richard

      Sims, Roger

      Home Robertson, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hooson, Tom

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

      Howard, Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

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

      Spencer, Derek

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Steen, Anthony

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Stern, Michael

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Key, Robert

      Sumberg, David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Knowles, Michael

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Lang, Ian

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Tracey, Richard

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Viggers, Peter

      Maclean, David John

      Waddington, David

      McWilliam, John

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Madden, Max

      Waller, Gary

      Major, John

      Watts, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Weetch, Ken

      Mather, Carol

      Whitney, Raymond

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mikardo, Ian

      Mr. David Hunt and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Question accordingly negatived
      Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 2, line 15 leave out 'one year' and insert 'two years'.—[Mr. Sims.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 51, Noes 154.

      Division No. 366]

      [10.33 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Evennett, David

      Ashby, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Freeman, Roger

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Gale, Roger

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Galley, Roy

      Bright, Graham

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Gow, Ian

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Ground, Patrick

      Cash, William

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      1005

      Harris, David

      Sims, Roger

      Hind, Kenneth

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Walden, George

      Hunter, Andrew

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Jessel, Toby

      Watts, John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Whitfield, John

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Murphy, Christopher

      Wood, Timothy

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Yeo, Tim

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Mr. Harry Greenway and Mr. Alistair Burt.

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Silvester, Fred

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Deakins, Eric

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Dicks, Terry

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

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Dover, Den

      Baldry, Anthony

      Dunn, Robert

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Batiste, Spencer

      Durant, Tony

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dykes, Hugh

      Benyon, William

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Farr, John

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Favell, Anthony

      Best, Keith

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Blair, Anthony

      Forrester, John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Franks, Cecil

      Brinton, Tim

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Fry, Peter

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Chapman, Sydney

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Chope, Christopher

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

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

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Conway, Derek

      Haynes, Frank

      Coombs, Simon

      Hayward, Robert

      Cope, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Cowans, Harry

      Holt, Richard

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

      Home Robertson, John

      1006

      Hooson, Tom

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Howard, Michael

      Rhodes James, Robert

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

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rowe, Andrew

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Key, Robert

      Shersby, Michael

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

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

      Knowles, Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Spencer, Derek

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Steen, Anthony

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Stern, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Maclean, David John

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Madden, Max

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Major, John

      Sumberg, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Mather, Carol

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Tracey, Richard

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Nellist, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Waddington, David

      Neubert, Michael

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Newton, Tony

      Waller, Gary

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Norris, Steven

      Watson, John

      Onslow, Cranley

      Weetch, Ken

      Ottaway, Richard

      Whitney, Raymond

      Parris, Matthew

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Pike, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Powley, John

      Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Douglas Hogg

      Raffan, Keith

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 3

      ORDERS FOR FINANCIAL RELIEF AFTER DIVORCE ETC.
      10.45 pm
      Ms. Jo Richardson: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, leave out lines 20 to 26 and insert—
      'It shall be the duty of the Court in deciding whether to exercise its powers under section 23, 24 or 24A above, and if so in what manner, to make an order or orders, which, first consideration being given to the welfare of the children, fairly distributes the assets of the marriage including any pension and insurance rights on the basis that marriage is a common endeavour'.
      We have spent more than five hours discussing part I, which I accept is an important part of the legislation. I am, however, worried that part II, which is about picking up the pieces after the divorce, will not merit as much attention as has been given to part I. Part II is extremely important. In Committee the debate on part II occupied more time than the debate on part I, and I hope that we shall have the attention of the House when discussing it.
      The amendment is concerned with a fairer distribution of the assets of the marriage. It seeks to set an objective which the Bill as drafted completely lacks. The measure is a chance to make a statement of social policy and have a shared understanding of the approach that the courts should take. It is not an attempt at quantification but a general statement of policy. A law without an objective is bad. No directions leave the courts open to create their own law. I believe that without the amendment the Bill would have no direction, and that would be an abdication of parliamentary responsibility.
      Many people will say that the Bill's objective is to put children first, but I remind the House that consideration of children is relevant in only 60 per cent. of divorce cases. Even in that number, spouses and spousal property should still be considered.
      The Bill is not only about maintenance—though, as I have said many times, maintenance is an important part of the Bill—but about the chattels of the marriage and how they are divided. The Bill is about things in the kitchen, the house, the furniture, and so on. It is concerned with what is done about the insurance policy and eventually about the house.
      Since 1882 married women have been able to own their own property, but we must remember in 1984 that many married women still are not in a position to accumulate assets in the same way as their husbands can. That is because of the general position in which married women find themselves, because of their home responsibilities. That is especially true of women who have decided to put their children first and to remain at home rather than pursue any type of work or career, and who therefore have not earned much money.
      England and Wales, unlike European countries, do not provide for community of property in marriage. Unless the partners pool their earnings and buy everything jointly, which some do, the law operates the basic rule that one owns what one has bought. The fact of marriage makes no difference to property ownership.
      The amendment's objective is to remind us all and the courts that, although we do not have the community of property system that operates in Europe, we recognise that
      1008
      marriage is a common endeavour to which both parties have contributed in several and differing ways. The amendment tries to underline the fact that marriage should be seen in that light.
      Much of the debate on part II has centred on dependency, because of the way in which the Bill is drawn up, and too little on the collective enterprise of marriage. We should not miss this chance—I shall repeat this point—of stating clearly for the guidance of the courts what we regard as the objective in the division of property on divorce.
      Women all over the country who are married and who stay married would like recognition of their contribution to the marriage, even though they may never be involved in divorce. It gives them a status which not all of there have at present. If they become divorced, it is important that the fact that there was a common endeavour should be clearly recognised. Many who have been divorced feel that the concentration in the Bill on the alleged abuse cf maintenance undermines the endeavour that they have made. It is not too late to show that we take the matter seriously and to recognise that the Bill is not and should not be simply about maintenance, but should be about all financial orders on divorce. Hon. Members should not be irresponsible and let the Bill go forward without a statement of that policy.
      Let me point to some of the words which we have used in amendment No. 4, which we hope will produce a sympathetic response from the Solicitor-General. I am not saying that we did not receive any sympathy in Committee, but we did not get the response that we wanted. We talk about "assets of the marriage". It is important to recognise that assets are acquired through, and not for, marriage. The courts have already had to deal with the problem. The amendment does not include any definition of assets, but it recognises their existence. It would be impossible for us to list assets.
      We talk about fairly distributing the assets of the marriage. Again it is impossible to be more specific and in a general policy objective that should not be necessary anyway. "Fairly distributes" is a term used by the Scottish Law Commission in its draft Bill. Fairness in individual cases would depend on the court's application of the guidelines. It does not fetter discretion, but it does give a policy guide.
      The use of the term "distributes" recognises that it is not a question of awarding one party against another, but of sharing out what has been acquired through joint effort. That is what we have to keep in the forefront of our minds. "Common endeavour" is a phrase which has been chosen with the greatest of care. Surely modern marriages should be viewed as a common endeavour. Any family policy should take that as a starting point. The law should be no exception and can take the lead.
      We have also included a reference to pension and insurance rights in the amendment. In Committee we debated occupational pensions and insurance rights, and the Opposition were defeated. I remind the House that in the debate in the other place the Lord Chancellor was not without some sympathy for the point that was made about the contribution that was made by the first wife to the pension contributions of her husband. I say again what I said in Committee and what others have said — first wives never become widows and there are penalties attached to that because many are older wives rather than younger wives who have made a real contribution to the

      1009
      marriage. We all believe that any benefit which comes from common endeavour in financial terms should be fairly shared out between the two. That is what we seek to do. It would be grossly unfair and improper not to do so.
      Mr. Martin Stevens: We are all trying to achieve greater fairness. Indeed, that is the purpose of the Bill. Would not the Bill enable the court, if it thought it right, to assess and divide insurance and pension rights? I genuinely do not know whether the Bill precludes that.
      Ms. Richardson: As I understand it, the Bill in its present form precludes such a division. It may well be that a court would take that into account. There are many regrettably vague words in the Bill which do not give sufficiently clear guidelines to the courts.
      When we argued in Committee about pension and insurance rights, the position as I understood it—the Solicitor-General may correct me—was that pension and insurance rights were not secure in terms of being properly shared out. That is why we should like to see something more in the Bill.
      I believe that the House would seriously abrogate its responsibilities if it allowed the Bill to go forward without the policy objective that we are trying to set down. It makes a statement about marriage. We have heard much this evening about marriage and the sanctity of marriage. We should like to carry forward what has been said by stating that we see marriage as a common endeavour. If it breaks down irretrievably, that common endeavour should be recognised.
      We are supporting a modern vision of a partnership. It is seen today as two people working together. To leave the Bill as it stands would bring more discord and dissatisfaction. Goodness knows, the Bill has caused enough discord, dissatisfaction and misunderstanding. To inject a positive statement like this would mean that the House had made an important contribution to the development of family law. I hope, therefore, that the House will support our amendment.
      Mr. Blair: At this late hour it may be too much to expect as good an attendance for this amendment as for the earlier part of the debate, but it is no less a shame for that. The amendment is every bit as important as, and perhaps much more important to the institution of marriage and how we regard it than, the discussion about time bars.
      The Bill omits to provide any definition and guiding principle for marriage. The statute that the Bill will largely replace provided such guidelines. The lack of guidance is a great misfortune, for the following reason. The 1973 Act has as its guiding principle in considering financial relief after divorce that one should attempt to put the parties in the position where they would have been had the marriage not broken down. That is regarded as unsatisfactory, for very good reasons. I do not dissent from removing that principle, but it is unfortunate that it is not being replaced, as it is important that the court has an overall guiding principle in mind when it assesses the matters set out in new clause 25.
      What better guiding principle could the court have than common endeavour? We have heard much this evening about the institution of marriage. This is not a party political point, but Conservative Members always say that
      1010
      they regard the institution of marriage as important to our way of life, but I ask them to bear in mind the fact that, as the Bill stands, if guiding principles are enshrined in the Bill, they are in the exhortation to the court to permit a clean break in circumstances that it would not allow at present.
      I ask them to consider whether it is not odd that a Bill proclaimed as one to strengthen the institution of marriage has at its heart the possibility of an easier clean break, namely the loosening of the ties of marriage. Conservative Members should think on that when they consider the Bill as a whole.
      The principle that is put across most strongly in the Bill is that a clean break should be made easier. That principle shuffles off the lifelong responsibilities of marriage, and brings a change in the nature of the marriage contract by permitting an easier clean break, even where the parties may not consent. I shall not go into that at length, as it is not the principle that we are discussing, but it is strange for Conservative Members to say that while they support the institution of marriage they are allowing greater access to a clean break, which has at its heart the dividing of the ties between men and women after marriage.
      11 pm
      The guiding principle should be that marriage is a common endeavour. It is a positive principle, and exactly enshrines the values in marriage that we would like. It is necessary to have that as a principle because many people, particularly women, feel that the woman is at a disadvantage in the marriage institution and that many of the abilities and advantages that a woman brings to that institution are not easily translated into definable financial terms. Therefore, it is better, if we can, to try to set out for the courts the principle that marriage should be viewed as a common endeavour, in a broader sense, as opposed simply to the pounds, shillings and pence, the pay packet or the tangible assets of marriage.
      It could be said in one sense that clause 3 already pays attention to some of those matters. New section 25 states that one of the matters to be taken into account is the
      "contributions made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family".
      Therefore, to that extent the notion that I am suggesting is already in the Bill, but I should like the emphasis to be changed. The notion of contributions other than purely financial ones should be translated into a much more prominent position so that it is not merely one of many matters that is taken into account, but a guiding or ruling principle in the Bill.
      I hope that I have made the point clearly and concisely enough. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will see that it is important that we replace the guiding principle that we are removing in the 1973 Act with a different guiding principle, and what better guiding principle to have than that marriage is a common endeavour between the man and woman? If the court were looking to that when it assessed the implications of financial relief after divorce, it would be able to come to a much fairer and more balanced view of marriage and its responsibilities.
      Mr. Martin Stevens: I am glad to have the opportunity, for the first time in the House, of commenting on the Bill. Although I am married, I was its parent a year ago, and I was pleased when, in the Gracious Speech, we

      1011
      learnt that the Government would take over what had been a private Member's Bill, give it time to be considered, and, we hope, pass it into law.
      The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) told us that the overriding principle of the Bill is to strengthen the institution of marriage. He emphasised the nature of marriage as a common endeavour. He may be right. I do not know. However, the purpose of the Bill is far more modest than he suggests. It is to eliminate four or five of the ferocious injustices that 10 years' experience of the 1973 Act had shown to be enshrined within it. The Law Commission and the Law Society debated with judges and other lawyers whether it might be best to offer no guidelines and to eliminate section 25 altogether. However, the general view of the bench was that that would mean taking flexibility to its ultimate limits and make the law impossible to administer with the evident fairness and justice that we all agree is required. Thus, guidelines there should be and guidelines there are.
      The aim of the Bill in its five clarifying parts is to bring the judgment of the court closer to the facts—closer to fairness and natural justice. Therefore, it seems odd to advance to the House the proposition that marriage should be regarded as a common endeavour. No doubt that is what it should be and in many cases it is, but I see no reason for asking a court to accept that a particular marriage has been a common endeavour. The court's task is to interpret the facts of the marriage which has been brought under scrutiny and to reach financial decisions which are fair.
      Ms. Richardson: To whom?
      Mr. Stevens: To all the parties, including the children.
      To start off by saying, as a principal guideline, that every marriage should be treated by the court in a way that is patently untrue of a great number of marriages is to pile nonsense on the injustice that we are trying to correct. It would fatigue the House if I were to list a range of examples.
      Ms. Richardson: Give one.
      Mr. Stevens: I will. I had one in my advice bureau on Tuesday night. I have given this type of example before, because it is one of many. A young man, in his early thirties, is conducting his business from his house, which he is buying on mortgage. He is a self-employed painter and decorator.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Are there any children?
      Mr. Stevens: The bedtime story will unfold, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will be attentive.
      He marries a girl aged 24, who is a physiotherapist. They have one child. At 26, she runs away with another man, who is better off than the imaginary husband. Under the present law, she would be entitled to bring an ouster action against the husband, to move into the marital home with her gentleman friend and child, to decline to undertake, until the child is old enough for it to be practicable, any of her former professional activities and to require the husband, with a greatly diminished income, to provide maintenance for her and the child and to keep up the mortgage payments until the child's education is complete.
      Mr. Carlile: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will advise his imaginary constituent that the wife has no prospect of recovering a penny piece from him because she has gone to live with a man who earns a higher income, is living in
      1012
      more comfortable circumstances and has an earning capacity, full-time or part-time, as a physiotherapist. The example which the hon. Gentleman has given adds nothing to the discussion of the Bill.
      Mr. Stevens: It is an example that I tried not to give because I knew that hon. and learned Members would leap in to tell me that it was not true. Unfortunately, it is true. I have a dozen such cases in my constituency. The hon. and learned Gentleman is welcome to join me at my advice bureau to try to solve them.
      Mr. Carlile: I shall stick to my own.
      Mr. Stevens: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will. Let us have some truth and less cant.
      Mr. Carlile: What cant?
      Mr. Stevens: What the hon. and learned Gentleman said was cant. The husband has to provide maintenance for the wife and child and has to make the mortgage payments until the child has completed its education. His income is much reduced. He may not require the wife at any stage to return to her professional activities, and he may not require the gentleman friend, assuming that the wife does not marry him, to make any contribution. To describe such a marriage as having a common endeavour is fraudulent cant. That is what we are trying to avoid. [Interruption.] Of course, I am making hon. Members scream and boil, because I am telling the truth.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
      Mr. Stevens: I am not wrong.
      The Bill seeks to enable the courts to study the facts of marriage objectively and to treat it accordingly. I should be greatly opposed to saddling the courts with a guideline that assumes a manifest untruth. That would be going too far towards introducing into court procedure the kind of political beliefs of some hon. Members. I for one hope that we shall have none of it.
      The Solicitor-General: An amendment along these lines has been discussed in Committee, and it has been brought back with variations. I should have liked to be able to spend longer, perhaps, in a philosophical discussion on the nature of marriage, its objectives and the way in which it should generally be approached, but I have the more prosaic duty of advising the House whether it would he practical or appropriate to incorporate the amendment in the Bill at this stage.
      I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), who has a great deal of experience in this matter—not just in the practical and advisory sense of which he has been telling us, but in the legislative sense. He has reminded us of the Bill's forerunner for which he was responsible.
      The amendment would remove the general direction to the court to have regard to all the circumstances of the case. It would substitute a number of broad criteria and statements that I am sure all Opposition Members would concede represent a novel approach to such legislation. They are not necessarily the worse for it, but they must be considered in the light of the effect that they would have on litigation and certainty.
      The Law Commission's report stated:
      "The response to the Discussion Paper indicated a substantial consensus that what was required was a change of attitude or emphasis in the law rather than a radical restructuring involving a wholly novel statutory framework."

      1013
      I understand—it has almost become a trite expression — that what the Law Commission recommended was evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Although there is much that is attractive in the thought behind the amendment, regrettably it amounts to a revolutionary restructuring of the legislation.
      The legislation will not provide certainty. I understand the deep-seated anxiety of hon. Members that by removing the impossible objective and not replacing it by anything explicit, the court will be left without guidance on how to exercise its function on financial provision. My answer was that the court has an overriding duty to do what is just. It will not be helped by the assertion in the amendment that it should work on the basis that marriage is a common endeavour. That might be different if our tradition of statutory interpretation were different. If we had a tradition of much broader and more generalised statutory legislation, as is found in some continental countries, the amendment would have been more acceptable.
      11.15 pm
      A number of expressions will result in great uncertainty. I know that the amendment derives in part from Scottish law, but considerable differences exist between the law on financial provision on divorce as it is applied in Scotland and as it is applied in England and Wales. In Scotland, the courts do not have the statutory framework that governs the exercise of wide adjustive powers on divorce that the Courts in England and Wales have operated for many years.
      Unlike our courts, the Scottish courts have not built up an important and influential body of case law. Therefore, the Scottish Law Commission had an opportunity to examine the powers of the court to make financial provision in Scotland almost completely afresh. That opportunity was denied to the English Law Commission in its review of the financial consequences of divorce. Its recommendations are designed to bring about a modest change of emphasis in the law rather than a fundamentally different approach. That is faithfully repreduced and implemented in the Bill.
      The amendment seeks a new guiding principle. However, the guidance provided by using such expressions as "fairly distributes" and "the assets of the marriage" will arouse doubt and uncertainty. Which children are to be covered? Is the earning capacity of either party an asset that should be "fairly" distributed?
      It is difficult to see what advantage the amendment has over new section 25 of the 1973 legislation, as introduced in clause 3 of this Bill. The new provision is based on the existing body of case law, reinforced by a wealth of experience in the judiciary, and will continue to allow the courts to exercise considerable flexibility. The amendment would substitute for the general duty on the court to consider all the circumstances of the case, a generalised direction to make a fair distribution of the assets of the marriage.
      I do not like dealing with something that is the product of much thought on a basis of uncertainty and, almost, of drafting, but I must do so because we are responsible for ensuring that any change that we make will not arouse uncertainty. It is bad enough being divorced and having to go through the mincing machine of the courts on the
      1014
      questions of divorce and financial provision without having to make new case law out of one's own case. That would happen.
      The amendment, which brings in a specific reference to,
      "including any pension and insurance rights"
      is unnecessary. Subsection (2)(h) of clause 3 directs the attention of the court to the value to each of the parties of the marriage of any benefit—for example, a pension—which, because of the dissolution of the marriage, a party will lose the chance of acquiring. That is already incorporated in the legislation.
      The hour is late, and I hope that I will not be thought to be unappreciative of the thought behind the amendment if I say to the House that the courts will continue to be required to exercise their discretion, based on a consideration of all the circumstances, so as to do justice. The guidelines are revised in the Bill so as to give greater emphasis to the importance of each party doing everything possible to become self-sufficient. Those are the reasons that lead me to advise the House not to accept the amendment.
      Ms. Richardson: I am not surprised by the Solicitor-General's response, because, apart from one minor matter to which we shall come later, he rejected every opportunity that we took to make the Bill a measure which we could support.
      I should say something about the strange contribution of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), who seems to be living in cloud-cuckoo-land. He seems to have dreamt up an imaginary constituent in an imaginary surgery, and he is living in an imaginary world, because, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, such a thing could not happen in the courts.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: It should not happen.
      Ms. Richardson: It should not happen, and it would be a strange court that gave such a judgment.
      Mr. Martin Stevens: The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) are woefully misinformed. I offered to show them examples of the case that I described, of which I have several. They are at liberty to say that I am talking nonsense for as long as they wish and to call my remarks bizarre. Obviously, anyone who brings the truth into the debates must seem to be rather strange.
      Ms. Richardson: If the wife in this case had gone to live with someone who was better off than her partner in law, it is strange that the court decided to award her maintenance from her first husband. The hon. Gentleman says that he has proof, but the case is strange and I hope that such things do not happen, because they are not what this amendment is about.
      I am disappointed that the Solicitor-General cannot accept what we believe would have made good sense—the inclusion of the phrase "common endeavour", to which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) referred. The Solicitor-General said that to include it would mean a revolutionary restructuring, but the words "common endeavour" would have reminded courts from the start that marriage is a two-person contract, and that each partner makes a contribution to the marriage in his or her way. Perhaps the wife, because of her circumstances, cannot contribute financially.

      1015
      I remind the House that, although the amendment includes the provision that first consideration should be given to the children, in 40 per cent. of divorces no children are involved. Therefore, 40 per cent. of divorces are not covered by what the Government say is the objective of the Bill—the first consideration of children. Those first wives and that property are not covered by the Bill.
      The Solicitor-General said, and I accept it, that we had amended our amendment by including a reference to pension rights and that I had wrongly told the hon. Member for Fulham that pensions were not mentioned in the Bill. I had forgotten that they were, but there is just a throw-away line saying, "For example, a pension", which does not take into account the great difficulties of older wives whose divorced husbands have superannuated pensions but who may not benefit from them. There is nothing in the broad terms of paragraph (h) to ensure that they get consideration for their contribution, which is not financial, but a different kind of contribution, towards a graduated pension.
      We shall press this to a Division because it is an important amendment, which we wish to see made to the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will join me in the Division Lobby.
      Question put, That the amendment be made: —
      The House divided: Ayes 32, Noes 154.

      Division No. 367]

      [11.25 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      McWilliam, John

      Blair, Anthony

      Madden, Max

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Mikardo, Ian

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Nellist, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Pike, Peter

      Cowans, Harry

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Deakins, Eric

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dixon, Donald

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

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Weetch, Ken

      Haynes, Frank

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Mr. John Home Robertson and Mr. Gerald Bermingham.

      Kirkwood, Archy

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Amess, David

      Cash, William

      Ashby, David

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Chope, Christopher

      Baldry, Anthony

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

      Batiste, Spencer

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Conway, Derek

      Benyon, William

      Coombs, Simon

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Cope, John

      Best, Keith

      Couchman, James

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Dover, Den

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Dunn, Robert

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Durant, Tony

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bright, Graham

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Brinton, Tim

      Fallon, Michael

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Favell, Anthony

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Burt, Alistair

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Fox, Marcus

      1016

      Franks, Cecil

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Freeman, Roger

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fry, Peter

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Gale, Roger

      Powley, John

      Galley, Roy

      Raffan, Keith

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Gow, Ian

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Greenway, Harry

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Ground, Patrick

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Harris, David

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Silvester, Fred

      Hawksley, Warren

      Sims, Roger

      Hayward, Robert

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Hind, Kenneth

      Spencer, Derek

      Holt, Richard

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Hooson, Tom

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Howard, Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

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

      Stern, Michael

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Jessel, Toby

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Sumberg, David

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Key, Robert

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Thome, Neil (Ilford S)

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Tracey, Richard

      Knowles, Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Lang, Ian

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Waddington, David

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Lilley, Peter

      Walden, George

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Waller, Gary

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Watson, John

      Maclean, David John

      Watts, John

      Major, John

      Whitfield, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Whitney, Raymond

      Mather, Carol

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Wood, Timothy

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Yeo, Tim

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Murphy, Christopher

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Nelson, Anthony

      Mr. Douglas Hogg and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

      Neubert, Michael

      Norris, Steven

      Question accordingly negatived
      Ms. Richardson: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 26, at end insert
      'and to a person over that age but under 21 years who is reasonably and appropriately undergoing instruction at an educational estalbishment or trainig for employment or for a trade, profession or vocation and to a person over that age who suffers from a mental or physical handicap or illness'.
      The amendment seeks to extend the "first consideration" to the welfare of a child beyond the age of 18 years, which is the limit that is set in the Bill. It seeks to extend the age limit to 21 for educational requirements and to establish that there should be no age limit when there is a mental or physical handicap. We had an interesting debate in Committee and I thought that I detected some sympathy for the proposition that the age limit should be extended to 21 years.
      There are many instances where the custodial parent still has to cope with the expense of an adult child, as it were, who is a student and undergoing full-time education,

      1017
      full-time training or an apprenticeship. We believe that it would be right for the courts to take that factor into account up to the age of 21. Young people are still assessed as their parents' responsibility, and to introduce a cut-off point at 18 years would be wrong and unfair.
      Some Conservative Members who are present are likely to have children aged between 18 and 21. I am sure that they will agree that those children are still their responsibility while they are in full-time education, as many of them will still be. I hope that they will reflect, when they are thinking about their own children, upon the difficulties that would face a first wife who may have had maintenance awarded by the court for the child up to the age of 18 and who faces the cut-off point. She will have to cope with continuing education needs beyond that age.
      Mr. Tony Baldry: What does the amendment seek to achieve that cannot be achieved already under section 29(3) of the 1973 Act?
      Ms. Richardson: There are those who have been fond of reminding us that the substitute section 25(1) seeks to provide that children should be considered in education terms beyond the age of 18. That is the long and the short of it. I accept that, on the next page of the Bill, the court also has the duty to consider the financial needs of the children and their educational requirements, as well as the responsibilities of the parents. But that is not necessarily the first consideration. Of course the courts may, under the Bill, go further than the age of 18 in exceptional circumstances. But as a matter of policy we say that 18 is too young an age, and that it restricts the court in its thinking about how to treat children who are older than 18. In other words, a restrictive limitation has been placed in clause 25(1).
      The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) mentioned a constituency case. Three or four weeks ago, a case was brought to my surgery relating to this point. A woman who had been divorced for some years had a young son aged 17, who had just started an apprenticeship. Incidentally, I am sorry to say that there are only a few apprenticeships left. She received maintenance but was worried what would happen when her son reached the age of 18. She was worried that she would not get that support. I tried to comfort her, and told her that the court had some discretion, and she would have to explain the position to it. However, the truth is that under the Bill, the first consideration must be those children aged 18 or under.
      I believe that we should extend the age to 21. Indeed, in Committee it was asked why we should say 21, and not 22 or 19. I agree that it is difficult to find a cut-off point, but I think that 21 is probably the best that we can achieve.
      In the case of a parent who has the care of an adult child with a mental or physical handicap, we have decided that there should be no age bar. In Committee, I recall referring to a constituent whose daughter—who has unfortunately now died—was aged 40. The Solicitor-General pointed out that that case would not be covered by the amendment then under discussion, which sought to ensure that mentally or physically handicapped children were a consideration of the court up to the age of 21.
      It would be a good move if the Bill said that mentally or physically handicapped children should be a first consideration of the court, regardless of their age. Years ago, mentally or physically handicapped children did not
      1018
      have such a long expectation of life as they now fortunately have. We all know of one-parent or two-parent families where handicapped children live happily in loving homes. However, those children may be well over the age of 18, 21 or even 30. At adult training centres, one sees people making a contribution for a small amount of money. A parent is very happy that his or her child should have the opportunity of doing so.
      Often, it is women aged 50 or 60 who look after those 35-year-old or 40-year-old children. We should seriously consider that care, and the amount of maintenance that the court should award in that regard. I hope that Conservative Members will look at this point with the utmost sympathy. I think that they will probably have reflected on the education point, and I hope that they will support it, and that they will recognise that in the case of those with mental and physical handicaps, there is a real problem, and to cut off any suggestion of maintenance, except at the wider discretion of the court, at the age of 18 would be unfair. How often have we heard parents with children who suffer in this way saying, " I always wonder what will happen to my child when I go"? We cannot cope with that, but we can do something to help up to that point if the amendment is accepted. I hope that the House will look on it with sympathy and vote for it.
      11.45 pm
      The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) for the way in which she moved this amendment. All of us know of children—they seem to be increasing in number—with some handicap who live for a long time into adult life. However, we are talking about the extent to which the requirement for first consideration should be given to the welfare of children. We are not talking about the extent to which it shall be possible for financial provision to be made for children, or whether there should be an upper age limit for that. As the hon. Lady acknowledged, section 29 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 provides for financial provision for children, notwithstanding that they have reached the age of 18, in special circumstances.
      I have to develop something of a refrain in reciting the Law Commission's approach, because the Bill is intended to reflect its recommendations. This amendment, contrary to what the Law Commission recommended, deals with a limited class of adult children who are placed in a preferential category to others. It is common ground, as the hon. Lady said, that some upper limit is required. Those who support this amendment think that it should be 21. The age of majority is now 18, which accords with what is in the Bill. There is nothing magic about 21 now. It is an arbitrary figure. Many young people are still undergoing further education or working as apprentices by the time they reach 21.
      The amendment would require the courts to give preference to one young adult over another, when they are separated by perhaps a year. It would not be right to give preferential treatment, for example, to a 20-year-old apprentice over his 21-year-old sister who is taking a course at a technical college. There is no logic to justify it. Given that there must be a cut-off point, it is better to make it the time when the child becomes an adult and ceases to be in the custody of either parent.
      It is not as though the interests of children over the age of 18 are overlooked. Section 29 of the 1973 Act makes provision for them. The difference is that, as the Bill

      1019
      stands, only a child who is still in the custody of the parent would be given first consideration. The Government do not accept that adult children who are no longer in the custody of the parent should be given the preferential treatment of first consideration. Putting it in a blunt and homely way, the wider the area of first consideration, the thinner one spreads whatever butter there is. There must be a fairly close categorisation, and I have stated what the Government believe to be the most sensible way to fix the upper age.
      It is, in any event, very much the exception for financial provision to be made in respect of adult children. By and large, financial orders made in favour of children are confined to children of school age. If first consideration extended to the welfare of adult children, the protection given to the welfare of minor children would be diluted. The comparatively few adult children who may reasonably expect to be provided for within the terms of section 29(2) and (3) will not be overlooked by the court in any event. They cannot, however, be regarded as so vulnerable and so much in need of protection as minor children and we believe that it would not be equitable to treat them on the same basis. There is no evidence that the welfare of adult children is overlooked. The concensus of opinion expressed to the Law Commission, which led to the recommendation in its report, was that the provision of adequate financial support for children should be an overriding priority in relation to children in the care of a custodial parent — that is, a parent looking after children.
      I appreciate that there are hard cases and that in many instances it is difficult to justify the fact that one person comes just within the terms of the provision while another with no less attractive a claim falls just outside it no matter what threshold is set. Nevertheless, a threshold must be set. I hope that in this brief contribution I have been able to explain to the House why the Government support the recommendations of the Law Commission, which is implemented in the Bill.
      Ms. Richardson: I am becoming repetitive, too, in expressing my disappointment. Of course, any cut-off point will exclude certain cases. Neverthless, in this day and age all hon. Members, one hopes, are trying to encourage children to stay on at school and to take some training. Indeed, some actually attribute certain problems of "law and order" to the lack of educational background and training. That being so, it is unfair that a custodial parent with responsibility for the child left in her care—the parent is usually a woman — except under a provision not central to this Bill, cannot claim maintenance payments for the period of continuing education. Such a parent, knowing that payments will be cut off when the child reaches the age of 18, might actively discourage the child from continuing with education or training if that would place a burden on the parent, as it probably would. That is a bad thing, and we should not encourage it.
      The Solicitor-General did not say much about the second part of the amendment, save to acknowledge that an increasing number of children with mental or physical disabilities now live longer lives, and we are all pleased about that. He did not say that such children are a financial responsibility of the divorced parents.
      In both cases, the Solicitor-General spoke of spreading the butter more thinly, but parents have a responsibility for
      1020
      children with continuing education needs or with a disability which prevents them from being independent persons. We are dealing here with adult children who are not yet independent, who are away from home and who depend on the parent or parents, divorced or not, for support while they complete their education or, in the case of mentally or physically handicapped adult children, perhaps for the rest of their natural lives, because they cannot earn a living for themselves.
      I propose to press the amendment to a Division because this is a very important matter and I know that my hon. Friends who are still here will support me. I hope that the Government will feel some shame at not having at least acknowledged some of the points that we have made,especially this very important one.
      Question put, That the amendment be made: —
      The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 145.

      Division No. 368]

      [11.55 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Madden, Max

      Blair, Anthony

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Nellist, David

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Pike, Peter

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Cowans, Harry

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dixon, Donald

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

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Weetch, Ken

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Haynes, Frank

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Mr. Gerald Bermingham and Mr. John McWilliam.

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Durant, Tony

      Amess, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Ashby, David

      Favell, Anthony

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Baldry, Anthony

      Fox, Marcus

      Batiste, Spencer

      Franks, Cecil

      Bellingham, Henry

      Freeman, Roger

      Benyon, William

      Fry, Peter

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Gale, Roger

      Best, Keith

      Galley, Roy

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Gow, Ian

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Greenway, Harry

      Bright, Graham

      Ground, Patrick

      Brinton, Tim

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Hawksley, Warren

      Burt, Alistair

      Hayward, Robert

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Cash, William

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Holt, Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      Hooson, Tom

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Howard, Michael

      Conway, Derek

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

      Coombs, Simon

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Cope, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Couchman, James

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Jessel, Toby

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dover, Den

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Dunn, Robert

      Key, Robert

      1021

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Sims, Roger

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Knowles, Michael

      Spencer, Derek

      Lang, Ian

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Stern, Michael

      Lilley, Peter

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Maclean, David John

      Sumberg, David

      Major, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Mather, Carol

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thurnham, Peter

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Tracey, Richard

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Murphy, Christopher

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Nelson, Anthony

      Waddington, David

      Norris, Steven

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Walden, George

      Ottaway, Richard

      Waller, Gary

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Powley, John

      Watson, John

      Raffan, Keith

      Watts, John

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Whitfield, John

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Whitney, Raymond

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Wolfson, Mark

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Wood, Timothy

      Rowe, Andrew

      Yeo, Tim

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Michael Neubert.

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Question accordingly negatived
      Mr. John Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 30, after 'shall', insert
      'not take account of the conduct of each party except where it would be inequitable to leave that conduct out of account, but shall'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 8, in clause 3, page 3, line 30, after 'shall', insert
      'not have regard to the conduct of the parties unless the conduct complained of is of such an exceptional nature that it would be inequitable to disregard it, but shall'.
      No. 56, in page 4, line 11, leave out paragraph (g).
      No. 15, in page 4, line 11, leave out from 'parties' to end of line 13 and insert
      'in so far as that conduct was calculated to dissipate the joint or several assets of the parties'.
      No. 16, in page 4, line 12, leave out
      'in the opinion of the court be inequitable'
      and insert
      'be contrary to natural justice'.
      Mr. Morris: In view of the hour, I shall move the amendment as briefly as possible.
      The issue is whether the Bill as drafted limits the consideration of conduct to the manner and extent to which it is considered by the courts now.
      The Bill puts it one way. I seek to put the presumption the other way. The issue was raised on Second Reading. We have had the opportunity of considering the extensive representations of the Law Society and of many judges.
      It is common ground that none of us wants to return to the experience we had in practice in our younger days, to the principle of fault. That is the danger here and which
      1022
      the Law Society feared, in that it would become incumbent upon them to investigate fault as regards conduct in the context of maintenance.
      The Bill says that the court in particular shall have regard to a number of factors and conduct is one of them. I am concerned about the words "in particular" when they refer to that matter, let alone the reference to other matters.
      We have had the advantage of considering the views of distinguished lawyers such as Lord Denning, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and Lord Scarman and Sir John Arnold, the President of the Family Division. He has rendered particularly valuable service to the Special Standing Committee. In calling a senior judge before the Special Standing Committee, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends were concerned that this was a constitutional issue of great importance. We have been led to believe in our training in the division between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature and we were taught in our law schools that only in the person of the Lord Chancellor was there the fusion of all three. I do not object. Indeed, it is within the powers of the Committee to call whomsover it wishes and it can certainly call a judge if it seeks his assistance.
      What is important in calling a judge is that one should not mix his role as a witness and use whatever views he propounds as views on the legislation as a bulwark for further consideration of any interpretation that he gives to the Committee. That is a real danger.
      I thought that the Solicitor-General was on dangerous ground in the Committee having regard to the concern expressed by the Law Society. He invited—I paraphrase—the circulation of views. He said:
      "I simply offer the humble suggestion that the Law Society might consider that it would do better to publicise the views of Sir John Arnold amongst its members rather than publicise the doubts that have been expressed."
      I am sure that that was an off-the-cuff and not a considered remark by the Solicitor-General, who is always so careful in the way that he advises the Committee and the House. If the views of a very eminent judge expressed before the Committee were circulated, that would have severe limitations; it is not a path that we should embark upon without proper consideration.
      There is no basis in our law for anticipatory judgments. To circulate such an opinion and invite its circulation, as the Solicitor-General did, is to embark on a wholly new path. It increases, extends and enlarges the role of the judiciary in a way that hitherto we have never experienced, so far as I am aware.
      The view of an eminent judge before the Committee of the way that the court would interpret the law—I do not say this in an offensive way—is no more important than if he addressed the annual meeting of the Bar, the Law Society or any gathering. It would be wholly wrong. If it were deemed right that members of the Law Society should look at conduct and those concerned were subsequently sued in negligence for not having carried out the necessary investigations, the wise words of the President of the Family Division would not help one little bit in any subsequent litigation as regards conduct.
      I believe that it is right for me to delay the House for a moment to express my concern and say that the House should make it clear that this is not the path that we should take. If one went along that road, and called on one side one judge, and on the other side another judge, that would not be the way to consider legislation. Parliament has a

      1023
      responsibility. However eminent or great the judge, his role in advising the Committee cannot and should not be used as a way of interpreting legislation. He is not the sole judge; he is not the highest judge in the land. No man is immortal. I wish Sir John a long life and office in the Family Division. He may be called to higher things in our courts. However, it is important to understand that this is a personal view. We value it very much. It is important, and helped the Committee considerably, but it cannot be prayed in aid in this way, as the Solicitor-General did, perhaps inadvertently.
      There is ambiguity with regard to how the courts would look at conduct. If we say that we do not want to change the way that the courts now look at conduct, having regard to the concern expressed by Lord Denning—I quoted his remarks on Second Reading—Lord Elwyn-Jones and other judges, Parliament cannot abdicate its responsibility. It cannot and should not be said to Parliament that because there is ambiguity in the Bill as at present drafted, the courts have the ability to spot such a matter early on, and the matter would go to appeal. Then Sir John and his friends could resolve the matter, and that would bring the ambiguity to an end.
      That poses one problem. In the meantime, before the matter was resolved, there would be uncertainty. There would be difficulties in hundreds of registrars' courts up and down the land until the matter was resolved. But above all, where there is uncertainty which is canvassed by eminent judges, and there is a conflict of view among the judiciary, it is not the role of Parliament to abdicate its responsibility and say, "All will be well on the day. It may not be on day one, but it will be six months or three years later when the matter goes to appeal and the courts ultimately put right what Parliament has failed to do."
      It is our job to set out legislation as precisely as possible and, with the material that we have supplied to them, for the courts to interpret it—not the other way round. To pray in aid, in the face of the difficulty that has been pointed out, the views of judges and to answer the apprehensions that have been canvassed by saying, "All will be well on the day because Sir John Arnold has told us how he will eventually interpret the legislation," is not the way to do it. It is for Parliament to face up to the ambiguity and give a clear direction to the courts.
      12.15 am
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Many hon. Members will agree that the gross and obvious test which arose from Wachtel v. Wachtel is unsatisfactory. It is unsatisfactory in the way in which it arose and in the way that it developed. It is for Parliament to lay down the tests to be applied to conduct, if conduct is to be considered, and such tests should not be laid down in the rhetorical adjectives that were used in Wachtel v. Wachtel.
      If the Bill is enacted as drafted, conduct will assume a new and more significant position, and there are two views of the effect of the subsection with which we are concerned: one that it will make no difference, and the other that it will make a substantial difference to the way in which cases are conducted. I do not want to reiterate what the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said about the constitutional issue which arose from the evidence given by the President of the Family Division. I echo his words and agree with them wholeheartedly, emphasising, as he did, that whatever was said in the notional appeal to which Sir John referred in
      1024
      his evidence before the Committee, the House of Lords might not agree with him in due course. Nor might his successor as President.
      The Law Society, it appears, will advise solicitors o undertake investigations into conduct — indeed, it will advise them that they are under a duty to undertake such investigations—and to place issues of conduct before the court. The letters which my hon. Friends and I have received from the public about this part of the Bill show that they do not share Sir John Arnold's view but, ratheir, the Law Society's view. The great weight of those letters have been from ex-husbands and husbands going through divorce proceedings who feel that the effect of the measure will be to encourage investigations into their wives' or ex-wives' conduct.
      It is important for us to bear in mind that there are few women in this House. My party is just as guilty as any other of deficiencies in this regard—
      Mr. Baldry: More so.
      Mr. Carlile: More guilty; I agree with that suggestion. It is important for us, mostly men, to bear in mind the position of women particularly those with children, who may find themselves deserted through the breakdown of their marriages. If the public are to tell their solicitors that they must look into conduct, and if solicitors accept those instructions, I fear that there will be an unhappy result in the courts. Apart from a lot of dirty linen being washed—in some cases in public, in others at private hearings — perhaps more damaging will be the effect of investigations into conduct on the children, which will be harmful and could be devastating.
      When heat is generated at the end of a marriage, as unfortunately happens all too often, it must affect the children. Enough heat is already generated by financial considerations, and if we are to have endless investigations into conduct, we will have the employment, once again, of inquiry agents going around seeing what wives are up to. It happened in virtually every case when I started to practice at the Bar, and it will be a damaging development.
      The view of my party is that many matters should be taken into account when deciding upon financial provision on the breakdown of marriage. The Bill contains, correctly, many of those matters. In almost every case when there has been conduct which can be characterised in many difficult ways—the current way is by the use of the phrase "gross and obvious"—there are financial considerations which are bound to effect the matrimonial settlement in any event.
      Much was said earlier about maintaining marriage as the basic institution of family life and about attempting to strengthen marriage, which is continually under attack because of social pressure. One way to strengthen marriage and to heighten respect for it is to give prospective partners a sense of financial responsibility before they enter into a marriage contract, knowing that if there is a breakdown of the marriage conduct will be taken into account only in wholly exceptional circumstances. We would go further than any other party in the House and say that conduct should be taken into account only when it has been calculated to dissipate the joint or several assets of the parties.
      We urge the Attorney-General to accept that the Bill must spell out clearly that conduct can be taken into account only in what are really exceptional circumstances,

      1025
      that we are not prepared to countenance the type of investigation which the Law Society, a responsible body considering the matter in depth and in detail, believes inevitable if the Bill is enacted as drawn, and to present to the House conduct in a way which means that it is so greatly restricted as virtually never to be considered by the court.
      Mr. Baldry: One of the hopes in having a Special Standing Committee was that that procedure would succeed in dispelling some of the misapprehensions about the Bill which had been raised on Second Reading.
      When Sir John Arnold appeared before the Committee, I asked him, in terms, whether the present definition of conduct in the Bill was in line with current practice and case law on conduct. He said, in terms, that that is what he believed. That should be acceptable to the House. To seek to continue to stir up misapprehension about the Bill's effect does no service to anyone.
      If the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) feels and suspects that Sir John Arnold's opinion will not prevail in the Family Division, he has not been across the road recently to appear before him in that division. My experience is that if Sir John Arnold has said that, almost certainly that is what will happen when the first case comes before the Family Division.
      We do no one any service by seeking to bring back the investigations into conduct that we had many years ago.
      Mr. John Morris: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), that the Family Division is not the final court of appeal.
      Mr. Baldry: I note that point. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman sought to question the constitutional position of the President of the Family Division, at no time did he advance any arguments to distinguish what the president said, nor did the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest why he thought that the President's interpretation of the law was wrong. If it is a toss-up between the previous Master of the Rolls and the present President of the Family Division, my money is on the President of the Family Division.
      Mr. Abse: I welcome the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has placed squarely into our discussion the constitutional issues that arise. He was generous to the Solicitor-General in suggesting that what happened in Committee was inadvertent — the Solicitor-General is not so careless. The record of our proceedings shows my disquiet at the course that the Solicitor-General is following, and that I immediately raised the issue. With his customary pertinacity, he has continued to follow his course.
      The constitutional issue is important for this clause, because the Solicitor-General insists that our alarms about the wording of the clause are unnecessary. He has relied almost wholly on the evidence given to the Special Standing Committee by the President of the Family Division, Sir John Arnold. The Solicitor-General said that he gave an answer contrary to the views expressed by Lord Denning and the Law Society. He insists that we should not accept them. To use his phrase, we have had an interpretation
      "from the horse's mouth".
      1026
      The appellate court will deal with the provision as the President interprets it. Evidently my right hon. and learned Friend agrees with me that to rely on the President's anticipated ruling introduces a dangerous constitutional doctrine. We have to decide today whether to alter the clause in a ltid to achieve our objectives, or to abandon our traditional role and rely on the declared future judicial interpretation, which was given to us in evidence. If we do that, we shall be taking a fateful step which will take us far beyond the narrow issue of the clause.
      I remind the House of Montesquieu' s often quoted words:
      "There is no liberty if judicial power be not separated from the legislative. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control".
      I am apprehensive about the Solicitor-General's arguments for the clause. In this I am certainly not being idiosyncratic. The arguments have already been widely and adversely commented on, as a letter from Mr. Ole Hansen in The Times of today illustrates. Hitherto, the preoccupation of libertarians has been to insist that nothing must be done to curb the independence of the judiciary.
      This House imposes severe restraints on itself. Only in the most narrowly defined circumstances can reference be made to a matter awaiting or under adjudication, and reflections about the character and motives of the judge are determinately inhibited. When the new Select Committees were set up, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Law Officers Department were rigorously excluded from the scope of the system. The legislators were not to intrude in the judiciary and the judicial process.
      A new apprehension is now abroad. It is precipitated to no small degree by the manner in which the debate on this clause has developed. The unease is not that the legislature will misuse the judiciary, but that the judiciary will sometimes clandestinely and sometimes overtly—as in this case—so endanger the legislative process that judges become both statutory law makers and law interpreters. Is the Executive, by the invitation in this case from the Solicitor-General, seducing the judiciary, and is the House of Commons, as the unintended consequence of its Special Standing Committee system, unwittingly colluding in that seduction?
      12.30 am
      This is not an isolated matter. If it were, I am sure that there would be no unease. There is increasing unease about the new intimacy growing between the Executive and the judiciary. The House will recall that last year, when the Master of the Rolls, in his judicial capacity, was contemplating the sequestration of a union's assets it was discovered that not long previously he had held secret discussions, at the instigation of the Foreign Secretary, with the permanent secretary of the Department of Employment. It has been alleged, and never denied, that during those discussions Sir John Donaldson proffered to the Government advice on changes in the law on industrial relations, including the introduction of legal restrictions on the right to strike and an elaboration of how the judiciary could play a greater role in industrial relations.
      It is well known to some of us that some judges privately expressed their resentment at the fact that the Master of the Rolls had so readily allowed himself to be sucked into the maelstrom of political battles that should be resolved by Parliament and the unions. Obviously, for workers to regard judges as allies of the Government is to invite a dangerous contempt of the law.

      1027
      The eagerness to reduce the distance between the law interpreter and the law maker is not confined to the Master of the Rolls. To the surprise of many, the Lord Chief Justice, at the request of the Chairman of the Special Standing Committee—with perhaps more courtesy than judicial wisdom—readily acceded to sending Mr. Justice Skinner to the Special Standing Committee to submit to its inquisition and so guide Members of Parliament in shaping and determining the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
      Now the President of the Family Division has given evidence to our Special Standing Committee in relation to this clause. He said,
      "some attempt were made to argue that the new provision enlarged the extent to which conduct should be taken into account."
      He also said:
      "I do not anticipate this would be likely to be the subject of more than one appeal in the judgment of which I would expect it to be firmly rejected."
      Sir John Arnold, in advance of an anticipated hearing, has, in my judgment and, I suspect, in the judgment of most people reading that evidence, unequivocally given his views.
      Some of us who heard his Lordship's cogent contribution recalled John Locke's warning in 1690:
      "It may be too great a temptation to human frailty, apt to grasp at power, for the same persons who have the power of making laws to have also in their hands the power to execute them."
      But trampling upon any squeamishness that some of us may have had about the constitutional niceties, the President went further. He swept aside the Law Society's plea to the legislature to alter the clause and save solicitors from an unpleasant task that would be continued for years until an appellate decision, in the normal course of events, rendered it unnecessary. He sought to appease those who had such fears and said:
      "I expect that when this point comes before the Court of Appeal as it is bound to do … it will happen in a matter of months or a year at any rate."
      The President of the Family Division was giving public notice that his eagle eye would lead him to pluck out and expedite for appellate judgment any hearing that raised the conduct issue. Hitherto, apart from Mr. Justice Skinner, only a judge who disbarred himself from sitting by becoming chairman of the Law Commission — the advisory body to the Lord Chancellor—has appeared before us as legislators. On Second Reading I asked the Solicitor-General to call the chairman of the Law Commission before the Committee, but I asked in the knowledge that the chairman, although a judge, does not sit as one while he is a law commissioner. Now we have this new phenomenon. We have lived to see the day, as Members of Parliament, when, in effect, a judicial judgment by a sitting appellate judge has been given in a Committee of the House of Commons.
      Mr. Baldry: Did the hon. Member or any Member of the Special Standing Committee at any time before Sir John Arnold came to give evidence object to his giving evidence? If it were not to give his interpretation of the Bill, what did the hon. Member think Sir John Arnold was going to do when he came before the Special Standing Committee?
      Mr. Abse: So far as I am aware, the invitation to Sir John Arnold was at the instigation of the Solicitor-General, who no doubt wished Sir John Arnold to come. It was not within my power to make that determination.It is no use trying to shift the responsibility for Sir John
      1028
      Arnold coming before the Committee, valuable as his evidence was, and then say that I or somebody else should have objected before he came. If the hon. Member will read with care the evidence, he will see that at one point Lord Scarman saw the dangers and sought to distance himself by saying that there were certain things which he could say in his capacity, rather than that it was wise for the President to say, given his special position.
      I go further. What is worse, not only did the judge take such a view, but the Solicitor-General, with uncharacteristic insouciance, has since proceeded further down the road opened up by Sir John Arnold, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon has indicated. He has impatiently expressed his desire that the Law Society, instead of publicising its doubts on the conduct clause, should circulate all its members with Sir John Arnold's statement, and that they should quench whatever scruples they and Lord Denning may have on the interpretation. Such diktats to lawyers may raise no eyebrows in the Soviet Union, but as yet neither our courts nor our lawyers are governed by ukases, but by the well-tried and tested system of legal precedents. The system has served us well and when, by condoning the Executive's attempt to cajole the judiciary into anticipatory judgments, we breach it, we put our liberties at peril.
      From the Law Courts at the Strand down Whitehall o the House of Commons there is, as many people know, a good bus service. It is a route, however, which the judiciary should hesitate to use. In the meantime, we have the duty to see that the Government give no free passes to our judges, who otherwise may indeed find themselves arriving at dangerous destinations'?
      I wish to be fair to the Solicitor-General, because the comments which he made in Committee, which caused me and many outside the House major concern, did have a qualification. He said:
      "I simply say that one cannot do much better than the President of the Family Division when seeking an informed view of how the courts will interpret a legislative provision, because it is his division that will interpret it and he is the head of that division."
      I am quoting this to emphasise the qualification which the Solicitor General made:
      "It is abundantly clear—subject, of course, to argument that may be addressed to the judge in an individual case—that the strong probability is that the appellate court will deal with the provisions in the way in which he at present interprets it."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 1 May 1984; c. 582.]
      A genuflection was made by the Solicitor-General to the belief that it is improper to make anticipatory judgments, by saying that any ruling would be subject to argument and rest with the judge.
      As the Solicitor-General has continued to argue that interpretations should be brushed aside — that is his justification for maintaining the status quo — the qualification that he made in Committee is bound to be regarded as nothing more than a charade. It does not weaken the argument that the House must take control of the clause so that we do not create a dangerous constitutional precedent by passing it on to the Family Division.
      The clause which I have formulated in my amendment is bound in words which seek to deal with the objections which the Solicitor-General mentioned in respect of the clause which I suggested, following the example of Lord

      1029
      Elwyn-Jones, in which I drew attention to the exceptional nature of circumstances. My amendment deals with the conduct complained of being of an exceptional nature.
      I hope that the Solicitor-General will pay attention to the change that is taking place. I hope he will find it more acceptable. I do not believe that solicitors want to be scavengers. They do not want to feel compelled to make prurient inquiries, as a result of a clause which, according to distinguished lawyers and a large number of judges, is subject to the interpretation put upon it by Lord Denning, and which in my view and in that of the Law Society places a duty on a solicitor to perform an unpleasant task. We do not want the maintenance of wives to be decided upon trivial issues of conduct.
      I have not fought, as I have throughout my parliamentary life, to eliminate questions of matrimonial offences and misconduct from the law for the whole question to be brought back elliptically, particularly since it is said by the President of the Family Division that that is not being done. I hope that the Solicitor-General will be more receptive.
      Mr. Blair: There is no difference between the Government and ourselves about what the law should be. We agree that conduct should not generally be taken into account, unless it is of a serious nature. The only question is whether that aspiration is translated into actuality in the Bill.
      Conduct is included with other matters that must be taken into account. It is mandatory that the court shall have regard to such matters. The problem is that all the other matters to which the court shall have regard are those for which we wish the court positively to have regard, unless particular circumstances obtain. The problem is that we do not want the court to take conduct into account generally. There is an uneasy drafting problem. The court must have regard to conduct if it thinks that it is wrong to disregard it, but we believe that the court should not have regard to conduct. That is one major difficulty in connection with what will be new section 25.
      In all the judicial decisions about conduct, the judges have been careful to emphasise that only in serious cases will conduct be taken into account. In other words, it should not be taken into account in run-of-the-mill cases. What is omitted from the proposed new section 25 is any emphasis to make it clear to the courts that conduct should be taken into account only in exceptional circumstances.
      12.45 am
      If there is an ambiguity—one is said to exist by many eminent people and organisations, such as Lord Denning and the Law Society — it is crazy for Parliament not to attempt to remove it. If it can easily remove it — we say that it can by accepting the amendment—it seems nothing short of perverse not to do so.
      The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) accused those of us who have tabled amendments of stirring up apprehensions about the issue of conduct coming back into the law. We are not stirring up apprehensions by tabling amendments; we are trying to allay the apprehensions that already exist. The meeting with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which the hon. Member for Banbury helpfully set out, made it clear that it thought that many people believed that the Bill would change the law
      1030
      and allow conduct to be dragged back into divorce proceedings. If we are to translate into practice the aspiration that is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber and ensure that conduct is taken into account only in exceptional circumstances, the Bill is an inadequate mechanism for that translation. The Government should accept the amendment or give us good reasons for refusing it.
      The Solicitor-General: However eccentric this might be thought to be, I shall deal with the amendments and then endeavour to assist the House on the great constitutional issue that has been discussed. The amendments have enabled us to discuss once again the anxieties that have been expressed about the relevance of conduct to financial provision. Subsection (2)(g) of the new section 25, which deals with conduct, is included in the Bill because it represents one of the changes which it is intended should be made to the existing section of the 1973 Act.
      The proposed removal from the existing section 25 of the requirement that the courts should attempt to restore the parties to the financial position in which they would have been had the marriage continued has necessarily involved a reformulation of the circumstances in which conduct should be taken into account. As the reference to conduct in the existing section 25 appears as a tailpiece to that section, with the removal of the tailpiece there has to be a restructuring of the format. At present, when making an order, section 25(1) of the 1973 Act obliges the court to have regard to the conduct of the parties. There were various decisions, beginning with the Wachtel case in 1974, and the Government agree with the Law Commission that the policy that the present case law achieves should be maintained. The amended section 25(1) is designed to achieve just that effect. The Government are advised and are confident that it will succeed.
      The Government are not relying upon advice that has come exclusively from their own advisers. We know that because of our Special Standing Committee procedure. As a Committee we decided to call certain witnesses to advise us. The legal witnesses that we called were at one in this regard. They were the chairman of the Law Commission, Professor Cretney, the law commissioner who was principally responsible for the report, the President of the Family Division, Lord Scarman, and Mr. Joseph Jackson, the chairman of the Family Law Bar Association. They were at one.
      Amendment No. 6 is a curtailed improvement of an amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). It would have exactly the same effect as is achieved by paragraph (g), but a change of wording would be involved. We would be abandoning a form of words that has received the express approval of the witnesses to whom I have just referred, and substituting different language for it. That seems to be an undesirable thing to do. I do not believe in the wisdom of making a change for the sake of change, when the wording that it is proposed to change has had such influential and confidence-inspiring approval.
      I understand the way in which the matter has been put by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. We all agree that conduct should be considered only in an exceptional case, and when it would be inequitable to disregard it. The hon. Gentleman says that if one puts that requirement to the fore

      1031
      because one is requiring a negative, it is drawn to the attention of the court and of others in a more positive way. I understand that, and if I felt that there was a serious risk of misinterpreting the restructuring of the format of section 25—the introduction of "inequitable" into paragraph (g) — I would be more sympathetic to the amendment. However, I do not believe that there is such a risk. We all know the bits of evidence that relate to this point, so I shall not take up the time of the House in reciting them. Suffice to say, those who have advised us have said that "inequitable" reflects the case law exactly. The effect of that case law is that conduct shall be disregarded, save where disregarding it would cause an ordinary person's sense of justice to be offended. That has been put in various ways, such as where disregarding it would cause an ordinary mortal to throw up his hands and say, "Surely you are not going to disregard the way this husband or wife has misbehaved." However, I hope that I have shown that I understand why the right hon. Gentleman moved the amendment as he did.
      Amendment No. 15 would represent a novel departure from the present position. The novelty lies in the fact that it would limit the courts consideration of the conduct of the parties to conduct which related only to the way in which the assets of the parties—and I think, though I am not sure, that means the property and the money of the parties — had been treated. Paragraph (g), which this amendment would alter, has been drafted very carefully to embody in the statute the present state of the law as established by the 1973 Act and precedent.
      The amendment would confront the courts with a number of problems. It would change their current practice of not having regard to conduct, except where it would be inequitable not to have regard to it, and would therefore interfere with and run contrary to the Law Commission's view that the current policy of the law should not be changed. Because of the terms in which it is drafted, it would give rise to doubt and uncertainty in the minds of practitioners and members of the judiciary and result in a consequential increase in the number of cases coming before the courts before guidance could be given at appellate level.
      The uncertainties to which I refer are the new concepts which the amendment would introduce of "dissipate" and "assets" which are not defined in statute or by precedent, and which provide great scope for argument as to what amounts to conduct which "was calculated to dissipate", precisely what "dissipate" comprehends, and what is included in
      "the joint or several assets of the parties".
      I am afraid that I do not see clear answers to those points.
      I am pleased that the amendment of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) is not an improvement on the provision in new section 25(g). Mr. Jackson pointed out that it is difficult to say what is exceptional. Neither the courts not the profession would be able to say with certainty what sort of conduct should be regarded as exceptional. The Committee members will remember that Mr. Jackson said that as a good trade unionist he would love to have the word "exceptional" in, because that would bring in plenty of work to find out what it means, testing it, and so on, but he could not advise us to put in such a provision. Almost certainly the lawyers would take the view that there had been a change from the present position, which has been established by a long line of appellate decisions, and we would have to start the process
      1032
      again, until the scope of "exceptional" had been hammered out in the Court of Appeal arid its meaning had been made certain.
      The same goes for the words "conduct complained of". Is that conduct complained of during the course of the marriage or since the divorce, or does it mean conduct complained of in the petition'? These are difficult questions that would raise questions of res judicata, and might lead to more petitions being fruitlessly defended to avoid a finding on conduct that could sound in the subsequent dispute over finance. Does it simply mean conduct that is raised in the ancillary proceedings? I do not have unequivocal answers to these intensely boring questions. The last thing that the House should wish to do is to inflict the expense and worry of having them litigated upon our unfortunate constituents. I cannot be more helpful about that amendment.
      I move to the great constitutional issue that has burst upon us. Why do we have a Special Standing Committee procedure? I suppose the answer is so that we can be better informed of the nature of the Bill that is being considered. We want to know what it means, and we want to take evidence so that we do not have to take it from Ministers. With all of that I wholly agree.
      Why do we have the order that our proceedings should be published? I imagine the answer is because we want the public outside to know the information that has been given to us. With that I wholly agree.
      How do we set about getting people to come and give evidence, using the three sittings reserved for that purpose? The Committee corporately considers it would like to call, and it takes the decision corporately as to whom it shall call. That is what this Committee did. Sir John Arnold did not come because I beckoned but because the Committee as a whole invited him to do so—sent for him, in the words of the standing order. I did not recall any opposition to that proposition from the hon. Member for Torfaen, or anybody else, in our first, private sitting.
      Mr. Abse: The hon. and learned Gentleman should not be talking about what took place at private meetings. He does not deal with this problem nor attempt to meet it by trying to wash his hands of having participated in, if not instigated, the suggestion that: the President should appear before us.
      The Solicitor-General: As the hon. Gentleman has already said that Sir John Arnold came because I invited him and, if I understood him correctly, denied that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) had any part in the invitation, I am entitled to say that Sir John Arnold was invited by the Committee.
      What did Sir John Arnold do? He answered the questions that we put to him, submitted two written memoranda, in which he dealt with the genesis of the changes that the Bill brings about, and considered the arguments put before the Law Commission and its report. He dealt, because he was asked to do so by us, with the wording of the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Torfaen that it was helpful that he did. He gave helpful evidence that was published in due course. If that was helpful evidence for us, it is doubtless helpful evidence for the public. In the course of our later discussions, I was told that the Law Society and other solictors believed that the Bill would require conduct to be gone into much more widely, and money and time would be taken to do this.

      1033
      It thus seemed to me perfectly proper and helpful to suggest to the Law Society that if its members were really suffering from what I believed to be a misapprehension, it might do well to circulate to them that which the House of Commons had already ordered to be published so that solicitors could make up their own minds whether their fears were likely to be well founded. That seemed a not entirely unreasonable suggestion.
      1 am
      A great haroosh has now been raised about the independence of the judges having been somehow impugned, but, if that is so, it has been impugned by the Committee in asking the judges to come and help us. For the life of me, I cannot see how that can possibly arise. No one is saying that, by reason of what they said to the Committee, the judges are somehow obliged to determine future cases in a particular manner. That is a gross absurdity and rather insulting to the judges.
      If it is argued that no judge should ever express an academic or hypothetical opinion about a matter of law, that rules out a great many judicial textbooks written by people like the vice-chancellor, Sir Robert Megarry, Lord Justice Goff and other extremely distinguished contributors to judicial learning.
      Therefore, although I admire the ingenuity of the attack, I am utterly unrepentant of what I have said. With regard to the judges giving evidence to the Committee, I find that nothing has occurred that in any way impugns the vital principle that the judges are entirely independent of the Executive. With respect, therefore, that is my reply.
      Mr. John Morris: I distinguished very carefully between any objection to a judge coming to the Committee — I should certainly not object to that — and the utterance of the Solicitor-General inviting the Law Society to circulate the view of a judge to allay any apprehensions — treating the judge's opinion, as it were, as an anticipatory judgment whereby the fears of Law Society members might be allayed. I put the point extreme very carefully indeed, but if the Solicitor-General did not take it wholly on board that may nevertheless have been my fault.
      The amendment does not seek change for its own sake. The fact that other words have been considered by the Committee surely does not stop this House from improving the Bill if it feels that that is necessary. Therefore, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House on the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 139.

      Division No. 369]

      [1.5 am

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Haynes, Frank

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Blair, Anthony

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Madden, Max

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Cowans, Harry

      Nellist, David

      Dixon, Donald

      Pike, Peter

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Skinner, Dennis

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

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

      1034

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Weetch, Ken

      Mr. Norman Hogg and Mr. Gerald Bermingham.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Amess, David

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Ashby, David

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Knowles, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Lang, Ian

      Baldry, Anthony

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Batiste, Spencer

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Lilley, Peter

      Benyon, William

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Best, Keith

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Maclean, David John

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Major, John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Malins, Humfrey

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Mather, Carol

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Bright, Graham

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Brinton, Tim

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Murphy, Christopher

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Neubert, Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Norris, Steven

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Cash, William

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Powley, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Raffan, Keith

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Conway, Derek

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Coombs, Simon

      Rowe, Andrew

      Cope, John

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Couchman, James

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Dover, Den

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Dunn, Robert

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Durant, Tony

      Spencer, Derek

      Fallon, Michael

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Favell, Anthony

      Stern, Michael

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Fox, Marcus

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Franks, Cecil

      Stewart, Andrew(Sherwood)

      Freeman, Roger

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Fry, Peter

      Sumberg, David

      Gale, Roger

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Galley, Roy

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Gow, Ian

      Thurnham, Peter

      Ground, Patrick

      Tracey, Richard

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W,

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Walden, George

      Hawksley, Warren

      Waller, Gary

      Hayward, Robert

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Watson, John

      Hind, Kenneth

      Watts, John

      Holt, Richard

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Hooson, Tom

      Whitfield, John

      Howard, Michael

      Whitney, Raymond

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

      Wolfson, Mark

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Wood, Timothy

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Jessel, Toby

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Mr. Douglas Hogg and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Key, Robert

      Question accordingly negatived
      Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 3, line 30, after `shall', insert
      'not have regard to the conduct of the parties unless the conduct complained of is of such an exceptional nature that it would be inequitable to disregard it, but shall'.—[Mr. Abse.]
      Amendment negatived.
      Ms. Richardson: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 7, leave out
      'made by each of the parties'
      and insert
      'which each of the parties has made or is likely in the foreseeable future to make'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 13, in page 4, line 9, leave out 'made'.
      No. 14, in page 4, line 9, after 'made', insert
      `or likely to be made'.
      No. 25, in clause 9, page 9, line 25, leave out
      `made by each of the parties'
      and insert
      'which each of the parties has made or is likely in the foreseeable future to make'.
      No. 26, in page 9, line 27, leave out 'made'.
      Ms. Richardson: The amendments are, in a way, the Solicitor-General's response to a point which I made in Committee, which will clarify the point that we were discussing.
      Amendment agreed to.
      1.15 am
      Mr. Weetch: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 4, line 43, after 'party', insert 'had expressly'.
      I shall not take long. The Solicitor-General has come through the Bill almost totally unscathed. At this early hour he is in a position of strength, and, as such, he can afford to be generous. Although amendment No. 20 might not seem very important, it raises a very important issue of principle.
      The amendment is aimed at ensuring that step-parents are not automatically taken to have assumed financial responsibility for step-children. The unjust position that often occurs is this. A spouse with children by a first marriage is divorced. The children are taken into the second marriage. The children become in effect the step-children of the subsequent spouse, who, in the normal course of events, takes the children into the new family framework.
      Little does the step-parent know, however, that should the second marriage break down he or she is likely to be ordered to pay maintenance and thus acquire financial obligations involuntarily and unjustly. One has to add to that the fact that the other natural parent is still alive and may or may not be paying maintenance
      Hard cases make bad law, but some of the cases that may arise and have arisen—I have much correspondence to justify my saying that—need to be quoted. I shall quote briefly from a letter in my files. I know of other cases. A divorced man was given the custody of three children, and then he remarried. His second wife brought two children to the marriage. She was already being maintained by her first husband. The marriage lasted a matter of months and broke up. The man was required by law to pay maintenance for his step-children as well as to maintain three children of his own. The obligations left him destitute, as he was also paying regular maintenance to his first wife.
      1036
      The step-parent was keeping his own children, arid maintaining his step-children, who were also being maintained by the wife's first husband. He was also maintaining his former wife. The DHSS had its hand in his pocket, too, on the doctrine of saving the public purse. In my view, such a situation is intolerable and unjust.
      It is a general proposition in law that no one is forced to take on financial obligations for children who are not his or her own. Maintenance matters are an exception to that. Even if a second marriage lasts for a minimal time, financial obligations for step-children are assumed unless an express disclaimer is made, deriving from case law.
      I submit that that is inequitable, and I submit to the House that the amendment would rectify the position and make it more fair. By inserting the word "expressly", the onus is shifted. There will be a general assumption that the law is the same everywhere with regard to step-children. If there is an exception in this area of public life, it must be expressly intentioned.
      Forty per cent. of second marriages break down. There is a high level of breakdown and the problems of the financial obligations of step-children will increase. Therefore, I invite the Solicitor-General to accept the amendment, to apply justice to a difficult situation.
      The Solicitor-General: The fact that I have come through unscathed, as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) said, is not a reflection on the cogency and conciseness of the advocacy that he has invariably brought in his amendments. We have not been able to accept many Opposition amendments, although we have just accepted two—and I hope that that will not be overlooked. We could not accept many, as I am afraid that they would have damaged the Bill.
      The purpose of the amendment is to narrow the liability of either party to make provision for a child of the family who is not that party's own child. The court, in considering whether to make an order against a party in favour of such a child, is required to have regard, among other things, to whether that party had assumed any responsibility for the child's maintenance. It has to look to that.
      The words to be inserted by the amendment—"had expressly"—would, by inference, indicate to the court that it should be reluctant to make an order against a party unless he had explicitly, whether orally or in writing, assumed responsibility for the child's maintenance. The effect of inserting the words, "had expressly", would be to eliminate the conduct of the party towards the child as a test of whether he had assumed any responsibility for that child's maintenance. Instead, the court would have to consider whether anything that the party had said or written was sufficiently explicit to show that responsibility for the child's maintenance had been expressly assumed. If I put it simply like that, one sees how difficult and uncertain it would be, and what sort of investigations would take place, as to whether something had been said, what exactly it meant, what wer the circumstances, and so on.
      The provision applies only to a child who has been treated by both spouses as a child of their family, but the court would have to consider, not what course of conduct the prospective payer had pursued over the years with respect to the child, but evidence of what the party had said or written about assuming responsibility. It is much more

      1037
      important that we stick to the present rule that the court has to see whether there has been an assumption of responsibility. It looks to the fact, not to the form.
      I should like to accept one of the hon. Gentleman's amendments, but the result of this amendment would, in many cases, be that a child who was dependent upon his step-father and had looked upon him as a father figure might be bereft of support on the breakdown of the relationship between his natural parent and his step-parent. One has only to say that for it to become apparent that that would not be a good thing at all. It is for that reason alone that, I fear, I must say once more that I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Weetch: Disappointed as I am with that answer, I thank the Solicitor-General for his argument. Although I do not accept it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 5, line 40, at end add—
      '(4) Save by agreement between the parties the provisions of this section shall not apply in any case where there remain minor children of the family in the care of either party to the marriage'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 23, in clause 5, page 6, leave out lines 20 to 27.
      No. 24, in clause 6, page 6, line 43, at end insert—
      '(2A) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
      "(6A) Where a periodical payments or secured periodical payments order in favour of a party to a marriage on or after the grant of a decree of divorce or nullity of marriage is made for a fixed term an application under subsection (1) of this section may be made at any time during the subsistence of the order and for a period of one year after the date specified in the order for its determination.".'.
      Mr. Carlile: New section 25A has caused a good deal of panic, particularly among divorced women and women who are single parents. It has been characterised — probably, I agree, wrongly—as a section that will be a charter for husbands to avoid future responsibilities.
      I can put the argument for amendment No. 22 extremely briefly. It needs to be spelt out in new section 25A that there should not be clean break orders in cases where there remain minor children of the family. It needs to be spelt out so that those who have expressed great anxiety and near panic about the new section know that their panic is misplaced.
      Ms. Harriet Harman: The clean break principle is directed at stamping out the so-called alimony drone. At the root of these proposals is the idea that somewhere there is a creature who marries a man and, after a brief marriage, gets a divorce and then has a meal ticket for life. The clean break principle is designed to permit the husband to get a clean break from such an alimony drone and not have to continue paying maintenance.
      The problem with all this is that the alimony drone is a mythical creature. First, let us consider what the Lord Chancellor knows about the alimony drone and then see what we know about this myth, about the non-existence of such a person. The Lord Chancellor has admitted that
      1038
      he does not know that facts about the financial consequences of divorce. In a letter to me dated 2 December 1983 he wrote:
      "My officials will shortly be considering proposals by the Social Survey Division of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for a feasibility study on research into the financial consequences of divorce."
      He was not, therefore, announcing a full survey; just a feasibility study into a research project.
      This Bill will change the divorce laws in respect of maintenance and the financial consequences of the breakdown of marriage on the basis of prejudice rather than on information about what actually happens to the two parties financially when a marriage breaks down. It is wrong that we should be asked to include this clean break clause in the Bill when the Lord Chancellor does not know what the effects of it will be. He cannot know the effects of it because, as I have shown, he does not know what the current situation is. He admitted in his letter that
      "information about the financial circumstances of divorced men and women who are caring for children, and of divorced women whose children are no longer dependent, is lacking."
      He went on:
      "I hope that it will prove possible to fill these gaps in our knowledge, and others, with the large-scale survey which it is envisaged that the feasibility study by the OPCS may lead to."
      It is deplorable that the Lord Chancellor should be promoting legislation containing this clause, which could have a great effect on first wives, when he does not know the background against which we are legislating.
      As the Lord Chancellor admitted, not much research has been done on this subject, and the Law Commission drew attention to that fact. When, therefore, I received letters from husbands saying that they felt that their first wives were alimony drones, I undertook my own research project. I sent out a questionnaire asking how long the first marriage had lasted, whether the first wife had remarried, how many children there were of the marriage and whether those children were dependent. I wanted to obtain more information about those who had written to me, remembering that they were supporting the Bill.
      The questionnaire was circulated to more people than those who had written to me asking me to support the measure. It was circulated by an organisation called Campaign for Justice in Divorce, which supports the aim of the Bill to stamp out the odd alimony drone. Basically, therefore, the questionnaire went to husbands who felt that the Bill would help them and give them a clean break from their first wives.
      I did an analysis of the first 100 answers I received from the questionnaire — about 130 were returned — which revealed that even among those who were calling for freedom from the alimony drone and a clean break, I could not find one example of an alimony drone from my research. I found that most of the husbands wanting a clean break had children as a result of long-standing marriages, and I will give some of the findings.
      I found that 75 per cent. of the marriages had lasted for more than 15 years, which could hardly be described as brief marriages; that 56 per cent. had lasted for more than 20 years; and that one had lasted for as long as 48 years. Are we being told that after 48 years of marriage—and, in that case, four children—there should be a clean break? I found that 70 per cent. of the marriages had two or more children; that 59 per cent. of husbands had married again and that only 4 per cent. of the first wives had remarried.

      1039
      The Bill's supporters claim that it is necessary to end the so-called injustice of an ex-husband having to pay maintenance to an ex-wife after a brief and childless marriage. But not one of the 100 supporters of the Bill involved in that research project anywhere near fitted the circumstances for which a clean break is supposedly necessary. My research shows that those who are pressing for the Bill will not be helped by it unless the Bill cuts maintenance for ex-wives who have spent many years at home not working because they are bringing up children and whose earning power has therefore been permanently reduced.
      1.30 am
      The Bill will not help those who want it, or it will harm those who should not be harmed. I believe that the clean break is unfair even when there are no longer dependent children. A Government survey of only the week before last showed that bringing up children impairs a woman's earning power by 25 per cent. for the whole of her working life, not just for the time that she is bringing up those children.
      First, there should be equality in the home with equal responsibility for bringing up children, and equality in the job market with equal opportunity and earnings for men and women, and then the Government should come to us asking for a clean break.
      The Attorney-General: We were delighted to hear from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), alhough I do not believe that her remarks were directed to the amendment. Her speech might perhaps have been more appropriate on Third Reading.
      The amendments, which have carefully been grouped together, deal, in effect, with guidance on the exercise of the court's discretion in making financial orders under new section 25A and the power conferred by subsection (3), to order that an application for periodical payment should be dismissed wihout the agreement of the applicant.
      The first point that must be borne in mind about section 25A is that the court will have decided to make an order for finacial relief, and it will have done so having already given consideration to the welfare of any child of the family. Accordingly, when the court looks at section 25A it must have it in mind to make a order for financial relief in favour of a party to the marriage, and there can be no question of the interests of any child of the family being overlooked.
      In considering the amendments to clause 3, the question is whether the fact that a party has the care of a child of the family should exclude the duty of the court even to consider whether it is appropriate that the financial obligations of each party towards the other should be terminated as soon after the grant of the decree as the court considers just and equitable.
      If the hon. Members speaking to these amendments wish the court to be prevented from ordering a clean break between the parties when minor children are involved, the amendments should say so clearly. As I have explained, they do not. The real debate is whether the clean break should always be excluded in these circumstances. I am sure that the answer to this must be no. There are cases where it would be appropriate to impose a clean break between the parties, notwithstanding the fact that there are children under the age of 18 involved. The cases of Minton, decided in 1979, and Dunford, decided in 1980, are examples of where the court may quite appropriately
      1040
      order no continuing financial provision between the parties, while making orders for the payment of maintenance to the children of the family.
      I can illustrate the type of circumstances when a clean break between the parties would be appropriate by a hypothetical example. May we imagine a woman who is a general practitioner earning £22,000 a year, married to a marketing director of 42 with an income of £28,000 a year? Each has only £2,000 or £3,000 in capital savings, but they jointly own a matrimonial home. They have two children, a girl of 13 and a boy of 15. I could well envisage a court in such a case ordering some transfer of property in the matrimonial home perhaps, but not requiring the parent who is not caring for the children to make any order for periodical payments in respect of the parent who is. There would, of course, be orders in respect of the children, but section 25A, and these amendments, are not concerned with orders in respect of children.
      It may well be appropriate in cases where the husband has substantial assets for him to provide for the maintenance of the wife, and perhaps the children too, by way of the payment of large sums. In such cases it is not uncommon for there to be a transfer of the matrimonial home together with a lump sum payment but no order for periodical payments.
      The important point to remember about section 25A is that the court is directed to consider termination of financial obligations and fixed-term orders only when it would be appropriate to do so—that is, when such an order can be made without undue hardship to the party. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) made that point in Committee. I agree with him that it is vital not to overlook the importance of those words.
      I appreciate the purpose of the amendment, which is to cater for an unforeseen contingency. I doubt whether provisions along the lines of that in the amendment would be used in practice, but my main objection to the amendment is one of principle. It would not help the parties to achieve the desirable aim of securing financial independence. Alternatively, it would erode the value to the courts of the power to make orders of limited duration. and therefore prolong the bitterness and antagonism between the parties, which arises from wrangles of continuing financial ties. The Bill seeks to avoid that.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: The Attorney-General has carefully and fairly dealt with his objections to amendment No. 22. However, with respect, he is wrong about its meaning and effect. It excludes clean-break settlements, except where there is an agreement that the court should make a clean-break order in cases where there are minor children of the family. He is right in saying that it is intended to deal with possible contingencies even in the sort of case of which he gave an example, but what happens if the general practitioner and mother become disabled? She will then receive, in addition to whatever benefits she may get, only the maintenance that is being paid for the child. The Liberal party wishes to avoid such a consequence. It happens more often than one imagines.
      However, the matter was considered carefully, and I do not wish to press the matter to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 9

      ORDERS FOR FINANCIAL RELIEF MADE BY MAGISTRATES' COURTS IN MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS
      Amendments made: No 25, in page 9, line 25, leave out
      'made by each of the parties'
      and insert
      'which each of the parties has made or is likely in the foreseeable future to make'.
      No. 26, in page 9, line 27, leave out 'inade'.—[Mr. John Morris.]

    Clause 33

      JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURTS IN MATRIMONIAL CAUSES
      Amendment made: No. 28, in page 29, line 34, leave out from 'or' to end of line 35 and insert
      section 41 of the County Courts Act 1984 (transfer to High Court by order of the High Court).'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 38

      TRANSFER OF FAMILY PROCEEDINGS FROM HIGH COURT TO COUNTY COURT
      Amendment made: No. 29, in page 31, line 10, leave
      out from 'or' to end of line 12 and insert
      'section 41 of the County Courts Act 1984 (transfer to High Court by order of High Court).'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 40

      FAMILY PROCEEDINGS RULES
      Amendments made: No. 30, in page 32, line 8, leave out `1959' and insert '1984'.
      No. 32, in page 32, line 36, leave out '1959' and insert `1984'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Schedule 1

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 41, in page 38, leave out lines 3 to 18.
      No. 43, in page 40, line 22, leave out 'section 102 of the County Courts Act 1959' and insert
      'section 75 of the County Courts Act 1984'.
      No. 44, in page 40, line 35, leave out 'section 102 of the County Courts Act 1959' and insert
      `section 75 of the County Courts Act 1984'.
      No. 45, in page 42, line 34, at end insert—
      'County Courts Act 1984 (c. 00)
      32.In section 40 of the County Courts Act 1984, the following shall be substituted for subsection (3)—
      "(3) This section does not apply to proceedings which are family proceedings within the meaning of Part V of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984."
      33.In section 41 of that Act there shall be added at the end of subsection (2) the words "but shall be exercised in relation to family proceedings (within the meaning of Part V of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedins Act 1984) in accordance with any directions given under section 37 of that Act (directions as to distribution and transfer of family business and proceedings)."
      34.In section 42(3) of that Act for the words after "other than" there shall be substituted the words "proceedings which are family proceedings within the meaning of Part V of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.".'. — [The Solicitor-General.]

    Schedule 3

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 52, in page 44, leave out lines 4 and 5.
      No. 54, in page 44, line 31, at end insert—

      '1984 c. 00

      County Courts Act 1984

      In section 147(1), the definition of "matrimonial cause".'.

      —[The Solicitor-General.]
      1.37 am
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Last autumn the New Law Journal, in a leading article, published the following passage
      "The myths and the exaggerations are already forming around the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill and need to be dispelled. The reality is that the Bill is not an assault on the family or the institution of marriage. It does not presage the return of fault-based divorce, nor would its enactment create a new class of destitute jobless first wives on the breadline while their husbands' second families live in luxury. Indeed the practical effect of the new measure, when implemented, is likely to disappoint, or alternatively assuage the fears of those who expect it to introduce dramatic changes in the way the courts deal with the financial aftermath of divorce. The Bill brings together proposals of three Law Commission and one Scottish Law Commission reports, and adds a dash of procedure inspired by the Lord Chancellor's Department, not least to attempt to unravel the jurisdictional problems that Richards v.Richards revealed."
      I hope that the careful consideration that has been given to the Bill in the other place, in Committee and in the House has dispelled those myths.
      I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have played such a major part in our consideration of the Bill. Their work has been rewarded in the amendments made to the Bill. The debates in the House and in the other place greatly improved the measure, which will soon receive Royal Assent.
      I also wish to comment on the use of the Special Standing Committee procedure. This power is rarely used, but its use in connection with this Bill was obviously enormously valuable to the Committee and to all those who read its proceedings. Not only did it enable the Committee to be better informed so that it could carry out its responsibilities, but I have no doubt that it speeded debates in Committee.
      I also pay tribute to the Opposition for the responsible way in which they have dealt with this non-partisan measure. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General on the skilful, compassionate and courteous way in which he navigated the Bill through the minefields that are always creatd by legislation that involves reforms.
      I hope that the House will give the Bill its Third Reading.
      1.40 am
      Mr. John Morris: Initially, the Bill caused great concern in many parts of the House. Some women believed that they were hard done by, and some men had exaggerated hopes of what they could gain from it. Many of those fears were removed by sending the Bill to the Special Standing Committee. When the idea of doing so was canvassed, it was welcomed by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and we greatly appreciated the help of the Solicitor-General in Committee and in all our proceedings.

      1043
      I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Richardson) and my other hon. Friends who bore the heat of the day in Committee; they left no stone unturned.
      The Opposition had a free vote on the Bill on Second Reading, as they will have on Third Reading. The concrete way to allay the fears which I believe still exist is for the Bill to be monitored during the next five years. If it fails, and some of those fears are proved right, it will inevitably be necessary to amend the Act at that stage.
      1.42 am
      Mr. Alex Carlile: The alliance has the greatest misgivings about the Bill, not so much for what it does, as for what it fails to do. We believe that it is wrong for matrimonial law, which is so greatly in need of wholesale reform—matrimonial procedure especially needs almost complete revision—to be dealt with in this piecemeal way. It was suggested earlier in the debate that, in one respect at least, there was no time to consider the issues properly, but the fact is that many of the issues which lead one to the conclusion that matrimonial law is desperately in need of wide reform have been debated for many years and researched fully.
      On Second Reading I referred to the report of the Finer commission, which was published 10 years ago, recommending fundamental changes in family law and, above all, making the strong and cogent point that it is time to look outside the adversarial procedure that has been traditional in family law proceedings, and try to aim at something new and different that is designed to introduce conciliation as the first consideration in disputes — conciliation, not reconciliation.
      The time is long overdue for a system of family courts to be set up, combining the whole family law and domestic jurisdiction. It could and should have been done by this Bill. In that respect the Government have failed in the Bill.
      1.45 am
      Mr. Abse: I shall take greater care to try to keep within the limits of what should be a Third Reading speech; I observed that you were getting restless, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I cannot refrain from saying that the very features of the Bill highlight areas which require attention. It is abundantly clear that one of the best effects of the Bill is that it has directed attention to the fact that we are dealing with problems that need new conciliation procedures, family courts and a real regard to the large mass of women who will not be affected in any way by the Bill because they are still dependent upon inadequate state security.
      For my part, I believe that on balance the Bill is of limited benefit in so far as it substitutes new guidelines for those who have to adjudicate upon requests for financial aid, following upon divorce. It substitutes rational guidelines for irrational guidelines.
      Inevitably we have had a great deal of tumult during our debates. It would have been wrong if even to the end there had not been some quite fierce exchanges. The Solicitor-General will realise that it is the duty of an Opposition, particularly when they are comparatively small in numbers, to alert the nation as best they can to what they regard as blemishes within a Bill.
      I wish to thank all hon. Members on both sides of the House who, through the unofficial divorce committee of the House, so persistently asked for part II. I am grateful for the fact that at the very end we had the Lord
      1044
      Chancellor, with all the zeal of a proselyte, pursuing partII and having as his aide the Solicitor-General, to whom I give special thanks for the courtesy, constant vigilance and care that he gave to every amendment, even those which were most extravagant or irrational.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 16.

      Division No. 370]

      [1.48am

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Alexander, Richard

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Ashby, David

      Key, Robert

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      King, Roger (B'ham N field)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Baldry, Anthony

      Knowles, Michael

      Batiste, Spencer

      Lang, Ian

      Bellingham, Henry

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Benyon, William

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Lilley, Peter

      Best, Keith

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Maclean, David John

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Major, John

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Malins, Humfrey

      Brinton, Tim

      Mather, Carol

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Norris, Steven

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Cash, William

      Ottaway, Richard

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Chope, Christopher

      Powley, John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Raffan, Keith

      Conway, Derek

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Coombs, Simon

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Cope, John

      Rowe, Andrew

      Couchman, James

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Dover, Den

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Durant, Tony

      Spencer, Derek

      Fallon, Michael

      Stern, Michael

      Favell, Anthony

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Fox, Marcus

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Franks, Cecil

      Sumberg, David

      Freeman, Roger

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Gale, Roger

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Galley, Roy

      Thurnham, Peter

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Tracey, Richard

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Goodlad, Alastair

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Gow, Ian

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Ground, Patrick

      Walden, George

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Waller, Gary

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Watson, John

      Hayward, Robert

      Watts, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Whitfield, John

      Hind, Kenneth

      Whitney, Raymond

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Holt, Richard

      Wood, Timothy

      Hooson, Tom

      Yeo, Tim

      Howard, Michael

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

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

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Archie Hamilton.

      Hunter, Andrew

      Jessel, Toby

      NOES

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      1045

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Madden, Max

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

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Mikardo, Ian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Nellist, David

      Mr. Tony Blair and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

      Pike, Peter

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

      REPEALS

        BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
        Ordered,
        That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 70 (Public bills relating exclusively to Scotland) shall apply to proceedings on the Roads (Scotland) Bill [Lords] with the substitution of the words 'Committee of the whole House' for the words 'Scottish Standing Committee' in paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Standing Order.—[Mr. Lang.]

        ROADS (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
        Order for Second Reading read.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 70 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland), That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Lang.]
        Question agreed to.
        Committee this day.

Thornton View Hospital
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]
1.58 am
Mr. Max Madden: It was 10 April, just a few weeks before the local elections, that the Minister for Health announced that Thornton View hospital in Bradford was to close and that Shipley hospital was to remain open as a community geriatric unit and not as a community hospital. The Minister's decision to close Thornton View hospital was bitterly resented by the people of Bradford. Support for the hospital has been magnificent from the relatives of the elderly patients who praise the care that is given by the hospital, and from the staff and their supporters, who, since last August, have occupied the hospital and mounted a round-the-clock picket to ensure that patients are not removed.
In Shipley, there has been mounting concern after the initial reaction of pleasure that the hospital had been saved. The Minister's decision to close Thornton View hospital, which, in his own words, provides
"a caring and homely environment much appreciated by the patients"
and to keep Shipley hospital, but to change it into a community geriatric hospital, came as a considerable surprise. Surprise, however, turned into astonishment at the end of May, when confidential minutes of a meeting between a deputation from Bradford district health authority and members of the Yorkshire regional health authority were leaked. They revealed that
"the DHA had considered the possibility of redesignating the hospital for geriatric use, but it had been concluded that it would not even be possible to achieve the RHA's minimum standards for the care of elderly patients within the confines of Shipley Hospital and that the facilities would be worse than currently available in other geriatric hospitals within the District."
Yesterday, Bradford district health authority considered a motion that noted the district health authority's view that it would be impossible to achieve the region's minimum standards for the care of the elderly at Shipley, that the cost of upgrading Shipley hospital was unkown, that the projections for the elderly population had been underestimated previously, and that the Minister's decision would result in a net loss of 46 geriatric beds in Bradford. The motion concluded by calling
"Upon the Minister to fully explain and reconsider his decision".
It was lost by just seven votes to six. The district health authority, which was previously in favour of closing both hospitals on the ground of economy, came within an ace of joining the many other people in Bradford who are in favour of keeping open Thornton View hospital.
In Bradford, 30,000 people signed a petition that was presented to the DHSS, urging that Thornton View hospital be kept open. It has the support of Bradford community health council, Bradford city council, the three political groups represented on it, and the relatives of patients. The hospital has been supported and visited by the leader of the Labour party, several members of the shadow Cabinet, the general secretaries of the health unions—the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National Union of Public Employees — and many other individuals and organisations.
An early-day motion signed by more than 100 Labour members, urging that the hospital should remain open, has been on the Order Paper for several months. A large

1047
deputation representing all these viewpoints and others met the Under-Secretary of State in January, and presented an extremely powerful case for the hospital staying open. The members of that deputation were very disappointed, as I was, that Ministers were unable to accept several invitations that were extended to them to visit both hospitals before they announced their decision. I, and others, were extremely disappointed that those visits were not made, because we felt that it was vital that Ministers should see for themselves and talk to those who directly support those hospitals, so that they could ascertain the views and strength of feeling that exists in Bradford over the future of both of those hospitals.
We are entitled to ask why the Minister decided to announce the closure of Thornton View hospital, which, to use his words again, has provided
"a caring and homely environment much appreciated by the patients"
Why did the Minister decide to change Shipley hospital from a community hospital into a community geriatric unit? What commonsense, clinical or compassionate reasons were in the Minister's mind, given the advice that I assume that he was given last July by the Bradford district health authority—whose chairperson is a Conservative county councillor living in Shipley—that facilities at Shipley would be worse than currently available in other geriatric hospitals within the district?
If we need to inquire into those reasons—reasons that were in the Minister's mind—we find an intriguing explanation in an article in the New Statesman on 3 June,written by Phil Cohen, in which he wrote:
"The government was warned by local Tory MP Marcus Fox of a widespread grassroots revolt which would have endangered his seat if Shipley closed. Leafy Shipley, with its large detached houses, is a stronghold of the rich and middle classes. Thornton View, however, is the poorest constituency in Bradford—a Labour held seat—and has the highest immigrant population.
Dr. Clive Tedd, a GP who serviced the 30-bed GP hospital, said: 'The Minister knew he would lose a Conservative MP at the next election. I was secretary of one of the wards of the local Conservative Association and it was made quite clear to me that was what would happen. I think Mr. Clarke is happy to see Thornton View close because the mixture of people trying to keep it open is totally different. It is seen as trade unionists, NUPE members and to a lesser extent relations of elderly patients'."
That was the view of an active member of the Conservative party.
Yesterday, the chairman of the Bradford district health authority was unable to say what sort of community geriatric unit Shipley hospital would become. He has been quoted as saying that all that was required was the addition of a toilet and a day room. Many of us found that an unconvincing explanation of the required facilities at Shipley hospital. Yesterday, it was also announced that the hospital's attic would be required to be brought into use.
No clear guarantee was given at the meeting that the beds at Shipley would become long-stay geriatric beds.Indeed, a disbelieving group of Bradford people attending the meeting were told that there was no one on the geriatric waiting list in Bradford. If Thornton View closes, and even if large amounts of money are spent on bringing Shipley hospital up to standard, there will be a net loss to the district of 46 geriatric beds.
Elderly people—and the number of elderly people over 85 in Bradford will go up by more than a third in the next 20 years, and by more than 77 per cent. in the Yorkshire region in the same period—are in urgent need of residential hospital care. Bradford's social services are
1048
under enormous pressure, and that is not helped by tuts in rate support grant and threats of other action by the Government to reduce the finances available to the city.
The flourishing private nursing home sector in Bradford—heavily subsidised by the taxpayer—is clear evidence of the increasing need for care for the elderly. As beds in places such as Thornton View are lost, it makes the provision for the elderly, especially those who do not have much money or well-off relatives, that much harder. As hospitals close, as council homes and services are axed or cut, it means more elderly people are compelled to seek help in their homes, with relatives living with or visiting them or having to go to live with relatives. Such community care imposes severe and unnecessary strains and sacrifices on wives, daughters, mothers and sisters. It is women who are paying the cost in physical, emotional and financial terms for the political philosophy of this Government, which dictates that welfare services must be cut, and the choice of care diminished to those whose purses or wallets are not fat enough to provide private care.
I am grateful to the Minister for his reception of the deputation in January, but I must tell him that, as I speak, there are pickets at Thornton View hospital, and the occupation will continue. Only two weeks ago, staff voted overwhelmingly to continue the occupation, and there is no way that they will allow patients to be removed from the hospital. With thousands of unemployed in Bradford and thousands of people living in deepening poverty, an epidemic of dysentery — a disease of poverty — now shows the depth of poverty in the area. In those circumstances, the loss of arty public medical facility is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Bradford urgently needs more help. It needs more resources to give our people better health care, better housing, better education, more jobs and some hope. The elderly, who created the wealth in the past, are clearly entitled to an increasing share of present-day resources to ensure that in their remaining years they receive the best possible care that our supposedly civilised society can give them.
Closing Thornton View hospital is not in the best interests of the elderly people of Bradford. No explanation has been given to the people of Bradford which might justify the closure of that hospital or the translation of Shipley hospital from a community hospital to a geriatric unit. I have to say that the stench of corruption hangs over the Minister's decision. I say that with considerable regret, but it is the view of many people in the city. That is the conclusion that many people have been forced to reach after the series of events which occurred both before and after the Minister's decision of 10 April this year.
The Minister can remove that stench of corruption by announcing today that all the decisions will be urgently reconsidered and by announcing in the very near future that he has no plans to close Thornton View hospital but that that hospital will be kept open and that Shipley hospital will remain a community hospital as the citizens of Shipley wish. That is the obligation facing the Minister today. He has a clear opportunity to reassure the people of Bradford that these badly needed medical facilities will be reprieved. I appeal to him to tell us as clearly and unequivocally as possible that Thornton View hospital will be kept open and that Shipley hospital will continue in the role that it has performed hitherto.
I hope that the Minister can see his way to making that clear commitment today. If he cannot do that, I am afraid that the great concern that has existed since the occupation

1049
began last August will continue and intensify. No one, including the district health authority, is satisified with the explanations given so far, and I join those who pressed the health authority yesterday to call upon the Minister to reconsider his decision. I hope that he will do that and that he will announce that intention today.
Mr. Marcus Fox rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and of the Minister to intervene?
Mr. Fox: I wrote asking that I should be given a minute.
Mr. Madden: I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to contribute.
Mr. Fox: I take an exception to the hon. Member for Bradford West (Mr. Madden) devoting so much time to the affairs of Shipley. He is a newcomer to Bradford, never mind Shipley, and he has no right to speak for my constituents, who are delighted at the Minister's decision to keep our hospital open. It is not being changed from a community hospital into a geriatric unit. It maintains most of the services that it had before, but the beds will be better used. We wanted to keep a community hospital, we have achieved that aim, and we are grateful.
It is also ludicrous in the extreme for the hon. Gentleman to quote extracts suggesting that my seat is marginal when I have a majority of 11,400.
Thornton View hospital really should close. Half of it was closed in the 1960s. Those of us who have spent our lives in Yorkshire and in the area around Bradford in particular know a great deal more about these matters than the newcomer who now represents Bradford, West. The hon. Gentleman is far more at home down here in the south and as ex-director of the Labour party publicity machine. His Adjournment debate today shows exactly what he stands for
1.14 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) for speaking with characteristic force about these matters. I listened with sorrow to some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) about Shipley and some of the allegations about actions taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health and myself, and I utterly reject those allegations.
I cannot oblige the hon. Member for Bradford, West. Neither I nor my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health intend to reopen a decision that has been properly taken, the reasons for which have been clearly and properly promulgated. If the hon. Gentleman or his constituents want to know why the decisions about the Thornton View and Shipley hospitals were taken in that form by my right hon. and learned Friend, they need go no further than the letter in which my right hon. and learned Friend announced his decision.
It is unfortunate that the title of the debate and some, although not all, of the hon. Gentleman's powerful speech, reflecting his strong feelings about this issue—I respect those feelings—were concerned with the future
1050
of Thornton View hospital. The modern Health Service is concerned, not with buildings, but with patients—the best arrangements for the present and potential patients of Thornton View hospital and elsewhere in the district. Those are the people about whom we should be concerned—not the future of any particular building in Yorkshire. We should properly be concerned also with the future of the people who work in the hospital. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's strong views on that matter.
I shall make three pledges about the hospital, its patients and those who work in it. First, as the hon. Gentleman knows, no patient has yet moved from Thornton View hospital, nor will any patient be moved until it is absolutely clear what pattern of moves, determined in the light of the individual needs of patients, will be in the patient's best interests. I know that the district health authority will work to those ends.
My second pledge refers to the staff. All permanent staff working at Thornton View hospital will be offered alternative employment. I repeat: all permanent staff working at the hospital will be offered alternative employment. It is important for those in Bradford, however strongly they feel about the future of Thornton View hospital and its patients, to realise that that is the fact of the matter.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West spoke often and freely about Shipley hospital, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. My third pledge concerns nursing staff at that hospital, and I hope that my hon. Friend will take my remarks back to his constituents. The pledge is that nursing staff at the Shipley hospital will qualify in future for what is known as a geriatric lead payment when the beds are redesignated. That is an important point for those who work so hard at Shipley hospital.
I do not want to debate tonight the rights and wrongs of the occupation of hospitals. The hon. Member for Bradford, West supports such a move. I believe that is totally wrong, but it is counter-productive for the House to begin tonight to debate the rights and wrongs of whether people should occupy NHS property or any other form of property in the pursuit of their aims.
I do not intend to do more than make passing reference to what I believe was a totally misplaced Labour party political broadcast which featured Thornton View hospital and specifically suggested that the closure of the hospital would cause its residents to be turned out on to the streets. That is disgraceful. By all means fight the political argument fairly, but it is wrong to make completely unfounded and unsupportable allegations about what might happen to individual elderly people, causing them and their relatives great upset.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to do four things tonight. First, I ask him to condemn, with me, the numerous cases of actual and threatened violence that has surrounded the closure. If he does not do that, he is doing his constituents a grave disservice. Secondly, will he join me in condemning the fact that at one stage a large deputation of opponents to the closure—they have the right to be heard—forcibly detained the regional chairman of the Yorkshire regional health authority, the regional administrator and the regional information officer? I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman thinks that that was correct.
Thirdly, I call on him to condemn the threatening telephone calls that have been made to some of those

1051
involved in taking the closure decisions. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that democracy and the interests of his constituents are forwarded by threatening telephone calls, he is sorely and sadly mistaken. Fourthly and lastly, I hope that he will condemn the fact that the car of the chairman of Bradford health authority has been vandalised in its garage as a protest.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman condemns those four forms of action. I do not see him dissenting from that condemnation. I do not seek to put words in his mouth—
Mr. Madden rose—
Mr. Patten: I must give way, as I have been referring to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Madden: This has been a litany of the most extraordinary allegations, all of them, except the last, completely new to me. I should have thought that there was no sign of who was responsible for damaging the car. The Minister appears to be setting up a smokescreen to obscure matters and to allow him to leave the debate without answering the questions which are central to it. What will happen to the patients at Thornton View hospital? What money is being made available to modify Shipley hospital? Will the Minister confirm that, if Shipley hospital becomes a community geriatric unit, it will result in a net loss of more than 40 beds in Bradford district? They are the questions that the people of Bradford want answered rather than to hear the Minister indulging in hearsay allegations and making remarks of the sort that he has, which are wholly unfounded. If there is evidence about any of the matters to which he has referred, surely police inquiries should have been made and those responsible found, brought to court and convicted if guilty.
Mr. Patten: To talk of smokescreens and unsubstantiated allegations is a case, if I am guilty, of the pot calling the kettle black, given the dreadful smears that the hon. Gentleman chose to read out about the conduct of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman sings one song in the House and another in his constituency. In the five minutes that I have available let me address myself to the points that the hon. Gentleman made.
Services provided by the health authority for the elderly in Bradford are chiefly concerned with the prevention of long-term illness and disability, and quite correctly. It is the health authority's policy to ensure that old people are maintained in the best possible health, whenever possible at home, and to avoid unnecessarily prolonged stays in hospital. It will be the aim of the authority in future years to increase the number of beds of district general hospital sites, thereby making specialist services available for the acute care of the increasingly elderly and frail to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.
The quality of hospital provision for the elderly has improved considerably in recent years in Bradford. In January 1983, for example, a 30-bed ward for the
1052
assessment of elderly patients was opened at St. Luke's hospital, increasing the number of geriatric assessment beds to 88 at that hospital. There are improved staffing levels and facilities for rehabilitation and assessment.
The change in service philosophy that has occurred in recent years has resulted in a decrease in demand for geriatric beds. We serve patients and their demands, not buildings and the demands o f those who work in them, nor indeed the demands of Ministers. In Bradford there has been a decrease in demand for geriatric beds that is clearly demonstrated by occupancy levels.
Mr. Madden: The demand is going up.
Mr. Patten: The decrease in demand is at the root of the hon. Gentleman's arguments. Between 1977 and 1982, there was little overall change in the number of beds available to geriatricians for the treatment of their patients, yet that period saw an increase of over one quarter of the number of geriatric in-patients treated, while the average number of geriatric beds occupied fell by one eighth. To put it another way, despite the greater services being delivered, the average number of empty beds in the district increased from 21 to 82.
Not just services for the elderly provided by Bradford area health authority have undergone a substantial improvement. When considered in relation to resident populations of more than 64 years of age, the Bradford health authority had more geriatric beds than any other district in the Yorkshire region, with more than one and a half times as many geriatric beds as the national average. Similarly, it has many more nursing staff than other districts, nearly one and a half times as many district nursing staff as the national average helping to look after elderly people. I shall not use emotive phrases like "over-provision". All that I am saying is that Bradford is pretty well provided for in comparison with Yorkshire, as well as in terms of the national averages.
We all know that, while pressure is put on the health service from demographic trends there is a need to look ahead and consider their implications with care. The position at Bradford is not the usual one. Contrary to the pattern found in most localities, the set of population projections in general use for planning in the Yorkshire region shows a reduction of 4 per cent. in the number of Bradford health authority residents who will be over the age of 65 in the next few years. Rather than a population explosion in the next few years, the picture shows the reverse.
Against that background, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health took the decision about Thornton View hospital. It needs replacing and patients deserve better accommodation, despite the attentions of the staff to provide a homely and caring atmosphere. It was against that background that my right hon. and learned Friend took the decision about Thornton View and Shipley hospitals. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley for his courtesy in attending the debate tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty eight minutes past Two o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMON
  Sittings
  Sittings
THE ARTS
  Arts in Wales
  Arts in Wales
WALES
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Bypasses
  Bypasses
  Libraries
  Libraries
  Libraries and Museums
  Libraries and Museums
  Domiciliary Physiotherapy
  Domiciliary Physiotherapy
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
PRIME MINISTER
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Forms
  Government Forms
FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Business Expansion Scheme
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Economic Statistics (International Comparisons)
  Economic Statistics (International Comparisons)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  County Court Rules
  County Court Rules
  School Sites Act 1841
  School Sites Act 1841
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
TRANSPORT
  Roads (Staffordshire)
  Roads (Staffordshire)
  Vehicle Testing
  Vehicle Testing
  Microlight Aircraft
  Microlight Aircraft
  Third Party Insurance
  Third Party Insurance
  Roadworks (Traffic Signals)
  Roadworks (Traffic Signals)
  Heavy Lorries
  Heavy Lorries
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
  M4 (Service Area)
  M4 (Service Area)
ENERGY
  Coal Stocks
  Coal Stocks
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
  Enterprise Oil
  Enterprise Oil
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Information Technology Advisory Panel (Report)
  Information Technology Advisory Panel (Report)
  Copyright
  Copyright
  "Made in Britain"
  "Made in Britain"
  Regional Industrial Development
  Regional Industrial Development
  Maternity Leave
  Maternity Leave
  Clothing (Imports and Exports)
  Clothing (Imports and Exports)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
  Israel
  Israel
  Manufactured Goods
  Manufactured Goods
  Export Promotion, Trade Co-operation, Corporate and Consumer Affairs
  Export Promotion, Trade Co-operation, Corporate and Consumer Affairs
  Council of Ministers (Consumer Affairs)
  Council of Ministers (Consumer Affairs)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Racial Attacks (Prosecutions)
  Racial Attacks (Prosecutions)
  Prison (Private Security Firms)
  Prison (Private Security Firms)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Code of Practice
  Code of Practice
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Further Education
  Further Education
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Handicapped Young Adults
  Handicapped Young Adults
  School Sites Act 1841
  School Sites Act 1841
  Expenditure Statistics
  Expenditure Statistics
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
  Student Statistics
  Student Statistics
  Shared and Extended Use of Schools
  Shared and Extended Use of Schools
  Overseas Research Students Award Scheme
  Overseas Research Students Award Scheme
  Open University
  Open University
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Arms Control and Disarmament Unit
  Arms Control and Disarmament Unit
  Mr. Dennis Skinner
  Mr. Dennis Skinner
  Maternity Leave
  Maternity Leave
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
  International Committee of the Red Cross
  International Committee of the Red Cross
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Namibia
  Namibia
  International Planned Parenthood Federation
  International Planned Parenthood Federation
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Authority Services
  Local Authority Services
  Political Activities
  Political Activities
  Metropolitan County Councils
  Metropolitan County Councils
  Land Supply
  Land Supply
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  Rates
  Rates
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  Land Disposal
  Land Disposal
  Homes Insulation
  Homes Insulation
  Local Authorities (Capital Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Capital Expenditure)
  Reema Prefabricated Houses
  Reema Prefabricated Houses
  Environmental Health
  Environmental Health
  Private Rented Accommodation
  Private Rented Accommodation
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  England v. France (Football Hooliganism)
  England v. France (Football Hooliganism)
  Water Rates
  Water Rates
  Planning Zones
  Planning Zones
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Inner City Areas
  Inner City Areas
  Vehicle Emissions
  Vehicle Emissions
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Planning Applications, Birmingham
  Planning Applications, Birmingham
  Land Compensation Act 1972
  Land Compensation Act 1972
  Maternity Leave
  Maternity Leave
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Political Activities
  Political Activities
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
SCOTLAND
  Schoolchildren (Travel)
  Schoolchildren (Travel)
  Maternity Leave
  Maternity Leave
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Rent Assessment Committees
  Rent Assessment Committees
  Rent Officers
  Rent Officers
  Racial Equality (Code of Practice)
  Racial Equality (Code of Practice)
  Cancer (Incidence)
  Cancer (Incidence)
EMPLOYMENT
  Sheltered Workshops
  Sheltered Workshops
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
  Coal Supplies
  Coal Supplies
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Overseas Medical Students (Visas)
  Overseas Medical Students (Visas)
  In Vitro Fertilisation
  In Vitro Fertilisation
  Doctors (Fees and Allowances)
  Doctors (Fees and Allowances)
  NHS (Manpower)
  NHS (Manpower)
  Health Care Establishments (Sprinklers)
  Health Care Establishments (Sprinklers)
  East Anglia Regional Health Authority
  East Anglia Regional Health Authority
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Lung Diseases (Wales)
  Lung Diseases (Wales)
  Domiciliary Physiotheraphy
  Domiciliary Physiotheraphy
  Overseas Visitors (Health Charges)
  Overseas Visitors (Health Charges)
  Spadeadam Military Hospital
  Spadeadam Military Hospital
  Handicapped Young Adults
  Handicapped Young Adults
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit (Office Staff)
  Supplementary Benefit (Office Staff)
  "Annual Statistical Enquiry"
  "Annual Statistical Enquiry"
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Homes (Heating)
  Homes (Heating)
  World Population Conference
  World Population Conference
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
  Training Schemes
  Training Schemes
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Beef
  Beef
  Dairy Farmers
  Dairy Farmers
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
DEFENCE
  Nuclear Missiles
  Nuclear Missiles
  Intercontinental Missiles
  Intercontinental Missiles
  Nuclear Forces
  Nuclear Forces
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Central Front Forces
  Central Front Forces
  Strategic Systems
  Strategic Systems
  Poseidon and Trident Warheads
  Poseidon and Trident Warheads
  Nuclear Warheads
  Nuclear Warheads
  Nuclear Projectiles (FH70 155 mm Cannon)
  Nuclear Projectiles (FH70 155 mm Cannon)
  Cumbria Beaches (Radiation)
  Cumbria Beaches (Radiation)
  Nuclear Tests, Maralinga
  Nuclear Tests, Maralinga
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Nuclear Tests, Australia
  Nuclear Tests, Australia
  NATO Strategy
  NATO Strategy

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.

St. Thomas' Hospital: Future
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 make a Statement on the future of St. Thomas' Hospital, London, and whether any other major hospitals are at risk as a result of spending cuts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, West Lambeth Health Authority has recently published a consultative document on strategic options for its district for the next 10 years. Various options are proposed for the services at St. Thomas' and other hospitals in the district, but none of these options puts St. Thomas' at risk. It is now for the public in West Lambeth to consider the options and respond to them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that there is grave consternation about all these proposals? Not one of them is acceptable to all levels of staff at St. Thomas' and other hospitals allied to it. It has been maintained all the way through that one of the proposals is for a reduction of about 55 per cent. in the number of beds, which will mean a saving of £8 million a year. It is this kind of proposal which is causing distress to one of London's great teaching hospitals and its allied hospitals in London.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not accept that St. Thomas' is at risk in the way the noble Lord suggests under any of the options proposed in the district health authority's consultative paper. The options range from a very small reduction in the number of beds—that is, minus 23 at St. Thomas'—to a large increase in the number of beds—that is, plus 163, if South Western and Tooting Bec hospitals were to close.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, although nationally there has been an increase in the resources devoted to the health service, because of the operation of RAWP there has been a quite disproportionate run down in Greater London? Is the Minister further aware that among the teaching staffs of the great London teaching hospitals as well as among other members of staff there is widespread worry that centres of excellence will be run down? It is urgent that the Minister should make some kind of statement that this question will be looked at in a broader perspective.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, these matters are looked at in a broad perspective, but the fact is that they are also matters which affect people who live locally, and that is why it is appropriate that they should discuss them locally first, before they come before Ministers.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept that if St. Thomas' is largely to remain unaffected, it would mean the likelihood of the closure of 1,000 psychiatric beds at Tooting Bec, which is one of the options, and 200 geriatric beds at the South Western in Brixton, which would inevitably place a very heavy burden upon the local authority, Lambeth, which is high on the list for rate-capping? Does the noble Lord not appreciate the appalling consequences for the community if these options are carried through?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, they are not serious in the way the noble Lord suggests. The closure of both the South Western and Tooting Bec hospitals is only one of four options in the document to which this all relates. The other options would involve closure of one or other of these two hospitals, or moderate reductions at all three hospitals in the district. It would not be right for me to comment in detail on the options because they are still being discussed publicly. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned in particular the mentally ill, and the intention is, quite rightly, to improve local services for mentally ill people. The services for them will not necessarily be made worse just by closing hospitals, but will be improved by returning these people to the community.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, whether or not it is so designed, the implication of this Question is liable to damage the morale of staff who are carrying out such wonderful work?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I fully accept that, and I am grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not already the case that morale at St. Thomas' and in the whole district, which is now under threat, is extremely low? If any part of the options is to be carried through will this not also affect the families of those who need care in the community?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we all have to live within our means, and it is for the West Lambeth Health Authority to consider how best to live within its cash limit and to identify areas of waste and priorities for development.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Resource Allocation Working Party, which was transferring funds out of London, was introduced by a Labour Government because of the departure from London of the central London resident population? Will he also confirm that the teaching hospitals are now having great difficulty in finding normal teaching material, and that students have to go to peripheral hospitals to encounter ordinary cases?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that much of what my noble friend says is quite true. RAWP has a history and has sometimes over-provided. It is difficult to forecast exactly how populations will shift. Nevertheless, we have to base plans on something, and it has been done through RAWP.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the Minister aware how famous are our leading teaching hospitals in London throughout the world? Is he aware that in America, West Germany, and India I have heard praise, particularly of St. Thomas' and of its consultants? With thousands of pounds now being spent on equipment in order to make St. Thomas' the equal of any hospital in the world, would it not be disastrous if there were any rumours that it was to be closed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I thought I had earlier made clear, there is no risk to St. Thomas' in the way the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Annan: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that if over 10 years £15 million is to be taken out of St. Thomas' hospital, that will reduce the hospital to something between 400 and 500 beds? As 1,000 beds are necessary to teach 100 medical students, this will mean a complete rethink about the future of the medical school at St. Thomas'. Has the noble Lord information from other right honourable friends in the Government connected with the Department of Education and Science that this is, or is not, in line with the plans of London University for the rationalisation of medical teaching?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the figures I gave in answer to an earlier supplementary do not go quite so far as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, suggests. The four options vary between a reduction at the least of 23 beds to an increase of 163. Therefore, what the noble Lord says I do not think is necessarily correct.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Minister aware that he is quite right when he says that St. Thomas' is not going to he subject to immediate execution, but that there are the beginnings, and they are evident, of the slow, tortuous death of one of London's—nay, one of Britain's—greatest hospitals? Will he recall that it is only 12 months ago that the threat then that St. Thomas' had to endure for a number of months was that its cancer research establishment was going to be drastically reduced, but that because of public outcry that was averted? Is he further aware that all endeavours will be undertaken both in this House and outside to prevent St. Thomas' suffering a slow death and vanishing, because its history is magnificent and we believe that its future could be just as magnificent?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I really must say that I find the noble Lord's remarks so exaggerated that I do not think that they will help the issue at all. The fact remains that this is out for consultation. It is a matter for local concern to establish the needs, and the concern and interest expressed will be based on the options I have described.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the noble Lord answer my question about medical education? I am asking whether the noble Lord is aware of the views of the Department of Education and Science. It is of great importance that the right hand in Government should know what the left hand is doing. Which is right and which is left, I would not care to say. May I put a further question to the noble Lord? It is in the plans for the rationalisation of medical services in London to move the Institute of Dermatology from Lisle Street to St. Thomas'. This is naturally a move which will cost some money. Can the noble Lord give an assurance that that plan will not be delayed even in view of the cuts which are obviously going to have to be necessary in that district?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord an answer about the dermatology unit but I shall find out and let him know. The main point is that spending on the health service is now at a record level and we intend to increase it still further, but we are also committed, as the noble Lord is aware, to achieving a greater equality of access to health care throughout the country. It is therefore essential that London's health authorities plan for changes in the pattern of services in line with their reduced populations. This was the point brought out by my noble friend Lady Gardner.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the cash limit cuts which are going to he exercised by the West Lambeth authority are going to be the largest ever? Would he now please turn his attention to the latter part of my Question, which asks how many other great London hospitals are so threatened?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords. I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose for me to stand at the Dispatch Box and go through each of the London health districts describing what their plans are. I would remind the noble Lord opposite that there were 272 hospital closures under the last Labour Government, which compares with only 184 during the present Administration and a large increase in capital expenditure.

Gibraltar: Airspace Restriction
2.47 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have now received any reply to their representations to the Spanish Government about the restriction on the use of Spanish airspace by aircraft approaching and leaving Gibraltar Airport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, discussions are continuing with the Spanish Government with a view to the earliest possible full normalisation of relations in the Gibraltar area.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that moderately hopeful reply. Is he aware

1115
that a couple of months ago I was in an aircraft which only got into Gibraltar after several attempts, during which the pilots made it clear that they were being handicapped by this restriction? Can my noble friend impress on the Spanish Government that it is difficult to have good relations with, or even treat with respect, a Government which persists in this mean and dangerous little restriction?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can confirm to my noble friend that we have lost no opportunity to represent this point to the Spaniards. But I should like to add that, in the event of the safety of the aircraft becoming a consideration, pilots operating into Gibraltar are directed to enter the prohibited area if need be.

Newcastle Polytechnic: Students' Travel Costs
2.49 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: 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 consultations the Department of Education and Science has had with Newcastle-upon-Tyne Polytechnic about the new arrangements for meeting travel costs of students and what effect they estimate the new arrangements will have on students in the polytechnic.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the department has not consulted individual institutions about its new proposals for the treatment of students' travel expenditure. However, during the consultative period individual institutions were free to make their views known to the department, and these were carefully considered by Ministers. No representations have been received from Newcastle Polytechnic and I am therefore unable to say what effects the polytechnic believes the new arrangements will have on its students.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that more than half, at a conservative estimate, of the full-time students will be adversely affected financially by these proposals? Is he aware that in a big polytechnic like this—and it is one of the biggest in the country—large numbers of students live in the surrounding counties, in this case in Northumberland, Tyne, Wear, and Durham? Many of them have gone from work to the polytechnic and have homes, children and family commitments. They are quite unable to move into the areas round the college and claim a two-homes allowance, and many of them are going to have to give up their courses mid-way. Does he not think that that will be a tragedy? Is he aware, for example, that a student living in Durham City has £200 a year travel costs, and that he will be £90 a year worse off because of the Government's proposals? May I add my plea to that of the—
Lord Denham: No.
Lord Glenamara: I am asking if I may add a plea. May I not add a plea to that of the chairman of the UGC that the Government think again about these proposals?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, in reply to his first question, I do not think we have received anything from the authorities of the Newcastle Polytechnic drawing attention to these points. In fact, most students will gain under the new proposals. I am sure that the reputations of particular institutions such as Newcastle will mean they will be able to continue to recruit well motivated and able students. Although travel patterns are likely to change as a result of the new arrangements, there will be swings as well as roundabouts on the effect of this on different institutions.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, if the Government have not consulted widely on this, how can they expect to make sensible proposals for travel costs? Would it not be a good idea to ask for the facts from the institutions concerned?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the Government have consulted widely over this. As I said, they have not consulted with individual institutions but the individual institutions were allowed to express any opinions if they so wished. They have consulted with a number of bodies, including the National Union of Students and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and other national bodies.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the survey of the National Union of Students has shown that the majority of students are going to be worse off under this new agreement, and the so-called rough justice which the department was claiming for the change is not going to operate? Would he not also confirm that within recent weeks the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics has expressed very grave concern over the effect of the change on students at polytechnics because of the kind of problem which my noble friend has outlined in relation to Newcastle?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, my understanding is different from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, in so far as I understand that the majority of students will in fact be better off. We do not collect information of the kind that the National Union of Students have done, but it would in any case be of limited value in relation to what is now proposed as we would expect student travel patterns to change as they arrange their affairs so as to get maximum advantage from the new arrangements. Students have never been under any pressure before because they have been able to claim the money. There are various cheap ways of travelling: cheap concessionary rail fares and bus fares, and perhaps the hire of private transport and various things which they can look at to suit the new arrangements.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it appears from the evidence contained in the questions put to the noble Earl the Minister (who has answered very fairly)

1117
that students may indeed suffer as a result of the change. Was it not clear from his replies that there was no overall consultation of the kind which normally takes place between his department and the polytechnics? In the light of the questions, would he not ask his right honourable friend to look at this matter again to ensure that these students, who are an important part of the future of this country, are not put at a disadvantage at this important time?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, as I said before, we did not consult with every single institution in the country; we did consult with those bodies which represent the authorities and we consulted with those bodies which represent the students before we took this action. No, my Lords, I am afraid I am not prepared to ask my right honourable friend to look at this again.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, if the noble Earl is not prepared to do anything about it, may I ask him what parliamentary action is necessary for this scheme to be implemented?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not think there is any.

RAF Trainer Fleet
3.54 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: 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 how soon a decision will be announced on the new RAF Trainer Aircraft Requirement and whether the value of the all-British "Firecracker" contender in relation to jobs, exports and value to the industry will influence the decision.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we hope to be in a position to decide later this year whether to purchase aircraft to replace the Royal Air Force's basic trainer fleet of Jet Provosts and, if so, which of the four short-listed contenders should be selected. If we do decide on replacement, we shall of course take full account of the broader economic and industrial considerations in assessing all the contenders that meet the specification. I should add that the Firecracker is not in fact an all-British aircraft but contains a significant number of foreign components.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether it is true that all four contenders have an American engine but in fact the Firecracker is the only all-British design company which is capable of producing an all-British aircraft other than the engine? May I ask whether he is aware that this group is perhaps one of the best examples of British industrial enterprise where they took the specification from the RAF and they designed this project at no launch cost to the Government?
1118
Would my noble friend also agree that this order is very important to British industry, no only for the RAF order but for the potential export business which could flow?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend is right in saying that this order would be important to the British company, first of all with regard to the Royal Air Force order, if it comes, and, secondly, with regard to any possible export orders which may flow from it. Although, as my noble friend acknowledges, the engines of all the contenders for this particular contract are in fact of non-British design, and indeed of non-British manufacture, it is the case that rather more than just the engine and the propeller are of foreign manufacture. In fact, in regard to the Firecracker no less than 90 per cent. of the equipment in terms of cost is of non-UK origin.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, would the Minister accept that as part of the Government's campaign to buy British wherever possible it is desirable to set an example? Can he say whether, if this particular alternative is chosen, that would in fact involve new factories in places of high unemployment such as Scotland and Wales?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not certain about that because the company concerned does not in fact have any manufacturing facilities of its own and would need to make some arrangement with an existing manufacturer. So it might not therefore mean immediate new jobs. We have also made clear that, even if we were to choose one of the other designs not of United Kingdom origin, we would expect that that too would be manufactured under licence in this country.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can I ask my noble friend the Minister this: in view of the reports in the weekend newspapers of Westland entering into agreement to make an Australian aeroplane in Britain, would that produce a second British tender for them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, first of all, the design of that aeroplane to which my noble friend refers is, of course, an Australian design. I understand that that particular aircraft has not yet flown even in prototype form, but of course it would be manufactured, as my noble friend says, by a British company. Indeed, we anticipate that that would be the case whichever one we chose.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister not aware that there is the possibility that Firecracker, in terms of future job prospects and exports, may not be the best choice? Can I ask the noble Lord the Minister to give an undertaking that the question of jobs and future exports, and increasing or retaining jobs because of the present unemployment level, will be one of the paramount reasons or considerations when the Government do make their decision on this subject?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can confirm that the industrial considerations will be important ones, but it will be important, too, to ensure that the chosen aircraft meets the specification that we require and that the price and delivery terms offered are in accordance with the requirements that we have set out.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister not agree that the inclusion of Firecracker in the list must mean that it meets the requirements of the RAF? Secondly, may I stress again the importance of a market for Trainer within NATO in the next years? Does he not understand well that no country ever buys an aeroplane which has not been adopted by its own air force? Finally, could I ask him what his right honourable friends would have said if I had announced some years ago that it was my intention to buy Brazilian, Swiss or Australian aircraft for the Royal Air Force?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that I should be drawn down the hypothetical route which the noble Lord suggests, but on the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, we have not yet set the precise specification that we shall require. We have issued, as I think the noble Lord will know, an air staff target. The air staff requirement is now being prepared following the general submissions that we have received from the manufacturers, and the air staff requirement will in due course be issued with a view to tenders being sought.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the Minister said he expects that the decision between the four contenders will be made by the end of the year. Does that mean that the possible development of the Jet Provost has been dropped?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot yet say that the development of the Jet Provost has finally been abandoned as an idea. That will depend on the results of the tendering exercise that we shall be embarking upon shortly. But I think it would be fair to say that that is becoming less and less likely.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, will my noble friend say what will be the next stages of the evaluation of this project?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it will, I hope, be for me to fly them all.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a brief word about the timing of the two short debates this afternoon. In the case of short debates, it is normal to suggest a maximum length of time for speeches. The principle adopted is that the mover should be entitled to approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply no later than 20 minutes before the scheduled end to the debate. On that basis I should like to suggest that speakers in the debate of the noble Lord. Lord Henderson of Brompton, should limit their speeches to a maximum of nine minutes, and
1120
speakers in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Balhousie, to a maximum or seven minutes. Perhaps I may add that if any noble Lord should speak at greater length, he would do so at the expense of later speakers in that particular debate.

"Health or Smoking?" Report
3.3 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton rose to call attention to the follow-up Report of the Royal College of Physicians entitled "Health or Smoking?" published in November 1983; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is an honour for me to open a debate that has attracted a member of the Royal Family, His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester, to make his maiden speech, well placed from the Cross-Benches. The noble Duke's speech today will, I am sure, be a subject of wide comment in the press and on the radio and television. I only hope that after today the noble Duke will be encouraged to make further speeches, perhaps on architecture, on which he is an acknowledged expert. That might, indeed, induce his noble and royal kinsman the Prince of Wales to take part as well, since he has recently expressed an interest in that subject. That would be a double plus.
This Motion calls attention to the latest in a series of reports on smoking by the Royal College, beginning in 1962. I should like to start by paying tribute to the Royal College for its pioneering report in 1962, when Sir Robert Platt, later Lord Platt, was chairman of the Royal College.
I should like to say at once that I accept the findings of the Royal College, and have ever since 1962, and I accept the findings of the Surgeon General of the United States as well. However, I have certain reservations about some of the recommendations, though I must congratulate the Royal College on the report's appendix, on "Giving up Smoking", where I detect a slightly more flexible attitude than hitherto.
This is a highly complex, intractable and difficult subject. One would have thought that it would be so simple; that it ought to be, as the Royal College hoped in 1962, equivalent to cholera. The House may remember that in the early 1850s cholera was attributed to dirty water, and by 1875 Disraeli had on the statute book his great Public Health Act. Within 25 years, despite a certain amount of opposition, with great persistence he achieved that magnificent Act. But—and this is a huge "but"—no one was addicted to dirty water; no companies made billions of pounds out of dirty water. Dirty water did not provide billions of easily-collected revenue for governments, nor did dirty water, unlike cigarettes, provide hundreds of thousands of jobs. Indeed, it was Disraeli's Act that provided jobs for workers in the water industry. Nor was dirty water, as cigarettes are, an important factor in our balance of payments.
Those are just some of the reasons—psychological, social, financial and political—why, after more than 20 years of certain knowledge that smoking—not tobacco as such, but smoking—is poisonous, no

1121
government in the world, except perhaps those of Finland and Norway, have succeeded in tackling successfully what the United States Surgeon General, in his report of 1982, called,
"the most important public health issue of our time".
Another illustration of the difficulty of this subject is that almost every idea, however well-intentioned, to combat smoking, seems to be counter-productive in some way. For example, by putting the price up the odds are that the addict will smoke his cigarette to the hitter end. If he stubbed it out earlier, it would be safer. But it is the last bit of the cigarette that is the most dangerous. So by pushing up the price, inadvertently, one is increasing the health hazard.
Let us next take the ban on television advertisements. That led directly to the sponsorship of sporting and cultural events, thereby vastly increasing, at small cost to the manufacturers, public awareness of brand names. That was quite contrary to the intention.
The Government health warning, which we surely all applaud, is, alas, privately welcomed by the manufacturers because if consumers sue the manufacturers for damages, they can no longer claim ignorance. In that highly litigious society, the United States, no product liability case against cigarette manufacturers has so far been successful.
In spite of all these difficulties, there has been some progress. In the great debate which was held in the House in 1962 the present Lord Chancellor (then Viscount Hailsham, Lord President, and Minister for Science) answered for the Government and robustly, and I think courageously at that time, supported what he called the,
"overwhelming body of scientific opinion".
He also neatly encapsulated the attitude of the tobacco industry when he said that it was one of "agnosticism bolstered by scientific doubt".
Incredibly, that attitude is still the attitude of the tobacco manufacturers. But by entering into voluntary agreements, which they did very soon after that 1962 report and debate, they have implicitly acknowledged scientific evidence, whatever the official attitude may be. So, in a sense, that is a gain.
Again I quote the present Lord Chancellor, this time speaking as Mr. Quintin Hogg, in 1964, in the House of Commons. He said:
"I am a smoker speaking in a Parliament of smokers and in a Cabinet of smokers and with an electorate of smokers".
As to Parliament now, I think the House will agree that it is a matter of common observation that those who smoke are the exception. Moreover, I am reliably informed that there is now only a single smoker in the Cabinet. So it is a single smoker in a Cabinet of nonsmokers, which is exactly the reverse of the case in 1964. That must be counted as progress, and what a good example it is to the country. If only all public figures would show such a good example, as well as the teachers and those in the health care professions, as recommended in the Royal College report!
In the electorate there are eight million fewer smokers than there were in 1962, and the habit is becoming socially unacceptable. I agree with the Royal College that the aim must be to create a society in which non-smoking is the norm.
1122
But against those considerable gains, it is, sadly, true to say that in 1981 as many cigarettes were smoked as were smoked in 1962, when the Royal College first reported. Further, I am afraid that many more women smoke now than did in 1962. There is grave concern about smoking by the young and about the huge increase in smoking in the third world countries, rightly drawn attention to by the Royal College; so there is no cause for complacency.
What can he done? I shall leave to other speakers such important topics as the Government health warning, sales to under-developed countries, passive smoking and the special problems of women smokers. I should like to confine myself to a few questions to the Government, and to concentrate on advertising and alternatives. I would ask the noble Lord the Minister: what is the response of the Government to the joint survey by the SSRC and the MRC into the psychological and social pressures that encourage and reinforce the smoking habit? I believe that that joint survey was due to be published in 1981. At any rate, I should like to know what is the official attitude to it. I am very glad to see that one of the recommendations of the Royal College is for more—far more, they say—research into the nature of tobacco addiction.
I now come to advertising. 1 understand that the Government's policy is still one of control by voluntary agreement. I see the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, here, in a different capacity from that in which he was when speaking for the Government 13 years ago, in 1971. He then said that control by voluntary agreement was their policy "at present". Does "at present" mean "indefinitely"? I do hope not. I would further ask the Minister whether the Government have considered using Section 108 of the Medicines Act 1968. I believe there is a question of its being ultra tires; but I should like to know whether use of that section would be ultra tires, or whether the Government have just failed to use it for political reasons and would still wish to adhere to voluntary agreement rather than to resort to any kind of statutory sanction.
For myself, I should like to see a three-pronged attack on advertisements: first, by voluntary agreement, if voluntary it must be, through the Advertising Standards Authority to restrict or totally ban all advertisements of cigarettes and of sponsorship that relates smoking to sport, sex, travel and culture. Secondly, I should like, as the Royal College says, the budget of the Health Education Council to be increased. The Royal College characterised their budget as "miniscule". Actually, it is £3 million a year. Just compare that with the manufacturers' budget for advertising in this country of £100 million per year. It is £2 billion globally. But if the Health Education Council's budget is miniscule by comparison with the advertising expenditure of the manufacturers, it is even more miniscule by comparison with the "take" of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, after the recent increase in the last Budget, is now £5 billion a year. All I am asking the Government to do is to "up" the expenditure on the anti-smoking campaign from 0.06 per cent. of their revenue of £5 billion to 2 per cent. I do not call that asking much. That is what is called "the fairness doctrine", which has been tried in the United States with varying success. I do not see

1123
why it should not be tried here. And if the advertisers start to cut their expenditure, so much the better.
Thirdly, I would urge the Health Education Council to change their style. For myself, I think that grim warnings and horror stories about health have had little effect. The Royal College now says that the public was deeply disturbed by television programmes recently on asbestosis. No doubt, and quite rightly, they were; but asbestosis is as irrelevant to this problem as cholera. The emphasis, to my mind, should be on how to kick the habit: to make it easier for those who want to do so; and, above all, to make it fun. and not to make people feel guilty. I should like to see leading figures of sport and television, popular heroes, taking part in these programmes. They might even give their services free. I do not see why not. Also, encouragement might be given at local level for members of the public, smokers. to join what could be called "smokewatchers", rather like the very successful weightwatchers' clubs. At all events, if one could only engage the goodwill and attention of popular heroes, one might try to get over to the country that not to smoke is manly, not to smoke is glamorous, not to smoke is sporty, and so on.
I should like to have talked for some time about alternatives to cigarette smoking, but I cannot do so because my time is running out. All I can do is to welcome the change of heart (as I see it) in the Royal College report, because they, I think, make life very much easier for all those who are afflicted with this habit and who have not been able to change. I should like to end by endorsing what Mr. Partick Jenkin said in 1980 in another place—and I think that that was the last time that this matter was discussed in Parliament. He was the responsible Minister; and he said that.
"it is the duty of the Government to reduce the toll of disease and premature death",
and that this is "fully in the tradition of Conservative Governments". Thereby, he refuted those who harp on the "nanny state". I hope that we shall not hear those "nanny" and "governess" arguments in the debate today. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
The Duke of Gloucester: My Lords, as I stand here before your Lordships for the first time, I am very conscious that I follow in the path of my ancestors. Many of them took their place here, as I do, and just a few spoke from the Throne. I am aware that the last Duke of Gloucester to speak here frequently battled with his brother-in-law, the Duke of Sussex, over the matter of slavery. The victory eventually went to Sussex, perhaps with a little help from Wilberforce and his friends. I hope today to restore some balance to the honour and prestige of the title that I am privileged to use in this Chamber.
Succeeding generations will regard the issue that we are to discuss with the same disdain we would now reserve for the policy and practice of slavery. Your Lordships may well know that in the 19th century epidemics of cholera decimated parts of the population and that the cause of the problem—polluted water supply—was identified by statistical analysis, enabling Parliament to pass the necessary legislation that totally eradicated the problem.
1124
Inevitably this process took much longer than necessary due to ill-informed opposition and vested interest.
This debate has been called to take note of the 1983 Royal College of Physicians' report, Health or Smoking? As your Lordships have heard, the first report was published in 1962, and it was as a consequence of that report that ASH was set up—ASH standing for Action on Smoking and Health. It is an organisation of which I am privileged to be the patron. The second report was in 1971, and the third in 1977. All of them have been written by the most eminent and knowledgeable experts in this field, reporting in a straightforward fashion the statistics and the experience of the consequences of the smoking habit. Each subsequent report has amplified the findings of its predecessor and the gaps in the overall picture slowly filled in—a picture which has also been revealed in every other country where similar research has been undertaken. although sadly I must emphasise that this country has suffered the effects of tobacco more than any other, due to our history of high consumption.
The depressing fact remains that virtually none of the recommendations in the reports have been carried out fully, even though everyone now accepts the figures as accurate.
My Lords, this volume may induce in its readers a sense of déjà vu: but this repetition is necessary because of the slowness of the response by the public and its legislators. The reports chart the consequences of the tobacco habit nationally; like a leaky bath tap left unrepaired, the current stain on the tub is inevitably larger and more distinct than that of 1962. If I may quote one statistic from the report, if you take 1,000 young smokers who smoke one pack a day, statistically one will be murdered, six will die on the roads, hut 250 will die prematurely from any of the following smoking-induced diseases: lung cancer, coronary heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, cancer of the oesophagus, of the mouth, of the larynx, of the bladder, of the pancreas, or strokes brought about by the fact that the human body is not designed to absorb chemicals inhaled through the respiratory system.
The conclusion that the Royal College draws is very plain. Smoking is the single most important cause of preventable ill-health, disability and premature death in Britain today. This will continue to be so for many decades unless there is a much greater change in the rate of consumption. On logical grounds there is a clear case for the total ban of such poison, but there are practical and humanitarian reasons for not doing so. Sixteen million people still smoke regularly, many of whom started when it was still considered a socially acceptable habit. The identification of it as a self-destructive practice came too late for many who were already addicted.
Addiction is an aspect of tobacco smoking that puts it in a very special category. We learn from Government surveys that 60 per cent. of people who smoke wish to give up, and that 70 per cent. have tried to at least once. The power of addiction to nicotine is shown by one dramatic statistic: even after undergoing major lung cancer surgery 48 per cent. of patients (if they survive) start smoking again. For such addiction it is impossible to legislate a ban.

1125
What is possible is to concentrate on non-smokers, particuarly the young, and make sure that they are fully aware of the consequences of smoking—first to their health, and secondly the strength of the addiction.
It is still fashionable to mention "freedom" when anyone from the health professions tries to take action about smoking. A moment's thought would show that the freedom argument belongs not to the tobacco industry but to the health professions, as most smokers begin smoking when they are children—not a free adult choice by definition—and when as adults they try to give up they encounter unexpected problems.
The new government report on children smoking shows that secondary school children spend nearly £60 million per annum on cigarettes—setting them on an expensive path. In the fifth year, 27 per cent. are already regular smokers. Research shows that these people will experience much greater risk of serious or lethal medical problems than those who start later in life.
It would seem that not only smokers become addicted but also Governments. The tax on cigarettes brings in almost £5,000 million per annum, representing 3.7 per cent. of total revenue. There is no argument I can put to diminish the significance of this figure. The National Health Service only wastes £170 million alleviating those suffering tobacco-induced disease: but then for so many it can do so little to help. The cost to the economy is estimated at 50 million working days due to smoking-induced illness—more than 10 times the number lost to strikes.
Clearly any Government can be persuaded that they need this tax just as badly as many smokers need their nicotine, but there is clear evidence that the Government can raise the tax considerably higher before total revenue begins to fall. I congratulate this Government on raising the tax a further 10 per cent. in the last Budget and for declaring that this was for health reasons. In real terms cigarettes are much the same price in relation to the cost of living as they were after the war. The promise of regular large annual increases could become a plausible disincentive to new smokers.
From the very beginning the College of Physicians' report called for effective public information on the risks of smoking to he disseminated to everyone. Clearly this process is far from complete—for the large majority of smokers grossly under-estimate the risk they run. If you do not believe me, try asking them. Ideally it should be part of every school curriculum for people to be educated about how the human body works and how to treat or mistreat it—regrettably, many schools regard exams as more important.
For more than 10 years now we have had the benefit of the Government health warning. At the time this seemed a major advance, but in retrospect it seems merely to have protected, ethically and legally, both the industry and governments from the consequences of their inaction. Any warning has to be much stronger to respond to the reality of smoking. "Can seriously damage your health" sounds like. "One day you may get a headache, or a bad cough"! What would be more appropriate would be a variety of messages—as adopted in Scandinavia—that actually state facts
1126
about death, disease and addiction, prominently displayed on the pack.
The tobacco industry spends £100 million a year on advertising. It claims that it does not do so to woo new smokers but to encourage smokers to change brands. But yet in countries where they have monopolies they advertise just as much. Countries like Norway, where they have banned all advertising, have discovered that adult smoking decreased somewhat but that the dramatic consequence was a sharp fall in children's smoking. There is every reason to believe that the same thing would happen here, provided that all tobacco sponsorship was banned as well. Currently the tobacco industry spends around £6 million on sport sponsorship, but it gets fantastic publicity from this—hundreds of hours of television exposure and a marked effect on children's brand loyalty and awareness.
If this advertising could be phased out the results to the media and the various sports involved need not he drastic. Tobacco represents less than 3 per cent. of the total national advertising expenditure. I am sure other companies could take their place, and should, for no other product or service can he compared in any way to tobacco for the damage it causes. To those who fear the loss of their tobacco subsidy I suggest they consider the ethics of persuading people, however indirectly, to do something so clearly identified as harmful.
My Lords, I have ventured on to the uncomfortable question of moral considerations, not just to consider what we as individuals should do but also how others should or should not behave. This report has one chapter that breaks new ground. It reveals the extent that this country is in the forefront of exporting all these problems—medical, ethical, fiscal and social—to third world countries, eager to appear sophisticated but least able to pay in the long term for the short-term advantages brought by tobacco. The battle against international slavery is not yet quite finished, it would seem!
Cholera is a disease that our forbears put behind them through the power of Parliament. On this very day more people are dying of an unnecessary preventable disease than died during the era of cholera. Will indifference, ignorance and vested interest continue to kill off that section of our society that cannot or will not save itself?
3.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is a very great privilege and a very great pleasure to be able to be the first to convey to the noble Duke the congratulations of the whole House on a very remarkable, very impressive, and enormously interesting maiden speech. It is characteristic of the noble Duke's high sense of duty, which he has shown in many directions over recent years, that for the occasion of his maiden speech in this House (which all of us know is a somewhat nerve-racking occasion) he selected not one of those anodyne subjects in which we all, with easy consciences, denounce sin, but a highly relevant and very important public issue, not free from controversy. I think we are particularly indebted to him for making that very brave choice. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that we profoundly hope that, having broken the ice this afternoon, His Royal

1127
Highness will give us the pleasure of hearing him on many occasions in the future.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Duke spoke with great vigour about smoking, but his language was quite moderate when compared with that of his forbear, His late Majesty, King James I, who made an oration on the same subject. His late Majesty observed that the habit of smoking was,
"loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black, stinking fume thereof nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless."
Those observations point in the same direction as the noble Duke's speech, but the noble Duke will not mind my saying that they express these truths even more vigorously.
We are greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, for introducing this highly important subject. If I may make one comment, I would say that to some of us it has not been unamusing to see the quiet figure, with the cynical smile, at the Table transformed into one of the most vigorous and articulate Members of your Lordships' House; and we are greatly indebted to him for this.
On the subject itself, I want to say only two things. The noble Duke referred to the role to be played in dealing with the tobacco menace by taxation. I had some experience of this at the Treasury on two occasions: and, indeed, on three occasions we increased the duty on tobacco. It is not unamusing to reflect that on all those occasions—the increases being due, of course, to a desire to raise revenue, rather than to deal with the habit—the learned men in Customs and Excise who advised us said that we were going too far, that the demand would drop and the yield from the tax would drop. For a fortnight, they were right, on all three occasions. But after the fortnight had elapsed the curve of consumption went up again. That confirms what the noble Duke has said to us about the strength of this habit.
Nonetheless, I would suggest that a really swingeing increase in taxation could certainly do no harm and would be morally justified on the basis that it would be a contribution from smokers to the additional cost which they bring upon the National Health Service.
I very much agree with what I think was the theme of the noble Duke's speech and that of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson; namely, that what we have to do is to try to give opinion a lead, in particular opinion among the young.
I can quote one encouraging example from my own experience. Ten years ago, when I was chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, I took it upon myself to suggest to the airlines that there was a case for having non-smoking sectors in civil aircraft. I was told, as people in my kind of position dealing with trains always are, that I knew nothing about it, that passengers wanted to smoke, that they wanted to have cigarette smoke puffed over them all night, and that, indeed, the airlines did very well out of distributing free cigarettes to them. Nevertheless, one had certain powers, and upon some amount of gentle pressure
1128
being applied the airlines, though on a very small scale, started introducing no-smoking areas for perhaps half a dozen seats.
Those of your Lordships who travel, particularly long distance, will know that nowadays half the aircraft, or more, is marked as "non-smoking". It has always intrigued me that that small shove, kick, or whatever you like to call it, which I was in a position to administer to the airlines, has produced so large a bruise and that now it is possible to travel about the world without having someone blowing cigarette smoke down your face all through the night.
I suggest that this is an example which might be followed further by those responsible for places of public assembly. More and more it should be laid down that if frequenting public places of one kind or another, that large body of people who do not want to breathe tobacco smoke should not be compelled to do so by the more selfish people who do. 1 am sure that pressure should be put on public authorities of all types, including Government and perhaps local government—I hardly dare mention that after Monday's debate—to induce them to make areas of public assembly and places of entertainment non-smoking areas.
This House can, I believe, set a very good example by holding this debate. I believe, too, that, like all our debates, it w ill have an influence on public opinion, in particular that public opinion which matters: that of the media, the Civil Service, the teachers and the academics—all the people who themselves form opinion. Our debates do, we know, influence them; and I hope this debate will do that and that this House will once again give a lead to public opinion. From the presentational point of view, in this context we have one advantage over another place: we do not have a smoking room.
3.38 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords. I should like to join in the very warm congratulations already proffered by the noble Lord. Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on behalf of all of us in the House to His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester. I do so as a very early member of ASH, which I joined soon after it had been instigated by the Royal College of Physicians in the early 1960s. We have been delighted to have the noble Duke as our patron, but I think that even in our most optimistic moments we did not expect that he would not only choose this particular subject for his maiden speech in your Lordships' House, but would speak so forcefully and felicitously. We are indeed very grateful to him.
We are also grateful to—on this occasion perhaps I might be permitted to say, "my noble friend"—the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, for the admirable way in which he introduced the subject. I think one must reiterate how grateful we are to the Royal College of Physicians, because there are very few august bodies of that nature which, over two decades and more, have pursued medical truth, in season and out of season, with the pertinacity which the college has shown in this matter. This, at least, is an area of public concern where there is no need to cry, "Physician, heal thyself'. Medical men have led the way not only in research, but by personal example on

1129
the part of the great majority of doctors, who either do not smoke or have successfully given up the smoking habit.
As some noble Lords know, my own direct interest in the issues before us arose from my talks with the then chief thoracic surgeon at St. Bartholomew's hospital way hack in 1968, after he told me that my husband, then aged 57, had only a few months to live. He said to me that, while the exact causal connection had not been fully proved, he himself—the surgeon; a very senior and experienced man—had no doubt at all that smoking had been a primary element in my husband's condition.
One aspect of the continuing argument with certain sections of the tobacco industry still sickens me. That is their continued assertion, in the face of all the circumstantial evidence, that because medical research into the causes of lung, throat or mouth cancer and other smoking-related illness has not vet enabled us to describe with precision the way in which certain causal elements work, therefore the industry are justified in claiming that they need accept no moral or ethical responsibility.
I quote from an annual report of one of the largest American companies, who stated that "no conclusive medical or clinical proof has been discovered". They were commenting on the 1979 report of the United States Surgeon-General, who for the last two decades has been even more outspoken than our own Royal College of Physicians. But I suggest that one does not need even O-level qualifications in physics or chemistry to know from experience that fire burns, even if one is not capable of describing the physical or chemical process by which it occurs with perfect scientific accuracy.
Research over the past three decades has established beyond all reasonable doubt a causal connection between smoking cigarettes and certain forms of illness, of which lung cancer is the most dramatic but not the most prevalent or necessarily the most costly to the community, however tragic it is to those men and women cut off in their prime. So I hope that we shall have no more hypocrisy of the "no conclusive clinical proof" variety, because this attitude is at the basis of much of the justification given by the great tobacco moguls for their expenditure on advertising, on sport, on culture sponsorship and so on.
The most difficult matter to resolve is not a medical one, although one hopes that further progress will be made in that field. The real problems are economic and fiscal—problems of a great, complex, multinational industry and its relations with governments. I would remind your Lordships that three of the six major international companies in this area are based in the United Kingdom.
The complexities of these relationships, including the political undercurrents in certain parts of the world, are admirably described in this book The Smoke Ring by Peter Taylor, which is sub-titled The Politics of Tobacco. It was recently published by The Bodley Head—a very reputable firm whose lawyers, I know, spent many weeks checking and cross-checking the references the book contains to make certain of their accuracy. It is not sensationally written—it has no need to be; the facts speak for themselves. But I am
1130
told that it has been little noticed in our own national or professional press, possibly because—I have no proof of this, but I surmise—newspapers and journals depend very largely on the advertising that they receive from the tobacco and cigarette manufacturers for their financial survival. Nevertheless, to any student of political affairs I commend this book as an extremely interesting one.
I confess that the repercussions of tobacco growing and manufacture in United States politics through the strongly-organised tobacco interests are of a dimension that I had not grasped until I read this hook. In Britain, we do not grow tobacco commercially. Some of our European Community partners do, but not on the scale which, so it is suggested, assisted President Reagan to victory and helped to push Jimmy Carter down the road to defeat.
Tobacco is big business and it is not only the great companies who know where their money comes from. Preceding speakers have already mentioned the immense amount of revenue which accrues to our Treasury, and no doubt to the Treasuries of other countries, from the tobacco industry and hence the understandable schizophrenia of Chancellors of the Exchequer. As I myself discovered some years ago when I tackled the then Chancellor. Mr. Roy Jenkins, on the subject, money can talk louder than health even to the most highly principled ears.
But the frightening prospect for the future lies not in Europe, North America or the more developed parts of the world, where there is perhaps just a grain of validity in the notion that people may choose their own fate. It is to some degree their own fault if they do not realise what they are doing. When I say that, I am in no way unsympathetic to the need suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, for more persuasive methods of dealing with people who have succumbed to the addiction, which are very desirable indeed.
No, my Lords, the really frightening area is the third world, as the noble Duke indicated. Although the great companies are diversifying very considerably into other areas-1 may say that I sold out my Eagle Star shares before they were taken over by BAT—they know how important is their tobacco revenue. Because they recognise that there is some success, at any rate in the more sophisticated world, in persuading people to diminish or give up the smoking habit, they are turning to unsophisticated people. They are advertising in third world countries in a way which I find completely unprincipled.
I believe it is true to say that they have ceased to sell in those countries at a higher level of nicotine and tar content named brands which are sold contemporaneously at lower levels in other parts of the world. No, my Lords, what they are doing is to distribute brands named and advertised to suit the psychology of the counties concerned.
My time is already almost up and I can give only the one example of Nigeria, where I have seen the most persuasive arguments at the lower end of the market for "Bicycle" cigarettes, because bicycles are the aim and ambition of youngsters in the less developed parts of those countries. There are "Varsity" cigarettes to appeal to the up-market, the more sophisticated young

1131
man. The caption reads, "King-sized cigarettes for the man of the future", who is depicted as a very handsome young gentleman on his way up in the world.
Much as I should like to pursue this, I can make only one further reference, which is from a letter that I had three years ago today, on 13th June 1981, from the British American Tobacco Company's chief officer here in London, in which he referred to a speech that I had made on development aid policy, with some rather detrimental remarks about the tobacco industry. He said:
"For a number of countries, revenue from BAT is one of the larger elements in the national tax income. We are a good employer of labour and a source of trained technicians and managers. Our companies arc directed and managed almost entirely by local people. By successfully providing for the needs of domestic markets, we help to reduce imports and the assistance we give to exports helps increase foreign currency reserves."
Every word of that, I am certain, is true. Would they say the same if the crop were opium poppies? Would they say the same if they were trading in heroin? The difference is only one of degree. Over the long term they are selling substances, advertising substances, distributing substances which can be equally damaging, equally destructive to the health and happiness of the people in the countries of the third world. Many of us were shocked that the Queen's Award for Exports should have been given to one of the three great tobacco companies in this country. What were they exporting? They were exporting sickness and premature death for very many people.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to His Royal Highness for what was undoubtedly a thoughtful speech. It was well researched, constructive and a delight to listen to. I am also very grateful to my old friend Lord Henderson of Brompton for initiating this debate.
The damage to health by smoking is not in dispute. Bronchitis, heart disease, cancer are but three results. There is also the awful thought that pregnant women can damage their unborn infants. His Royal Highness's statistic, that of every 1,000 adults, 250 are killed by tobacco-related diseases, while six are killed in road accidents and one by murder, was interesting. It may be thought that, if people wish to commit suicide by smoking, so he it, so long as they are warned, but the illnesses caused must be a heavy burden on the National Health Service, quite apart from the balance of payments implications because of the cost of tobacco. I thoroughly support the plea for an increase in taxes on tobacco. However, what is so unpleasant about smoking is that others have to share it. At any meeting where there are a great number of people in one room, of whom several are smoking, the non-smokers have to put up with the smell and the damage, and in the morning they have to hang out their clothes to get rid of the smell that has got into them.
The report is vague about sidestream inhalers—that is, those who have to inhale other people's exhaust fumes. Damage or no, it is extremely unpleasant. The worst occasion is at a restaurant, when one sits down for a special occasion and the man at the next table lights a cigar. One has to eat in a cloud of spent fumes.
1132
As this cannot be hygienic, I believe that there should be more local authority or Government encouragement of restaurants to prohibit smoking, as in our own dining room.
There is also the question of smoking at work. I can think of several workmen at home who, over the years, often took a moment off to light their cigarettes. During the course of the day a lot of time was lost, and their ability to keep going was severely impaired by their lack of breath. I remember one local farmer who was reputed to stand at his potato riddle, look at each potato, light his pipe and then look at the next one. I am afraid that he died young, and he is very sadly missed. But the result is that now I am surely not alone in giving high precedence to the employment of nonsmokers. If this is so, surely smoking must be detrimental to finding a job.
Undoubtedly far fewer people smoke now than was the case a few years back but, peculiarly, it seems that the lower the income the greater the likelihood of a person being a smoker. It seems to me to be amazing that a person who is struggling on a low income should just burn a considerable part of that income in a tube in his mouth, even at the cost of being short when providing for his family.
What can be done? We already have non-smoking compartments in public transport and cinemas, and they are very popular, but all too often they are not large enough. This applies in particular to aeroplanes. In addition to the health hazard notices issued by the Government, the Government should run a publicity scheme to highlight the anti-social effect of smoking on others and the economic stress caused by those who indulge in smoking. In particular, however, the Government should bring this matter to the urgent notice of the young in our schools.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Duke. Perhaps I may say that I thought His Royal Highness sounded most at home in your Lordships' House; and I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton.
Anyone who knows me well would be surprised if I did not say a few words to welcome this honest report, Health or Smoking? Ever since I can remember, as a very young child, I have been against smoking. I considered it then, as I still do now, as disturbing, unnecessary, dangerous and dirty. There are few things so unattractive as a pile of old cigarette ends.
I had a mother and a father who smoked. I always found a smoky atmosphere most uncomfortable and did my best to escape from it. If one does not smoke but wants to live in harmony with others who do, one has to try to tolerate something which one's natural instinct tells one is wrong. If people say to me, "Do you mind if I smoke?" I tell a white lie and say, "No", but I add, "It will damage your health".
Smoking helped to kill my father at 51. He was a heavy smoker, he coughed in the mornings and he died of coronary thrombosis. We all make mistakes in life. We all take risks. That is what living is about. But why do so many people continue to take the slow road to suicide? The odds are so high that they will damage their health if they are heavy smokers.

1133
I congratulate the Royal College of Physicians on this report. As doctors, they are telling society of the dangers related to smoking and of the risk that mothers are inflicting on their babies.
Yesterday I attended the memorial service for the late Lord Glenkinglas. He used to come to stay with us and I used to try to get him to realise how dangerous his smoking habits were to his health. His lungs were deteriorating fast. Once when he came he had stopped smoking. His doctor had told him he would be dead within the year if he did not stop. He lasted a few more years, but it was too late to regenerate his failing lungs. I am sure he would be with us today had he not been a heavy smoker.
Some years ago my noble kinsman Lord Swinton used to smoke cigarettes. He developed that awful early morning cough which should be a danger sign to all smokers. I suggested to him that he should stop smoking for a trial period of three weeks and see what happened. His cough abated and stopped. At the end of three weeks he started smoking again. His cough returned. Being an intelligent person, he took the decision to give up cigarettes. He has not smoked one since. But he does, I am afraid, smoke cigars. They do not seem to affect him in the same way.
The report has a chapter on smoking and diseases of the lung. The real examples I have given bear out what this chapter says. Doctors used to smoke a great deal. It is noticeable how many of them have given up, and that the younger ones do not smoke. The evidence collected by the Royal College of Physicians must have had its effect, but there is still grave concern over smoking among nurses. It is stated on page 63 of the report that a factor may be stress, as nurses in the psychiatric units and certain intensive care units, where stress can be considerable, have higher smoking rates than nurses in less stressful posts, such as community care.
I also notice that many disabled people smoke, which must be even more serious, as many of them should be preserving their already damaged health to an even greater extent than those who are not already impaired. Research is needed, but I have a feeling that many people think disabled people should not be deprived of the pleasure they derive from smoking, as their pleasures in life may he so limited. When they gasp for breath and cough and wheeze, surely more effort should be taken to encourage them away from this harmful habit.
The report does not mention anything about the added hazards to disabled people. I hope that the Royal College of Physicians will include this when they undertake their next report. The pressures and continuing research on the subject will, I am sure, continue. The evidence is very convincing.
I am pleased that the report contains a chapter on children and smoking. This is a matter of great concern, as far too many children and young people seem to smoke. They are susceptible to the promotion of tobacco, especially by sports heroes, and to peer pressures. I have offered a prize to the school which my boy attends for the best essay on the dangers of smoking, to encourage the children to think. Young people so often feel that they are far away from the dangers because they are young, adventurous and feel
1134
well. I wonder if young lungs are more susceptible to the hazards than old lungs.
The Coronary Prevention Group have also published an excellent report on plans for action, and this clearly states the concern felt about children and young people smoking. That report, too, is due to be debated in your Lordships' House. This illustrates growing concern among many responsible health-orientated people. The RCP report states that children who smoke seem to do less well academically, and those who play truant from school smoke more. Perhaps this is because such children arc not fulfilling themselves and think that smoking will give them confidence, as they feel inadequate in a very competitive world.
Over the years, smoking-related diseases have cost the National Health Service millions of pounds. It is encouraging (as stated in the report) that the number of smokers is falling. This shows that health education must be paying off. I hope that health educators will be encouraged, and that health education will continue to tackle this legal form of addiction.
As a non-smoker, I welcome the Scottish Health Education group's slogan:
"Smoking gets right up other people's noses".
As a disabled traveller, I should like to bring to the notice of British Rail that they do not give disabled passengers a choice of sitting in a non-smoking area in a 125 train, where the seats can be removed. Often we cannot escape from the poisonous smoke. In fact, we are sitting targets! On the whole, the vital capacity of paralysed people is very poor. They should not be put at risk by being placed in the position of being passive smokers against their will. At least your Lordships' House is considerate and wise in not allowing smoking in this Chamber. I, for one, greatly appreciate that rule.
The report is encouraging when it states that the number of women who smoke is falling, but it observes that abnormalities and the consequences of low birthweight are apparent in heavy smokers when pregnant. Also, women who smoke are more likely to be infertile or to take longer to conceive; and I believe that 1 am correct in saying that sperms can also be damaged. Research has shown that, when women have cervical smears, the women who smoke are 13 times more at risk of contracting cancer than are the non-smokers.
More health education should take place in prisons and in centres of detention. Many of the people there seem to he encouraged to smoke, rather than discouraged, by the system. They should be given booklets setting out the results of smoking. If prisoners are locked up for long periods at a time, they have plenty of hours for study. Thinking about how to keep healthy is better than dreaming up further crimes for the future. They could pass such information on to their wives or girlfriends, many of whom came from social class 5 and are very poor attenders at ante-natal clinics.
There is plenty of scope for increasing health education so that the good work that is taking effect will be extended to all levels. The dangers of cancer, heart and lung diseases, along with all the other related problems, must continue to be punched home. There

1135
should be nobody who can say, "I never realised that smoking was dangerous".
4.4 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I feel privileged to be taking part in this debate in the company of such an illustrious speaker. I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for enabling me to speak on this subject. I have spent a vast part of my professional life dealing with the consequences of smoking, either investigating the link between smoking and disease and encouraging and helping people to give up smoking, or treating those who are suffering from diseases caused by smoking; and only too often I find myself supporting and counselling those who find themselves suddenly bereaved because of the smoking habits of their spouses or parents.
Seventeen years ago I was involved in research at St. Thomas' Hospital (whose future we were just anxiously hearing about) which examined the effect of smoking on a number of diseases, particularly those relating to the heart and lungs. I was particularly concerned with measuring the levels of carbon monoxide in the expired air and in the lungs. We confirmed that this poison was present in smokers in proportion to the number of cigarettes smoked and the depth of inhalation. It was suspected then—and it is now known more definitely—that carbon monoxide is the main constituent of cigarettes which contributes to cardio-vascular disease, both coronary artery disease and peripheral arterial disease, and strokes.
At that time the first report of the Royal College of Physicians was just five years old, and all of us working in the field were convinced that Government legislation to control cigarette sales promotion was necessary. Now, after the fourth report of the college, we are still waiting. We are told that still the toll continues, with 100,000 premature deaths each year. About 45,000 (nearly half) of those deaths are due to coronary artery disease.
It is still not widely understood that heart disease is the biggest danger facing cigarette smokers. His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester knows this only too well, since his royal kinsman, the late King George VI, died suddenly in his sleep from coronary thrombosis. In his case this was almost merciful, because he was already suffering from two other smoking-related diseases; namely, peripheral arterial disease of the leg and carcinoma of the lung. That was in 1952, two years after Sir Richard Doll and Sir Austin Bradford Hill had published their first paper linking carcinoma of the lung and cigarette smoking in an impeccable statistical study which was nevertheless greeted initially with widespread scepticism by both the medical profession and the public.
I am surprised that our late King's illnesses did not lead to quicker condemnation of smoking, particularly when his father and grandfather (who were also smokers and helped to set the fashion) died prematurely from chest infections. In all probability, if antibiotics had been available they, too, would have survived to succumb to other smoking-related diseases. Because of this sad story, I am all the more delighted that His Royal Highness is patron of ASH.
1136
He has been courageous in taking this stand, and we should warmly congratulate him for that and for speaking so well today.
I have now been in medical practice again for the past 15 years, and have treated thousands of patients suffering from diseases which are caused by smoking or are exacerbated by smoking. Only yesterday one of my patients, who is a distinguished stage director, was admitted to hospital for his second operation in five years on a smoking-induced cancer of the tongue. We are inclined to talk about the deaths caused by smoking and to forget the conditions caused by smoking which lead to many years of suffering and impair the quality of a large part of people's lives before they die. All doctors have many examples of emphysema on their lists, a disease in which even the slightest effort causes breathlessness; and all of us have many cases of angina. The surgeons are doing very well out of this. We also all have cases of peripheral arterial disease, which may also require vascular surgery—the grafting of new arteries or veins or, if the worst comes to the worst, the amputation of limbs if the condition has progressed too far.
Magnificent surgical work is being done, but I know that most surgeons would prefer to be doing less disheartening work. In Australia recently a health education poster showing a comparatively young woman with her leg amputated caused some protests because it was so shocking, but it has helped to educate and transform public attitudes to smoking in that country. I have just such an example in my own practice. It concerns a woman of 50 who could not give up smoking until amputation was unavoidable.
It is not only people in the second half of life who suffer from the effects of cigarette smoking. Duodenal ulcers, mainly affecting men in their twenties to forties, are twice as common in smokers than in non-smokers and are more likely to lead to severe, or fatal, complications. The babies of women who smoke are smaller at birth and more likely to die at or around birth. Children have more educational difficulties, detectable up to the age of 11. Smoking increases by a factor of about four the chance of thrombosis in women who are on the oral contraceptive.
Other people's cigarette smoke, which we have heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough—and I fully agree with his views on this—can be simply unpleasant, but it can also damage health. Two studies have shown higher lung cancer rates in non-smoking wives of smokers. Children of parents who smoke have more chest infections, show impaired lung function up to five years of age, and are shorter in stature. This work was done by some of my erstwhile colleagues across the river at St. Thomas' Hospital.
I have deliberately not talked about the additional measures which the Government could take. I have recounted my own experience, padded a little with some research findings. The measures needed are clearly spelt out in the report by the Royal College. I merely mention that legislation to ban advertising and sponsorship—which we have heard is at present the main problem—would be quite simple. Section 108 of the Medicines Act could quite easily be adapted to include tobacco products; and this was very nearly

1137
enacted during the last Administration. The public are now ready for tougher measures to stop smoking in public places. Smokers are now in a one-to-two minority.
I have a final thought. Recently I was asked to look into the subject of drug misuse, because of the recent escalation of heroin dependence. It is thought that some 50,000 young people are now using heroin in this country. They are in some danger, and possibly 10 per cent. or more of them may die over a period of years. This year nearly 100,000 smokers will die prematurely—twice the total number using heroin. The Government have given £6 million of new money over three years to help combat drug misuse. For the infinitely greater problem of tobacco smoking the Health Education Council, ASH, and the Scottish Health Education Group receive £3 million a year in the face of £100 million spent by the tobacco companies as a counterblast on advertising and sponsorship. Is it not time that the Government made a determined attack on this vast problem in the way suggested by this very reasonable report from some of our most eminent physicians and scientists?
4.13 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I see from my notes, which I made some time ago, that I began with the words, "It is going to be very difficult to know where to begin". But it is easy, in a way, because I can thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for introducing this debate and His Royal Highness for topping it up.
My main criticism of the report to which this debate refers is emphasised by what has been said in this Chamber this afternoon. But I do not think that what has been said picks out enough the importance of cigarette smoking as being the trouble. It is all very well referring to King James VI, if I may say so, and his attitude towards smoking, hut in his case, and in the case of Calverley, who wrote his "Ode to Tobacco", those were the days before cigarettes. Although King James VI may have hated smoking, he was referring to the clay pipe. which was an awfully dirty thing. When Calverley wrote:
"Thou who, when fears attack,
Bidst them avaunt, and Black
Care, at the horseman's back
Perching. unseatest:
Sweet, when the morn is gray;
Sweet, when they've cleared away
Lunch, and at close of day
Possibly sweetest",
he was talking of tobacco before the cigarette came along.
I first smoked when I was 18, in the days of the Wild Woodbine. I bought a pipe in the canteen—I was a private soldier—and I smoked it in my tent. I went on parade and was violently sick. That finished my smoking for some years. Since then I have smoked, smoked and smoked, including 50 years of smoking a pipe. I gave it up for perfectly sound reasons, because was beginning to get trouble with a lip.
It seems to me that nobody has mentioned the importance of snuff. I have in mind an old friend by the side of whose bed I sat while he bubbled out his last breaths because he would not give up cigarette smoking. So many people have said, "It is all very well
1138
saying, 'Give up smoking', but what do you suggest I do?". It is not like Mark Twain, who said,
"Give up smoking?—it is the easiest thing in the world. I have done it a hundred times."
That is all very well, but I feel that I can give my personal experience to the House that the taking of snuff is an amazing method of assuaging the withdrawal symptoms of tobacco. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will agree that, medically speaking, a pinch of snuff puts more nicotine into one's blood than does smoking a cheroot, unless it is very heavily inhaled.
In talking of the cost of advertising, I entirely agree with the suggestion that the duty on tobacco, in particular on cigarettes, should be increased. But that is taking place today. I believe I am right in saying that the last increase in tobacco duty did not apply to pipe tobacco.
As regards non-smoking compartments in trains, and so on, it has almost reached the stage where there are not enough smoking compartments for the people who wish to smoke, not cigarettes but a pipe or a cheroot. Kipling referred to Burma cheroots as,
"A harem of dusky beauties,
Fifty tied in a string."
He wrote that before the cigarette, before the Wild Woodbine.
I feel very strongly about this report, our approach to the question of addiction to nicotine, and the difficulties and dangers which lie in paying court to the noble Lady Nicotine. We must be pragmatic and realise that, just as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has said, the incidence of narcotics in young people, which is so terrifying, indicates that there is some practical trouble over the need of young people to have a little nip of something. It is important that we should be sensible about accepting the use of tobacco in a certain measure.
Even in my own lifetime I remember going to India and finding that my body servant referred to my dinner jacket as my "smoker". Those were still the days of the smoking room and the lovely caps with tassels which were worn when smoking to keep the smell from getting into one's hair.
That is the only contribution I can make; to appeal to everyone—the Government included—to be sensible and pragmatic about this matter. The big improvement which should take place is an encouragement in the use of snuff. It does not offend other people, and it need not. I hope that the results of this debate will flow fully in helping to control the awful scourge of cancer of the lung which arises from the inhaling of cigarette smoke.
4.19 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I, too, should like to add my congratulations to His Royal Highness the noble Duke on a most eloquent and persuasive maiden speech. I hope that less time will elapse before he speaks again than elapsed between his taking his seat and making his maiden speech. It is not their fault that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, have not converted me to single-minded acceptance of the report, Health or Smoking?

1139
Although I do not smoke at present, I have smoked for a large part of my life. In fact, I beat the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, to it, because I started with a packet of five Woodbines behind a hedge at the age of 12—and delicious they were, too. They were much better than any modern cigarettes. What is more, I did not feel sick. I felt very well indeed afterwards. So I do see both sides of the question—perhaps more than some more virtuous noble Lords. As the anti-smoking lobby have had it mostly their own way this afternoon, I am going to say a few words in defence and support of poor smokers.
Smoking has several beneficial characteristics. To those who do it, it is enjoyable. I would just at this moment like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that drinking dirty water is not enjoyable unless there is absolutely no alternative whatsoever. Then, tobacco has the property of being able either to soothe or to stimulate, according to the need of the moment. A cigarette can calm an irritated spouse and possibly stop a nasty incident in the home. Additionally, for example, had 1 not given up smoking, I should probably not have gone to sleep and snored in your Lordships' House last week, for I should have gone out and had a cigarette and that would have woken me up. A cigarette can be invaluable in waking up a sleepy driver, and I wonder how many car crashes have been avoided simply by the smoking of a cigarette. But above all, from time immemorial, man has felt the need of some narcotic to help him on his journey through this troubled world. Of all those available, I think possibly that smoking tobacco in moderation is one of the least harmful.
I have never heard that cigarette smoking leads to crime, suicide, lethargy or the use of hard drugs, which is more than can be said for some other things. If you make the smoking of tobacco too difficult, you may drive people to other more dangerous narcotics. Perhaps the export of smoking to the third world has not been altogether pernicious, for it may have become a substitute for other and worse drugs.
Smoking may be responsible for a number of premature deaths. Those of your Lordships who have read The Times carefully for the last three days will have learnt that almost everything they eat or drink, particularly in this House, is even more likely to finish them off than smoking; so do not let us blame everything on smoking, or he too sure that other people's cigarette smoke is going to kill us, until we have real proof.
I do not know what the Government's attitude to this is going to be, but if they are concerned about saving money, which I think that they probably are—because I do not really think they mind if we live or die as long as we do it cheaply—they had much better leave us in peace to die enjoying ourselves at a reasonably young age. If we live longer and longer, getting gloomier and more despondent as our few remaining pleasures are denied to us, think what we shall cost the DHSS in pensions, sheltered housing, medical care, ancillary services, and so on; and to make matters worse, the Government will get less and less in duty on tobacco to pay for it all.
That brings me to the plight of the tobacco industry. If the Government want to stop people smoking by
1140
increasing the duty on tobacco until few, if any, can afford to smoke, it would be much more honest if they were to say so. To raise the duty on cigarettes by 3 per cent. one year, 17 per cent. the next, perhaps 5 per cent. the next and 10 per cent. the next, and so on, see-sawing about, is very unfair to the industry, which cannot plan ahead, and one of the results of that is unemployment. Another result is, of course, increased wage demands in all sectors of industry, for to many smokers their cigarettes are of more importance than many necessities.
The only argument against smoking that holds any water as far as I am concerned is the annoyance caused by smokers to non-smokers, which is paralleled by the annoyance caused to lovers of classical music, or even of silence, by those who play pop music on transistors in public places and by piped music in aeroplanes, shops, restaurants, and so on; or, to give another example, by eaters of garlic to those who hate the stuff. We can all think of similar annoyances. What it really boils down to is a question of manners. You refrain from doing what may give annoyance to others and hope they will do the same for you. When I was young, one was a little bit careful where one smoked. Indeed, no lady ever smoked in the street. A woman who smoked in the street was not a lady; she was a tart. There was no doubt about it.
Therefore. I suggest that the Government do three things: encourage the provision of non-smoking areas in public places, on transport, and so on, but not ban smoking altogether; encourage the teaching of manners in schools, which may mean starting in teacher training colleges; and, finally, try to persuade the medical profession to be a little more helpful to those who wish to, or for specific reason should, give up smoking. Quite honestly, anything less helpful than the last appendix to the report that we are debating I have never read. I could from personal experience be more helpful than that. But further than that I do not think that the Government should go, if only because I am very doubtful of the wisdom—I was going to say, the morality—of legislating to protect people from risking harm to themselves. I opposed the compulsory wearing of seat belts in motor cars for that reason. Once you start that kind of nannying, you are on a very dangerous and slippery slope indeed, and there is no end to it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lady for just one moment? It always used to be said of nannies that they referred to Miss Manners. Is the noble Lady making the speech that I hoped would not be made—the governessy and nanny speech?
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I am sorry?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, is the noble Lady making the speech that I hoped would not be made? That is the nanny speech and the governess speech—the one that refers to Miss Manners.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords. I thought I was making a speech on behalf of naughty little girls who wanted to smoke. But the real thing is that the more I am preached at and told not to do what I enjoy, the more I want to do it, and I think that that applies to a great

1141
many people. You need to be awfully careful about preaching, especially to the young. If you can, for instance, persuade a girl that she may lack boyfriends if she smokes because they will not like the smell, and vice versa, you will get somewhere, but not by a holier than thou attitude.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, on introducing this debate and indeed on the manner in which he did so. I should also like to congratulate His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester on his remarkable speech. I knew his views. I have been a member of ASH. I joined when I was a heavy smoker. 1 am bound to say that it helped, particularly when I listened to submissions by His Royal Highness and others who felt very strongly. I hope that he will be pleased to learn that I have now gone 12 months without smoking a cigarette or a pipe, whereas I used to smoke both rather heavily. The fact of the matter is that smoking is a bad habit. Unfortunately, of course, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said, all foul and offensive habits are very pleasurable. They give somebody a kick—whether it is dropping a bomb, declaring war or butchering in a bayonet or cavalry charge and slicing someone to ribbons. All these things give some people a kick.
What I found particularly wrong in the noble Lady's speech was when she said that the ladies of the street were those women who smoked openly on the street. When I was a young man, long before she was born, all the ladies who smoked seemed to be the ones who went to Ascot or the highly paid film stars. They were the ones who did all the smoking on the open road, the street and everywhere else. Therefore, it did seem to me that the top echelon of society was giving us all a very, very bad example.
Furthermore we are given a bad example in advertising today. We all know, beyond all peradventure that smoking is bad for the constitution. It is particularly bad for breathing. Any sportsman will confirm what the Royal College of Physicians has said—that you cannot he a 100 per cent. sportsman and a smoker. There has been massive agreement on both sides of the House on that point.
Of course, the Royal College has had to say that, as yet, it cannot in any way match the lavish advertising that goes on within the tobacco industry, with the millions of pounds that the latter can spend. I always feel it unjust and unfortunate that some famous sportsmen lend their names to smoking cigarettes when they know full well that in their prime that was the last thing they would have done. Therefore the only criticism I would make of the Royal College is to ask them whether they have really concentrated on trying to find something that will prevent people smoking, particularly the young, who might be, as I was, foolishly tempted into smoking.
Before I go any further, I think I ought to mention this point, which I do not believe has yet been mentioned. It is that the agony of smoking cigarettes is that its real, insidious danger is that it does not corrupt your lungs, give you cancer of the throat, or give you cancer of the lungs in a year or two: it might take 10
1142
to 20 years. Because of that indisputable fact about a condition which afflicts millions of my countrymen, I find little room for humour in this debate.
You see people dying from lung cancer. I watched my father dying from it. It was caused through a combination of pneumoconiosis, contracted through dust from the pits, and smoking. When miners came up from the pits they immediately smoked in order to relax. When you have seen a person dying of lung cancer and throat cancer, believe me, although all the cracks of Mark Twain, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, referred, when Mark Twain said that he found smoking easy to give up because he had done it hundreds of times, are great and humorous, you arrive at the frontier of understanding when someone close to you has just vomited up his lungs, a condition brought about by smoking cigarettes, and you cannot laugh that off. If you do, that is an appalling exhibition of vulgarity.
I have to say that smoking is probably the most important avoidable source of disease. There are lots of things that we do not know how to avoid, and we do not know what will stop them because medical science has not yet provided the answer. But surely it has indicated a way in which we can reduce the risk of throat cancer, lung cancer, severe bronchitis and premature death: by not smoking or by giving up smoking.
The Counterblasts of King James I may be smiled at, but the reasons he gave them are certainly as true today. It seems to me that there has been in the past 30 to 40 years an obsession on the part of mankind in wanting to poison everything. We poison the atmosphere on an international scale. We poison the land with so-called fertilisers. We poison agriculture and horticulture, and we now voluntarily poison ourselves through smoking.
The argument of the Budget and tax of course is very real and I can understand it. I wish I knew the answer but I do not. However, because we do not know the answer does not mean that we ought to stop seeking a solution. It may be fair to say that, whereas smokers provide the Chancellor with a vast amount of money from tax, on the other hand 50 million working days are lost through bronchial illnesses caused, in the main, by smoking.
We have to take account of all views, and there are some people who might argue that it would be much better to cut out cancer through reduced smoking and make a balance to the Exchequer by cutting out cruise. All these things have got to be taken into consideration. But I believe that one cannot and should not try to outlaw smoking. I believe that that would be extremely dangerous and I do not think it would be successful. When the United States of America tried to outlaw the drinking of alcohol, we all know what happened. I am not going to say that something of that nature would happen in this country but, in my judgment, it would be too swift and too savage. There would be undercover smoking and it would not eradicate smoking in any way.
I believe that we have to do it by example. I believe that one of the best ways of doing it is by saying—as is slowly becoming evident, and it is a good thing—that smoking is downright bad manners, that people who smoke are fools and that manners maketh man.

1143
So, in conclusion, I turn again to advertising and to what can be done. I would not outlaw smoking at all. But I would outlaw and ban all forms of advertising. I do not think it would have very much effect on people who have been smoking for 10 to 20 years, but I sincerely believe it would have an effect and help the young not to start the habit. In conclusion, I simply say that if we fail and the weed wins, that will be a triumph for disease, suffering and anguish.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, if I may, I shall start with a triple congratulation, necessarily short because of the constraints of time, but with sincerity in inverse relation to its length. First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, on introducing this important matter in so interesting and informative a way. Secondly, I congratulate His Royal Highness the noble Duke on his thoughtful, well reasoned, and persuasive maiden speech. We shall all look forward to hearing him again on other topics. I, for one, will particularly look forward to any contribution from him on another subject involving an interest in which we both share and in which he has expertise —architecture. 1 think he is admirably qualified, particularly at this present time, to make a contribution to the current controversy of "trads" and "mods".
Thirdly, I should like to congratulate the Royal College itself on this report. It is everything that a report should be: comprehensive and clear; informed and intelligible; forceful, but fair. Of course, its main conclusion is clear. It is natural that it should be so because this is the fourth report, building on the firm foundations of previous reports extending over more than two decades. But the report does not suggest that there is nothing in favour of smoking. Clearly smoking must have attractions and qualities to have attracted the great following that it has. Page 6 of the report refers to these various benefits, and on page 12 it refers to the subjective advantages of smoking: relaxation, making it easier to do boring tasks, helping stress, and so on.
Three major questions arise on this subject. First, is smoking a danger to health, and, if so, in what respects, and to what degree? Secondly, what is the position of Government and Parliament in regard to corrective action, taking account of claims of individual freedom and personal choice? Thirdly, what practical form, within these parameters, can and should Government action take?
In this debate there has been a tendency for noble Lords to identify their own personal position in this matter. I am, and have been for many years, a non-smoker, but I cannot claim, with my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lady Masham, to be a lifelong non-smoker. Nor can I claim to have become a non-smoker through any act of virtue or exercise of considered judgment. I became a non-smoker by accident. It is a sobering thought how many of the more sensible things one does, one does by accident. I became a non-smoker during a general election when I found that I could not combine a heavy cold, a large number of speeches and cigarette smoking. I gave up smoking for the duration of the election, and, when the election was over, I continued. This gave me the
1144
advantage that when, some years later, I went to what was then the Ministry of Health, in the early days of consideration of this subject, I had abandoned cigarette smoking and had no personal reason or temptation to resist or qualify the evidence and conclusions of the medical profession.
The years have confirmed my position. The first of my questions is an easy one. The existence and degree of danger to health is what lawyers call an open and shut case. The evidence is marshalled in a succession of authoritative reports and the numerous documents cited therein. It is good to know that this report is approved by Sir Richard Doll, to whom, with Bradford Hill, much praise is due for excellent pioneer work. It would be unnecessary and, indeed, presumptuous of me to enter into technical questions as to health risks. In summary, the three main contributory consequences of smoking are lung cancer, associated bronchial and lung diseases and cardiovascular diseases. In total, we are told, they amount to 15 to 20 per cent. of deaths in our country, with an annual death total from smoking estimated at about 100,000. Those are formidable figures.
The assessment of health risk is necessarily a matter mainly for physicians. But the second question brings us to matters properly and primarily for government and Parliament—questions as to corrective action and the propriety thereof. As with so many questions in politics and government, it is not a matter of putting a good principle against a bad principle. It is seeking to balance and reconcile two principles, each good in themselves, and seeking the highest common factor of compliance with both. The two principles are, of course, the maintenance of the health of the nation and the desirability of preserving so far as possible the freedom of the individual and his right of choice to conduct his own affairs unfettered by state regulation and interference. So we have to seek so far as possible the reconciliation of these principles.
The position as to the first of them is clear enough. The good of the people, said Cicero, is the supreme law. That must include their health. Obviously, it is supremely important for government to promote as far as possible the health of the nation. The other principle leads to more difficulty. It is a strong and favoured argument of smokers and the tobacco industry that there is no reason or justification either in constitutional law or democratic principle to interfere with lawful enjoyment. That, however, puts it in too simple a form.
The doctrine of non-interference with personal enjoyment, although a good principle, is, of course, qualified by what is called the sic utere principle—that is to say, so use what is your own as not to injure others. That principle has a dual application in this matter—the effect on the national resources and the physical effect on individuals. In regard to national resources, it is obvious that the incidence of lung cancer and associated diseases necessarily imposes a heavy burden on the health service and thereby on the taxpayer by the diversion of accommodation and of professional and nursing skill away from other and less avoidable ills. Of course, there is a set-off factor in the financial context by reason of the revenue from taxation, but that does not extend to the physical aspects of accommodation and skills.

1145
The injury to individuals arises from the effect of "passive", or involuntary smoking, as it is called—that is the reluctant but compulsory intake by non-smokers of "side-stream smoke" in the atmosphere. Here again, the report is very fair. It shows that because there has been relatively little research into the incidence of lung cancer from this cause, you cannot prove it to be a certain fact. What is beyond question, however, is the degree of discomfort, inconvenience, annoyance and irritation inflicted by smokers on nonsmokers, aggravated by the fact, as the report says, that most smokers do not appreciate how much their habit can annoy non-smokers. There is therefore a clear case of injury to non-smokers constituting a breach of the sic utere principle and justifying or, indeed, requiring corrective action without any improper infringement of the rights of the smoker.
Time will not allow me to go in any detail into the third aspect. Fortunately, here again, the report is admirably clear and realistic. On health education, it has a good story to tell. However, on the other sort of action, the position is much less satisfactory. It is sad to read that successive governments have shown regrettable unwillingness to take the sort of action that might at first contain and ultimately overcome the tragic consequences of smoking. The action that the Government must take has been referred to— control of promotion, and the introduction of non-smoking, as far as possible, into public places.
If the Government can do that, they will do much to meet the criticisms made in the report. It is indeed a paradox that, when medicine and science have succeeded in defeating those two great scourges of earlier days, the tubercular and pneumonic diseases, graphically called "the great captains of the men of death", society should now of its own accord bring in an unnecessary and self-imposed hazard. It is for Ministers to seek to correct this unnecessary and damaging situation and for them not only to welcome the report in words but to give effect to its proposals. If they do so, they will bring great benefit to the citizens of today and generations yet to come.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I must begin with a brief apology. As noble Lords may or may not have noticed, I had to leave your Lordships' Chamber for a few moments to put in a brief appearance at one of your Lordships' Select Committees. As a result, I missed two speeches and a little bit of another. I am sorry about that, and I shall read the speeches most carefully. I have, however, been present for the remainder of the debate. I am therefore able to say how much I enjoyed the admirable opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. We are all indebted to him for introducing this subject.
I should also like to join with others in offering congratulations to His Royal Highness the noble Duke, the Duke of Gloucester, for a truly remarkable maiden speech. I say that advisedly because it is rare to hear a maiden speech in this House that turns out to be the speech that covers the whole subject succinctly yet comprehensively. It has directed our attention to the points of most crucial importance. That is perhaps understandable, because the noble Duke has deep
1146
knowledge of this subject through his long association with the organisation, ASH.
Let me say at the outset, as a doctor who has practised medicine in and out of hospital for 40 years, that I have not the slightest doubt that smoking is injurious to health. There is no longer any room for doubt about the causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer. Nor is there room for much doubt about the relationship of smoking to arterio-vascular disease, although that perhaps has been less comprehensively and decidedly demonstrated. But the most important injurious effect, from my practical experience in medical practice, is its clear causal relationship with chronic bronchitis and emphysema—diseases from which a great many people, particularly elderly people, suffer in this country.
Of course, thereby hangs one of the difficulties. Many noble Lords have referred to the ambivalent position of Government in that they reap great rewards in revenue from tobacco duty. But there is the other point. The one thing which smoking undoubtedly does every year is snuff out thousands of elderly bronchitics at round about the age of 65. On the whole they are people who have loyally and dutifully subscribed to the national insurance fund for some 50 years, and just when they are on the point of drawing something out, off they go.
In a sense that is another complicating factor which perhaps makes it difficult for the right decisions to be taken. Perhaps it also obscures the question of how much smoking costs the National Health Service. If all those elderly bronchitics remained alive for as long as they would remain alive if they stopped smoking, the health service would be in for a great deal more work. But the real reason for getting people never to take up smoking, which is the most important thing of all, or to stop smoking if they have started, is not because it would save the health service money but because it would be better for the health, happiness and contentment of society as a whole. That is the reason, and let us not obscure it by housekeeping arguments about how much smoking costs the health service, how much it causes fires, or other arguments of that kind.
This is not an easy question, and I say that again as a doctor. The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in his powerful and brief speech, said that he had given up smoking for 12 months. All I say to him is, "Congratulations". But I say, too, that he is not cured. I say advisedly that once a noble Lord or anybody else becomes addicted to nicotine—it is an addiction in a genuine sense, not just a pyschological dependency but an addiction like any other addiction—he is always addicted. I can speak from experience because I have been a smoker and a non-smoker, then a smoker and then again a non-smoker, and so on. One is never cured, and I think it is important that one should say that.
Those who think they have succeeded in giving up have not necessarily done so. I stopped smoking on Christmas Day in 1966, when I was doing a lot of television programmes on health education. If ever I smoked, somebody would say, "Oh, I see you smoke; doesn't it matter?" I would say it did matter very much indeed but it did not happen to matter to me. I decided

1147
that that was not a tenable position, so I stopped. After 10 years I thought I was cured. But on Christmas Day in 1977 I said to my wife, "I'll have a cigar after dinner." I did so. Then I said, "I enjoyed that; I'll do that every day and that won't do me any harm—a cigar after dinner". But by the end of the week I could not get through the days in order to come to my cigar after dinner. So it became a cigar before dinner, and then a cigar before lunch, and so on. Since then I have given up several times. It becomes harder to give up again because one has proved that one can give up.
It is a clear and adequate motivation that helps people to give up an addiction of this kind. The motivation could be fear, it could be poverty, but it could also be pride and vanity because one wants to demonstrate that one can give up. When one has given up for 10 years one thinks one has proved something, and then it gets harder afterwards.
I have said all that at some length because I think it is important to understand that the addicted smoker really has a problem. From hearing a bit of the speech by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, I thought she had taken this point that smokers need help. I do not think they necessarily need the kind of treatment that they receive from some former smokers, who are rather apt to exude a puritanical self-satisfaction and pursue smokers with a Cromwellian zeal which sometimes turns out to be self-defeating.
Smokers need a little bit more understanding. Therefore I greatly welcome those parts of this report from the Royal College of Physicians which take a slightly different attitude towards assisting people to give up the smoking habit than was taken formerly by the Royal College of Physicians and by others. For example, when first we recommended a reduction in the tar content of smoke—that has been very helpful; there is no question about it—the reaction of some of the anti-smokers and ASH was that if one makes smoking safer people will be less inclined to give it up.
If one can make it safer, and if one remembers that some people do smoke, surely there is a social benefit from having made it safer. That is recognised clearly and explicitly in this latest report of the Royal College of Physicians, and it is a very good thing that it is. If we accept that some people are going to continue to smoke although they should not, and if we can make smoking safer, we ought to do so.
In addition, this report recognises that some people need some forms of assistance. An example is snuff. There are noble Lords who have found the use of snuff a helpful way of getting away from the addiction to nicotine. It is a fact that no medical ill-effects whatsoever have ever been demonstrated in connection with the use of snuff, save perhaps for a little unpleasant discolouration of the nostrils, which is not exactly lethal. But if some people find that by trying snuff, that can help them to get away from smoking, so be it; that is a good thing.
Similarly, when we were introduced to the new nicotine-impregnated chewing gum, people got addicted to it. I knew a young lady who had never smoked in her life but who was one of the doctors testing this nicotine-impregnated chewing gum. She became addicted. The idea of her waking up in the
1148
morning and reaching for her handbag to find the chewing gum really appals one. An addiction is unpleasant. But if, as this report shows, Nicorette, which was that form of nicotine-impregnated chewing gum, helps some people to give up smoking, then it is doing something very helpful indeed.
The ideal is for people never to start smoking. But, in conclusion, I have to say that, despite all the propaganda and all the educational work—there has been a great deal of it—many young people still smoke. I have done my own research into this. I found that, in my own area of Manchester, research into university students entering university showed that only one in 10 smoked. When I investigated new recruits into industry—into manual jobs—I found that nine out of 10 smoked. In other words, it is utterly clear that the propaganda and the educational information which has been put out has not got through to young people in certain social groups.
If people never started smoking they would not have the kind of problem with which so many noble Lords have had to wrestle in order to give up smoking. The ideal is to make our propaganda more effective in order to dissuade people from starting smoking at all. But I ask your Lordships to recognise that those who have become tobacco addicts have a problem. They need to be helped as far as possible with the problem, and not just pursued and condemned for it. I welcome this debate. I welcome this new and very enlightened report of the Royal College of Physicians, particularly, if I may say so, the appendix on giving up smoking which appears at the end of the report. I regard it as very perceptive indeed. It shows that the Royal College and others are moving in the right direction.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am sure we owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. Apart from introducing a very valuable debate, he has very nearly produced unanimity in your Lordships' House, with one notable exception. the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. That in itself is remarkable. But perhaps it was the remarkable contribution by His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester which convinced all doubters. I wonder if, speaking not only from this Dispatch Box, I may thank and congratulate His Royal Highness. He is the patron of ASH and I am the patron of the National Society of Non-Smokers; so as one patron to another, but with all the humility that should go with it, I thank him for what I thought was a very courageous and very outspoken speech, and just the sort of speech that a maiden speaker should make in your Lordships' House. The facts are absolutely clear, and His Royal Highness illustrated them in terms of human suffering and human death and the cost to the National Health Service.
No one has actually pointed out that the report we are debating is not called, Smoking and Health, but, Health or Smoking? That in itself is very important. If one wishes to remain healthy, one does not smoke. The unanimity of medical opinion (certainly in this House, but it goes right across the country) about the dangers of smoking is probably unrivalled in any other category of disease or cause of disease. Secondly, the risk to health of smoking is so much greater than all other know avoidable risks to health. Even after the

1149
recent sharp decline in cigarette smoking, new smokers are still being recruited on such a scale that smoking will continue to be this country's largest cause of preventable ill-health well into the next century. That is why the noble Baronesss, Lady Masham, was so wise to concentrate, as did other speakers, on the importance of education among young people.
Thirdly, smoking is always dangerous. Unlike other major avoidable causes of ill-health which are dangerous when abused—drink can be dangerous, but only when it is abused—smoking is always dangerous. 1 thought that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, was almost putting forward the case for a rapid early death. I do not think that many noble Lords and noble Baronesses would subscribe to that view, and I hope that the noble Lady does not accept her own advice.
As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, smoking is addictive to very many smokers. I do not agree with the noble Lord that once one is addicted one is always addicted. I gave up smoking about 15 years ago, and a very easy way to do so is by being appointed Minister of Health. You cannot then go on smoking—at least, you should not! The present one does, but he should not. I have not smoked since. From 1976 to 1979, when I was Secretary of State, we had a very clear strategy, and it is about Government strategy that I want to speak because it comprises a very important part of the report. At that time advertising on television had already, rightly, been abolished, but smokers were in a clear majority in the community. Our objective, and mine as Secretary of State, was so to influence the public that we could achieve an overall majority of non-smokers in society, so that not to smoke was the norm, rather than smoking being the norm.
Secondly, we wanted greatly to extend non-smoking areas in terms of travel, leisure, the work place and public amenities, because at that stage there was little argument about the effect upon other people, whether it was a medical effect or simply the inconvenience and the unpleasantness of having to work in an office where other people smoked.
Thirdly, we wanted so to influence the public that a large proportion of those who still smoked but wanted to give up smoking were helped to do so. This is a very important point, and it was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. A very high proportion (some have said that it is high as 70 per cent.) of those who still smoke today would like to give it up. It is interesting that when a quite short television programme was broadcast setting out the dangers of smoking, people were asked to write in requesting assistance to help them become non-smokers and in return they would be sent special packs. The organisers thought that there might be a response of 15,000; in fact, 650,000 people wrote in asking to receive the packs to assist them to become non-smokers. Therefore, it is absolutely right that one of the purposes of the national society is to help people who want to stop smoking actually to give up the filthy weed.
Thus, there has been a steady reduction in the proportion of men and women who smoke, and we must welcome the fact that over the years, with successive Governments, there has been a steady reduction and that now non-smokers are substantially
1150
in the majority. We must now ask the Government for their strategy in tackling this problem—how they are responding, and how they will respond. This is the first time that there has been a debate in either your Lordships' House or another place on this extremely important report. So far the Government have not been very clear about what action they intend to take.
In the few minutes at my disposal I simply want to suggest an eight-point programme. First, there should be a Government policy binding all departments to pull in the same direction, rather than just a DHSS policy against which other departments can, and often do, pull in the opposite direction. In saying that I draw on a good deal of experience. From being Secretary of State I know the sort of battles one has to get other departments to agree to this kind of policy.
Secondly, I believe that there now needs to be a complete ban on all promotion of tobacco. As the report of the Royal College said, and as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, this means an end to all advertising, except of course at the point of sale. There should he no effort to influence present smokers, but certainly an effort to stop new smokers. We must tackle what I can only call the scandal of promotions, which was touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady White. It is interesting to note that in the two-week period during April of this year when the Embassy World Snooker Championship was being promoted the BBC devoted more than 100 hours of television to an event designed to promote Embassy cigarettes and cigarette smoking. The cost to the sponsors in prize money was less than £200,000; the amount of publicity which the tobacco company received was enormous. Steve Davis, himself a non-smoker, who was defending champion, was asked all about it and he said:
"They do it because they get tremendously cheap advertising. Snooker's the cheapest form of advertising out of all the sports".
I believe that this matter must be tackled by the Government.
Thirdly, there need to be much stronger, and more prominent, health warnings, with more specific evidence, such as the kind of facts that were given by His Royal Highness during his outstanding speech.
Fourthly, there must be more intensive public education and information about smoking, especially for young people. I am sure that our efforts must be devoted to stop youngsters from starting, because there is no doubt—and this is made clear in the report—that once a youngster has the habit, he is likely to become a smoker for life. It is the younger generation to whom we must direct our attention.
Fifthly, there must be increased leadership from Government to encourage the development of nonsmoking as the nom in public places, with smoking areas set aside where practicable, rather than vice versa as at present. This is a matter on which I believe the Government need to take the initiative. There are still too many places, including restaurants, where we are subjected to the smoking of others.
Sixthly, there need to be regular increases in the real cost of smoking, regulated by taxation. I do not accept the argument put forward by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—and if I am wrong, I hope he will forgive me—that this is not a deterrent. I agree

1151
with the argument that has been put forward that there should be a substantial increase, and I believe that this may have a real effect upon current smokers—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I shall, but I should like to finish the sentence, and I have promised that I shall sit down in one minute. I recognise the achievement of the last Budget in this respect.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord did not want to misrepresent me. I did not say that an increase in taxation was not a deterrent. On the contrary, I advocated an increase in taxation on tobacco, but said that past experience had shown that it must be a whacking one.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in that case I did misrepresent the noble Lord, and I am glad that he has intervened. I absolutely support what he has just said.
My last two points are a progressive compulsory lowering of maximum emission levels for each cigarette tar group—this was emphasised with considerable success during the time of the previous Administration, and we must take it further—and, finally, an end to investment grants and other financial incentives for the tobacco industry, except of course for non-tobacco diversification.
I warmly thank the noble Lord for introducing, and congratulate him on, what has been a most important debate, with almost unanimous views. I look forward to the Government's response to the report of the Royal College. I say again that this debate has been a historic occasion due to the presence of, and the quality of the speech given by, His Royal Highness, who was speaking not only as a Member of this House, but also, consciously, as the patron of ASH.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I should like to add my words of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on so lucidly introducing this important debate on smoking and health. Sadly, as we have heard—and there is no doubt about it—cigarette smoking is still the greatest avoidable cause of illness and death in our society. As such there can be no more important subject in the whole field of preventive health care to bring before your Lordships. I welcome the chance that it has given us to consider an issue which is central to the nation's health and well-being, and to explain the Government's intentions and success.
The other opportunity which this debate has provided has been for us to hear the really excellent maiden speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Gloucester. It is a particular personal pleasure, for two reasons, for me to he able, from the Government Front Bench, to congratulate him on it most sincerely. First, we were exact contemporaries at Eton, and the penalties for being caught there smoking as a boy, as I am sure he remembers, were somewhat draconian, but no doubt effective, though I do not think that either of us suffered, or indeed deserved to, in that particular
1152
way. Secondly, his family have a long and valuable association with my former regiment.
Views for or against smoking are held with a considerable degree of personal conviction. There is nothing wrong in that. I associate myself entirely with all those who have said that the noble Duke's first intervention in your Lordships' House was thoughtful and carefully constructed, and was delivered powerfully and with considerable flair. I join fully with all those who said that they hope it will not be long before we again have the benefit of his wisdom and experience in this Chamber.
I, too, should like to pay tribute to the Royal College of Physicians whose latest report we are today debating. It is now some 22 years since the college brought out their first report pointing to the serious dangers of smoking. It is perhaps no coincidence that in that year cigarette sales in this country began to fall for the first time in more than a decade, and with one or two interruptions they have continued to fall at differing rates ever since.
Three further reports have followed at intervals and no one would deny their influence in both shaping Government and medical opinion and helping to increase public awareness of the risks of cigarettes to health. For this we are greatly indebted to the college. The Government have always given the most careful consideration to their reports and recommendations. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services recently had a very useful meeting with a delegation from the college to discuss the report. A number of useful suggestions were made, and these we shall he considering further.
The college's report underlines the gravity of the health problem caused by smoking, but, alas, the figures do not convey its full extent in terms of human suffering by the victims and the distress to their families and relatives, which cannot be quantified. As a health Minister I cannot be other than gravely concerned about the terrible toll of unnecessary death, disease and misery caused by cigarettes.
Despite the views expressed by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun—which I understand, though I do not altogether agree with—I should like to reiterate at the outset the Government's clear commitment to discourage people from smoking. I shall say more about the forms that our policy takes, and I choose the word "discourage" carefully because in a free society the decision whether or not to smoke must in the last resort he a matter of personal choice. That too, I hope, will please the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun.
Faced with these facts, it is easy to overlook the progress which has been made in combating smoking in recent years. We have come a long way in the 20-odd years since the Royal College's original report was published, and it is perhaps worth reflecting on the progress that has been made. In 1962 the majority of adults were smokers and they knew little of the risks they were taking. Most cigarettes had a very high tar content. There were few restrictions on either advertising or where one might smoke. Smoking, as was mentioned by one noble Lord, was accepted as the social norm, and one could even say that it was encouraged.

1153
Today much has changed. Cigarette advertising is strictly controlled by both a code of practice and voluntary agreements which require cigarette packets and all cigarette advertisements to carry a health warning. There have been tremendous advances in health education. The average tar yield of cigarettes has been drastically reduced. More significantly attitudes towards smoking have changed, and are changing, for the better.
Those who find smoking by others unpleasant—and I count myself among them—have begun increasingly to press for their right to a smoke-free environment, and there are now many more non-smoking areas in public places, on trains and buses, and in theatres, cinemas and restaurants. Only 10 days ago I was delighted to come across my first internal airline which forbade smoking entirely. I, for one, am delighted that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, applied the kick which he described earlier.
While I deplore, as do many, the problems associated with passive smoking, I have to say that while it is unpleasant, the extent to which it can damage otherwise healthy adults is, as yet, unclear. In their most recent report the independent scientific committee reviewed the evidence and concluded that tobacco smoke can irritate the eyes, nose and throat and that it may exacerbate symptoms in adults already suffering from certain conditions. This was a point referred to by my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Gisborough and Lord Broxbourne.
So far as smoking on public transport is concerned—and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, referred to this, as did my noble friend Lord Gisborough—many transport authorities impose regulations and restrictions on smoking on public transport. There are, for example, regulations to enforce no smoking on buses, and most operators impose a partial ban, but the extent of any restrictions must be a matter for the appropriate transport authority to decide, taking into account all the circumstances.
So far as smoking in the workplace is concerned, which also was raised by my noble friend Lord Gisborough, this is the responsibility of individual employers. I agree with him that people who do not want to work in a smoky atmosphere should not have to do so. But I do not think that this is a matter to which hard and fast rules can be applied.
The progress being made can best be illustrated by some of the basic facts and figures, though some of them were referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in introducing this debate. In 1962 (the year of the first report) Tobacco Research Council statistics suggested that about 66 per cent. of all adult males were cigarette smokers. In 1972, according to Government statistics—the General Household Survey—that figure had fallen to 52 per cent., and by 1982 to 38 per cent. That was a remarkable fall.
Among women the prevalence of cigarette smoking rose sharply during and after the Second World War and then steadied off at a little over 40 per cent. of adult females. The 1982 General Household Survey statistics suggest that 33 per cent. of adult females are now smokers. The figures on cigarette consumption are even more striking and show a 20 per cent. fall in
1154
cigarette sales in the last five years. The statistics show that we are moving in the right direction.
So far as Norway is concerned, I have to say that, while the figures show a fall in the proportion of regular cigarette smokers, the conditions there vary somewhat from those of the United Kingdom and direct comparisons are difficult to make. In fact, the figures in 1972 and 1982 for males in Norway showed a drop from 51 to 40 per cent., but in Great Britain it was from 52 to 38 per cent. In that case it appears that Great Britain is doing rather better than Norway.
But there is, of course, still a long way to go. The number of people who smoke in Britain today is about 18 million, and surveys suggest that over two-thirds of them want to give up the habit. Some will have tried in the past without being successful, as we have heard. Given the addictive nature of nicotine, it is important that these people receive proper health advice and encouragement, and I entirely share the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I believe that in recent years there have been some encouraging developments in this area.
At the local level many health authorities have established policies against smoking as part of their preventive health strategies. General practitioners are now more geared up to giving help and support to patients wishing to stop smoking, and to stressing the importance of not smoking to their patients generally. Anti-smoking clinics in one form or another are becoming a more familiar feature of health service provisions, while self-help and other mutual support groups are also flourishing. The Health Education Council and ASH continue to provide valuable advice, and I pay tribute to them for that. They provide it in a variety of ways to smokers who are trying to quit smoking. These are heartening developments, and, of course, we want to encourage them and foster them. The Government have contributed directly by their funding of research into helping people stop, and that is through the Addiction Research Centre at the Maudsley Hospital.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, referred to lung cancer deaths. I share many of the views that she expressed. The death figures for 1982 are 26,156 for men and 8,932 for women. The Royal College of Physicians' report estimates that 90 per cent. of all deaths from lung cancer in this country are attributable to smoking. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, talked about smoking and coronary heart disease. The fact is that cigarette smoking is a powerful and independent risk factor for coronary heart disease, particularly at younger ages, and the Royal College report attributes 20 per cent. of all coronary heart disease deaths (that is, about 36,000 deaths in the United Kingdom) to smoking.
We have heard a certain amount about taxation, and few of us would dispute that price is an important determinant of cigarette consumption. The Royal College's report recognised this in calling for a steady increase in cigarette taxation. Your Lordships will he well aware that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in raising the duty on a packet of cigarettes by 10p—considerably more than inflation—stressed the health reasons for doing so. This was a point brought out by the noble Duke the

1155
Duke of Gloucester. I am sure this will help to reduce cigarette consumption further, and is evidence of our commitment to tackling the problem.
One of the most effective ways in which smoking can be discouraged is through health education. This means not just getting across the link between smoking and health which most people now recognise: it means ensuring that everyone fully understands the extent of the dangers and the damage which smoking causes. I should like to say a word here in praise of the Health Education Council's efforts in this field. The council regards the prevention of smoking as its single highest priority. The contribution it has made through both its mass campaign and its activities in support of local health and education authorities cannot be over-emphasised. The Government have played their part here, too, in their funding of the council's work, and this will answer a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. We recently added half a million pounds to the HEC's anti-smoking campaign this year. The HEC put a lot of careful thought into planning their campaign, and I am sure it will have contributed towards the reductions I referred to earlier. I hope also that the latest HEC campaign through advertising—which many of your Lordships may have seen—will persuade many more people not to smoke.
As a result of the efforts of the health professions, health educators and Government, it is now far less likely that anyone will smoke without being aware of the dangers to their health, but the Government do have a duty to try to reduce the risk to those who are unwilling or unable to stop. The latest agreement on product modification, announced in March, will help. For those who must smoke it will mean a further lowering of the average yield of tar—one of the most dangerous components in cigarettes. This follows a recommendation by the independent scientific committee on smoking and health, which advises the Government in these matters. I should like to put on record the Government's appreciation of the invaluable work this committee does on the scientific aspects of smoking.
On other scientific matters, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asked about the MRC and SSRC recommendations into the psychological and social factors, and factors of attitude. These recommendations were accepted by the Government. A large-scale study was commissioned and carried out by OPCS, and the results were published in 1983 under the slightly different title of, Smoking and Health.
The agreement I referred to also includes a new tar grouping structure reflecting the large changes in the pattern of smoking over the last ten years. The new designations will be introduced next year, and will appear on cigarette packets and other relevant cigarette brand advertising. The Royal College's report recommends legislation to secure reductions in tar, carbon monoxide and nicotine. But the latest agreement is a good example of what can be achieved through co-operation with the industry and without legislation.
The problem of smoking among young people remains a major source of concern to the Government. Clearly the main hope for the future in
1156
eradicating smoking lies in dissuading the young from ever starting to smoke. Studies show that most of those who go on to be regular smokers first take up the habit in their teens. Persuading youngsters not to smoke must therefore be our main priority.
Recent research has given cause for considerable concern about this. The Government last year sponsored a survey of children's smoking habits carried out by Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. This was the first national survey of its kind, and it revealed some disturbing facts. We shall be repeating the survey later this year in order that we can observe the trend. We are taking a number of initiatives aimed at tackling the problem. We are concerned about the apparent ease with which children under 16 have been able to buy cigarettes. I recognise it may be difficult for shopkeepers to judge whether a person is below the legal age; but clearly this is an area where there is room to tighten up the law. We are having discussions with retail organisations to draw up some simple guidelines and, of course, the maximum penalty has now been doubled to a fine of £400.
Much good work is already being done in schools to combat smoking through health education lessons. A government leaflet was recently introduced at schools throughout England and Wales, and will shortly be issued in Scotland giving the up-to-date facts about smoking among teenagers. This should also help to stimulate further activity in schools. I think we need to recognise that there are limits to what the Government and other bodies can do. The work in schools and elsewhere will only succeed if parents accept their own responsibilities to discourage their children from smoking. Action must always start in the home; although, of course, some children may experiment with cigarettes regardless of what parents say.
The subject of cigarette advertising and promotion raises strong emotions, which have been voiced by many. There is a view that there should be some further control or ban on cigarette advertising. Indeed, it was one of the main recommendations of the Royal College's report. The Government, like their predecessors, have adhered to the view that voluntary agreement is the best form of controlling the industry's activities in these areas. I do not accept the argument that these agreements have been ineffective in helping us to achieve our goals. Indeed, there are good grounds for believing that successively tougher agreements have helped bring about the gradual reduction in smoking which has taken place.
Nor is there evidence to support the contention—voiced by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy—that banning advertising would substantially reduce total cigarette consumption. The evidence is not by any means conclusive. Certainly, the experience in this country illustrates what can be achieved without recourse to legislation to control or modify advertising. To set out the Government's position, we shall of course abide by the present voluntary agreement, which will last at least until March 1986. But the situation will be reviewed then in the light of all the relevant information.
Turning to the subject of sports sponsorship, many similar considerations apply. Of course, I am aware that there are some who believe it is wrong that

1157
tobacco companies should be able to sponsor sports in this way, but we must also recognise the substantial benefits many sports have received from this form of sponsorship. We think it right to balance these two points of view by regulating and controlling the amount of sports sponsorship by agreement. The present agreement runs until the end of 1985. Under its terms there will be no increase in real terms in the amount of money the tobacco industry can spend on sports sponsorship, and no new sports will be sponsored without prior consultation. The Government will also be reviewing this agreement at the appropriate time.
A number of other points have been raised. I am afraid I have not time to go through them all, but the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked about the Medicines Act and whether that could be used. The fact is that there is a possibility but, as I have said, the Government, like their predecessors, prefer to proceed through voluntary agreements.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, asked about the third world particularly. I understand her concern that the smoking problem should not be exported to third world countries. It must be right for each Government to determine their own policies in the light of the circumstances prevailing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, asked about the disabled and the 125-type trains. I am sure this is a point that will be borne in mind by British Railways. On her other point about smoking and pregnancy, the Health Education Council has continued to publicise the dangers for the unborn children of mothers smoking during pregnancy through its education and preparation for parenthood programme. There is other information which I could give her if I had time. Neither, I am afraid, have I time to go into snuff, but I shall let my noble friend Lord Ferrier know about that.
I hope that what I have said today will underline the importance that the Government attach to discouraging smoking and to limiting its damage to health. Today's debate illustrates that while there is general agreement about the aim there is room for argument and discussion about how that aim can best be achieved. I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government's policies are making considerable impact on the smoking problem and that our strategy to dissuade people, especially the young, from smoking by persuasion and consent represents the best way forward in dealing with this most deep-rooted social evil.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I believe I have only 20 seconds in which to thank all noble Lords for having taken part in this debate, which has admirably covered the ground. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Defence: Staff Centralisation
5.31 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Balhousie Lord Cameron of Balhousie rose to call attention to the necessity of maintaining the morale of the three
1158
services and their standing in NATO following proposed further staff centralisation in the Ministry of Defence and the consequent weakening of the Chiefs of Staff organisation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful for this opportunity to put before your Lordships an issue which I believe to be of the utmost importance for the present and future defence of this country. This is the issue of the denigration of the Chiefs of Staff organisation and the effect that will have not only on the evolution and the examination of our defence policy, but on the attitude of our allies not only in NATO but internationally.
We have in circulation at the moment, indeed we have had for several weeks now, a discussion document issued by the Secretary of State for Defence. The document is entitled MINIS and the Development of the Organisation for Defence. Your Lordships will remember that MINIS, which means management information system for Ministers, was first applied by the present Secretary of State to his then Ministry of the Environment. MINIS, as the name implies, is essentially a tool for giving Ministers up-to-date information about the effectiveness of their departments.
There is no doubt that a MINIS-type examination of the Ministry of Defence is necessary and perhaps overdue. I am certain that a great deal of overlap of duties, both civil and military, takes place in that large Ministry. I would particularly point a finger at the Procurement Executive which to my mind has delayed and made more expensive some of the great defence contracts that have faced government during the last two decades.
However, it is not the Procurement Executive which I am here to talk about this evening, but the effect the proposed changes are likely to have on the development of this country's defence policy, on the highly significant weakening of the Chiefs of Staff organisation and the effect this will have on the morale and direction of our soldiers, sailors and airmen.
There is also a feeling, which I certainly share, that the present reorganisation, or possible reorganisation, is being carried out at such a speed that the spirit and morale of the armed forces are not being taken sufficiently into account. MINIS may have worked well in civilian Ministries, where there is no fighting force to control, where there are no issues of life and death, where morale may not be so important. But in the armed forces we are totally dependent on the morale and fighting spirit of our three services. It is a considerable factor which must not be taken lightly.
The general theme of the discussion document is more centralisation, more power to the Secretary of State and the Chief of the Defence Staff and the construction of a considerably expanded central defence staff. This general movement to a stronger central organisation for defence is nothing new. It has been evolving in the past two decades or so. It started with the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys; it continued with the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, and Lord Thorneycroft, with a great deal of encouragement from the late Lord Mountbatten and, more recently, the Nott/Lewin proposals took another step in this direction.
My argument this afternoon is that, yes, in certain areas a deep examination is highly desirable, but in others we have already now gone far enough. The next step, which is removing all the policy-making elements from the service departments and denigrating the Chiefs of Staff, is going too far. The plan is that individual service chiefs will lose their policy staff elements and be made responsible only for the morale and administration of their services—responsibility without power. The chiefs become no more than glorified inspector generals of their various services. This further step has sparked adverse comments from no fewer than four ex-Chiefs of Defence Staff in letters to the press. They have all worked the system and know its strengths and weaknesses; but, as I understand it, they are all against the chiefs being robbed of their limited stategic policy staffs.
I should like to mention a relevant point which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, the most recent incumbent of the CDS role, made in his letter to The Times newspaper dated 16th March. He was making the point that it was logical that there should be a further strengthening of the Central Staffs at the expense of the Naval, General and Air Staffs. However, he went on to add—and I quote:
"the single service Chiefs of Staff must of course be left with adequate staffs of their own to fulfil their responsibilities as the professional heads of their services and enable them to contribute considered advice to the CDS on matters of strategy and defence policy".
I agree with that latter sentiment most heartily. What are "adequate staffs" one asks? I must say that I was of the opinion that the present system, when put to the test in the most demanding scenario that could possibly be devised—the Falklands crisis—the organisation, worked admirably under the direction of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin.
But to start at the top. Constitutionally the management of defence starts with the Defence Council, which is the top level forum for discussing the management of national defence as the name implies. Its membership under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State consists of the other three Ministers involved in defence, the Chiefs of Staff, the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Permanent Under-Secretary. But the fact of the matter is that this top level organisation, which should have a dynamic all of its own, very seldom meets. When it does, it discusses issues of very insignificant moment. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord who may conclude this short debate could explain to the House why this top level decision-making body meets so seldom and what is seen to be its role under the possible reorganisation.
But it is the top policy-making level and, perhaps more particularly, the other end of the spectrum—the morale of the armed forces—that I should like to concentrate on this evening. The Chiefs of Staff is an organisation which has stood the test of war and, I would argue, peace as well. My belief is that the Falklands operation indicated that at times of war and operations it is at its very best. It is often suggested that the Chiefs in peacetime stand by their own corners, fight for their individual services and for their slice of the cake. I personally believe this to be reasonable and understandable, but it must not be allowed to go too
1160
far and it is not allowed to go too far. After all, the Secretary of State for Defence is the final arbiter. He has the power, if he has the will to use it.
Getting the lowest common denominator solution to a problem is also levelled at the Chiefs by those who do not know or understand the system. But from my considerable experience of the system, I would argue that as far as broad defence policy and planning are concerned, they make sure that every argument and aspect of a particularly difficult problem is well and truly discussed. This must be healthy for the policies of this country and for our defence posture as a whole.
My personal view is that the operation of the Chiefs of Staff in this country is the envy of our colleagues in NATO and elsewhere, and indeed our organisation has been copied by many of them. I realise that in the United States, who also copied our Chiefs of Staff organisation, there is an attempt to bring more power into the centre under the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. My information is that this move is being strongly resisted and will not succeed. It is fascinating to note that Caspar Weinberger is on record during the last few weeks in giving evidence to the Senate Committee on armed services. He said:
"There must be participation in policy making by those who will be responsible for executing it".
As I have said, I believe that the Chiefs of Staff, as they stand at the moment with their own limited policy staffs, can make sure that no arguments or aspects of a defence problem remain unexamined. This is a vital role. CDS has the right to tender his own advice but it goes much, much beyond that. His office is only a few yards from the office of the Secretary of State and he has ample opportunities to make his presence felt. It really is not just a question of putting official Chiefs of Staff and his own views—there is, there must be, a constant dialogue between Secretary of State and Chief of Defence Staff and I am sure that this happens under the present organisation. It certainaly happened in my day as Chief of Defence Staffs. The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, was the Secretary of State for Defence. We are delighted, may I say, to see him in this House with us.
The proposed office of management and budget, which is in the discussion document, also gives me cause for concern. This is really a copy of the United States organisation. We do not yet know exactly how it is going to operate if it comes about but there is every indication that there is going to be almost total Civil Service control with a very limited, low-level military voice being heard. In many ways, it puts the Civil Service and the military again in a confrontation situation. Surely, my Lords, we have seen enough of this in the past. Much, much work has been done to get the "frocks" and the military working together closely in the interests of defence. I would not like to see us return to the bad old days of confrontation.
I would like now to make four points, if I may, about the denigration of the Chiefs of Staff. The first one, and perhaps the most important, is their standing in their own service. To lose policy direction and some of their other responsibilities will make them no more (as I have mentioned earlier) than an inspector-general of their force. Yet they will have the responsibility for morale—responsibility, in this case, without power.

1161
The single services need someone whom they can recognise as their leader, deciding policy for their service, putting their case strongly to politicians if things go wrong, deciding what sort of equipment their service requires and arguing generally their case for them. And do not let us delude ourselves that the fighting force do not know or care about what is going on at the top level in defence. This may have been true 20 years ago—but not now. They are all better educated and interested and they want to know why certain decisions are taken.
What happens, I ask, when people start getting killed because of bad policy decisions by the central staffs because they have been insufficiently argued? Who carries the can? The central staffs under the proposed reorganisation?—I think not. Here we have "power without responsibility" being a recipe for disaster. The second point is that the word will soon get around NATO, and indeed the world, that the Chief of General Staff, the First Sea Lord, and the Chief of Air Staff have been reduced in status and lost their policy responsibility. There will be misunderstanding and doubt. At present there are many forums and bi-national consultations where the chiefs of individual services meet for important land, sea and air consultations. Our chiefs taking part—that is, if they are even invited eventually—must speak with authority. They will not be able to do this if policy formulation has gone elsewhere.
Thirdly, what will the Chiefs of Staff discuss when they meet in future? If defence policy is on the agenda, will they be able to make a valuable contribution? Will the testing examination of major policy issues take place as it does now? I think not. And I see the Chiefs of Staff Committee meeting less and less with a limited agenda and finishing up rather like the present Defence Council—the board of directors that seldom meets; a withering on the vine.
It is suggested in the Heseltine proposals that there will be a strong tri-service central staff doing away with the separate vice-chiefs and the single-service policy staffs. This tears the heart out of service departments. It also presumes that an officer who may have spent some 20 years in his own service can change his spots overnight. It does not happen like that. All my experience tells me that he will be looking over his shoulder to the day when he returns to his own service. If he has let them down, his career may suffer—and there is, indeed, a precedent. Look at the disaster of the Canadian experiment which they are at present trying to unravel. This issue of loyalty to one's own service does not have quite the same impact perhaps on the operational side. It is the formulation of future policy where the problems will arise, and do arise. I can also scent a significant aggravation factor beginning between the civil and the service officers, a situation which we managed to avoid during the past decade.
My Lords, I would finish by saying that I believe this House has a responsibility to ensure that our soldiers, sailors and airmen are not presented with any policy, any organisation or any action which would cause irresponsible loss of life or a lowering of morale. I personally will take some convincing that the reorganisational steps being taken, or about to be taken, at the highest level in the Ministry of Defence will satisfy these basic and fundamental requirements.
1162
I am sure that MINIS is an excellent system for cutting out overlapping responsibilities in a totally civil Ministry, and indeed in certain areas of the Defence Ministry as well. But if MINIS gets across policy discussion and service morale in any way, I am against it; and I hope that many noble and noble and gallant Lords will join me in this concern for the health and welfare of our splendid armed forces. I beg to move for Papers.
5.47 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, time, in these short debates, makes restraint on the usual courtesies with which one would like to start one's contribution to this very important debate; but let me briefly congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cameron, on the way that he has introduced this important debate, and also let me say to him on behalf of the House how pleased we are to see him back in obviously good health again.
As an ex-Minister who had every reason to want to exclude duplication and to get more teeth for the services at lower cost, I might perhaps be expected to support greater co-ordination of the sometimes fiercely independent services. However, I feel bound to criticise these proposals and to do so fairly emphatically, even though, in the first six months of my two-year stint at the Ministry of Defence, I was certainly looking for ways to make Ministers' lives easier and their tasks easier. But the purpose of a staff is to make its particular organisation or service more efficient. It is not the prime purpose of the three staffs to make advice to the Secretary of State more convenient to him. Neither, in peacetime, is it an advantage for Ministers to receive apparently common advice through only two people. To encourage and to listen to well thought-through policies developed by each service as a whole as to which parts of the threat they could each meet most economically is infinitely more rewarding. Nor should differences between the services be derided as they frequently are in the media in peacetime. Indeed I venture to suggest that they should be encouraged. Progress is dependent on conflict of opinion, just as in the civil sphere nearly all progress results from competition.
Morale as I see it, or fighting spirit as the Secretary of State refers to it, is but the final bloom on a healthy plant growing in good soil. The plant is the efficiency of the service and the soil is the policy of each service. The bloom and the plant will wither without the policy. Policy must be updated continuously by staff with a constant interface with all parts of their service at every level. Without the best naval policy, the Navy, for instance, will not be efficient and without efficiency morale will not last. These aspects of each service cannot be reorganised independently—they are inter-dependent.
The idea in this document of an all-wise, isolated central staff, with members from each service in turn doing rotating three-year stints, as I fancy it will work out, is just not practical. It will break down accountability; it will encourage a bias towards theory; and it will produce more compromise, not less, as lowest common denominators are sought. There will still be a need for top operational and planning staffs in each service. How can it be otherwise? To whom should the

1163
staff at lower levels report on staff matters if the vice-chiefs are removed?
In industry, which has been my life's main experience, in the era when big was considered beautiful and many disparate companies were increasingly grouped in common ownership, we made the same mistake as is proposed in this document by removing important people from their companies to form central staffs. Costs increased because the companies replaced the people removed. The companies were weakened by the loss of some of their best management. The central staff, without adequate back-up—no man is efficient without his back-up at a high level—were not really able to make a contribution. They quickly became out of touch and out of date. I am not of course referring to small offices controlling overall aspects such as finance. Even in fairly similar companies—for instance, in motor vehicle manufacture—efficiency has only returned to Jaguar, Landrover and Austin Rover volume cars when maximum decentralisation of policy—I repeat, "of policy"—as well as of operations has been returned to the operating companies.
Of course, the centralisation of head office staffs as a prelude to the amalgamation of very similar or totally similar operating companies did make, and does still make, much sense. However, the armed forces' operations in their own elements are much more dissimilar even than the motor car company examples which I have just given. In my view, the development of a balanced single-service policy is the foundation for efficiency and morale. This has nothing to do with the needs of wartime command about which Lord Mountbatten and Lord Montgomery knew so much, and already the example of the Falklands has been quoted by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cameron.
The peacetime needs for co-ordination to avoid among other things the appalling escalation of equipment costs are needs which I have described in this House before now, but I believe that the only safe and effective way of meeting those needs is for Ministers to be advised by the CDS, by the Permanent Under-Secretary and by scientists listening to the in-depth plans and claims of each service, even encouraging counter claims, as to the roles they could perform and at what cost. I simply cannot understand the merit of a Secretary of State and four Ministers—a "gang of five" I have to say—wanting to receive all their advice through only two people. It cannot make any organisational sense.
Economies through organisation are available. Let my right honourable friend or MINIS look at the counterparting of civil servants and service officers at every level throughout the Ministry of Defence. Let there be more emphasis on long-term dialogue, 10, 15 and 20 years ahead, to decide how each aspect of the threat will be met. Let this dialogue take place as it sensibly is usually done on a two-service and not a three-service basis. For example, the Russian submarine threat in the Atlantic is a subject as to what mix of naval and air systems can best and most economically meet that threat. In the case of busting attacking tanks or key points behind the lines on the central front, systems advocated by the Army and the
1164
Air Force are relevant. This dialogue of course on a two-service basis should take place in the presence of many, including the leaders of industry, scientists and civilian experts.
The essential building block for this dialogue and the only sound building block is the balanced, deeply thought through, individual policy of the Air Force, the Navy and the Army, respectively. The supreme need, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cameron, has said, is to keep each of our three fighting services the envy of the world.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am truly pleased to follow the noble Viscount. Lord Trenchard, because so many of your Lordships who intend to speak have personal experience of this difficult and sometimes emotive subject, but I think the noble Viscount must have the most recent experience of all, and that gave his remarks particular weight.
These are proposals to reduce or eliminate the single service input into major policy and operational decisions, and especially—and it seems to me this is the most important and disturbing part of the proposals—to remove the planning staffs from the Chiefs of Staff and to abolish the Vice-Chiefs of Staff of the single services. It looks neat on paper. It is undoubtedly a streamlined structure. It clarifies channels of responsibility, and it would save jobs—and there are jobs to be saved, as I think we all know. We ask: why has it not been done before? Why is it, as the paper itself says, that the 1963 proposals have not in fact been fully implemented?
Some will say that it is because of the war between the three services for a bigger cut of the cake; or it is because of their bloody-mindedness, which is a popular belief. There may be something in that, but the major reason I believe is that the single services often have a legitimate point of view which is different from that of the central planning staff and different from each other, that they have a right to express this point of view effectively, and that they are understandably determined to maintain this right against those who would wish to take it from them.
We are told that the single service Chiefs of Staff are of course on the Defence Council, that they have access to the Secretary of State and that they still have access, I am assured, to the Prime Minister in the last resort; but their planning staffs are taken away from them. What use is their advice and what power does it have unless, in these days, they have an effective research and planning back-up? All the time the difficulty and the complex nature of top-level defence decisions is growing. It is getting worse every day, with the acceleration of the development of defence technology, and it is not possible for them to represent their services or effectively to enter the debate if their planning staffs are taken from them.
Of course, the final decision is taken centrally—no one disputes that—but is it wise to eradicate from that decision the input of the single services? It may well be that the single service view will be inconvenient to the Secretary of State. It may be that it will delay the final decision; but it may also be that there is a vital place in top-level defence decisions for well-briefed, well-informed devil's advocates.

1165
I note that the paper pays tribute to the White Paper of 1963 and to the reforms there proposed, but it does not point out that the first time those reforms were tried, in the Healey defence reviews of 1964 and 1966, they produced a disastrously wrong judgment. The basic question was: could we afford our defence commitments on a £2,000 million budget? More specifically, could we therefore afford to maintain our commitments east of Suez without any seaborne air power? That was the crunch question.
The Navy, which knew most about it, still had its planning staff there, and it came up with the right answer—that it was not possible. No one would dispute today that that was the right answer. But the central staff, strengthened by the 1963 reforms, had little difficulty in steamrollering the Navy and coming to the incredible conclusion that Britain could maintain all its commitments east of Suez and scrap the aircraft-carriers at the same time. That is a danger that faces us again, and it will not go away. I maintain that we really must not eradicate from these big decisions the well-informed and effective views of the single services.
I note that the Secretary of State sets out three options for forming his central planning staff, and the one option which appears to me to make a grain of sense he dismisses. That is the third option. He suggests that the central staff might be divided into single service groups, and says:
"These groups would be responsible for all the operational and policy functions of that service but working within a single framework and under hgher-level direction".
That might go some way towards meeting the criticisms I have been making; but the Secretary of State in effect throws out this option, and the reason he gives for doing so are interesting. He says (and I quote again):
"The savings in top jobs would be fewer and solutions to common defence poblems would be reached more efficiently".
So he is talking about savings in jobs and more efficient decision-taking—but there are two other criteria. The first is that the right decision should be taken, and the second is that the decision should be reached by procedures that are considered fair by those who have to carry them out.
Neither of those criteria appear in this paper at all, or indeed in these proposals. Anyone with experience either as a serviceman or as a service Minister knows that these go to the heart of real defence planning and real defence requirements. Of course, good management is essential to the armed services; but wars are not won by management consultants, and where matters of defence are concerned what really matters is what actually happens when the chips are down. A defence structure, like the one that is suggested, may be logical and cost-effective: but it can be disastrous if it suppresses honest and well-informed disagreement or if it weakens service loyalty.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Hill-Norton: My Lords, the Defence Open Government Document, which has given rise to this debate, promises that there shall be—and I quote:
"a period of discussion and consultation leading to the working out of proposals for change".
It turns out that there is nowhere better in the country
1166
today in which discussion could take place than in your Lordships' House, so I do hope that the Defence Secretary will pay attention to what is being said by noble Lords and by noble and gallant Lords today, even if he does not like it.
It must surely be common ground that the morale of the three services is of quite overriding importance to any sensible defence policy. I therefore find it strange—indeed illuminating—that the matter is nowhere referred to in the document we are debating, although this is perhaps not surprising, given the belief which shines through that document that raw, commercial, managerial techniques are appropriate for dealing with people you were asking to die for you. Your Lordships will be well aware that they have not ever been, and they never will be, appropriate.
But I do not fully share the concern of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cameron, that the proposals before us will have a markedly adverse effect on the morale of all those men and women upon whom our sure defence depends. Sailors, soldiers and airmen are robust and steady people and they have, on the whole, a fine disregard for the bright ideas of politicians; and for centuries they have contrived to do their job very well despite them. But there can be no doubt that they will greatly resent any political attempt to belittle the professional heads of their services, and quite rightly so.
On the contrary, I entirely share the noble and gallant Lord's belief that the changes proposed, certainly in their present form, will seriously weaken the Chiefs of Staff organisation and, more important, thereby weaken the cutting edge of the services—and not only at the sharp end where it matters most. I have been a strong advocate before, during and after the time I held that great office of Chief of the Defence Staff, of strengthening his position, but neither to the extent nor in the manner which the Defence Secretary suggests.
There is in fact not too much wrong with the present system at the top, as I believe the other four noble and gallant Lords who have done the job in the last 20 years would agree. We have all made the system work, though we would all have wished for certain changes, and those initiated by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, have greatly improved the previous situation and probably go far enough, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cameron, said.
There is, nevertheless, ample room below the very top for quite large savings in both time and people, and a little money too, by the elimination of the duplication of functions and by smartening up the amorphous mass of the procurement process and the petty bureaucracy to which the Ministry is subject. Those are the sort of second-order things for which a fairly blunt instrument like MINIS might well be quite suitable.
But to remove the staffs supporting the professional heads of the three services, as the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, have just said, would inevitably weaken the quality of the advice available to the Chief of the Defence Staff. Also I must say it would quite certainly lead to hard and bitter divisions between the single services and the centre, just when they are starting to work very well together. And to

1167
suppose that there is some natural division or distinction between policy and management in the defence business is illusory. The formulation and the execution of policy are indivisible, because policy is only made to enable successful operations of war, or the deterrence of it, to be undertaken. Successful operations demand the right men, with the right weapons, and trained to use them in the right place at the right time. That simple truth encompasses plans, operational requirements for kit, training and logistics and it is quite plainly both impossible and unreal to draw a line within that matrix which neatly and tidily divides policy from management.
Nor can it possibly be seen how the single service chiefs of staff can "manage", as it is called, that business without adequate staffs to support them, much less—as the defence White Paper says at paragraph 214—
"be responsible for their total fighting efficiency and morale",
which of course they are. I must repeat what other noble Lords have already said. Power and responsibility are also indivisible and they must always go hand in hand. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cameron, made this point very forcefully and I support him to the hilt.
I hope that a desire for a solution, which merely looks tidy on paper and which seeks to save what can only be trivial sums in the context of a defence budget of £18 billion a year, will not lead to shutting the door on the best military advice, nor to the denigration or emasculation of those lifetime professionals who are charged with organising, training and leading the services upon which our lives ultimately depend.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I find myself in a difficult situation in that I have been preceded in the debate by two noble and gallant Lords with whom I had dealings as Secretary of State, and I am to be followed by two others. But I should first like to say how much we are indebted to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cameron, for introducing this debate and how privileged I feel to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton. We had dealings together in his distinguished period as chairman of the Military Committee of NATO, when he—as did all his predecessors—gave me very good advice when I was faced early in my term of office with a very serious problem of finding a new CDS, arising from the tragic death very early in his term of the late Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Sir Andrew Humphrey, and had to think very hard about the whole problem.
One point needs stressing. I hope and believe that when the Secretary of State says that this is a consultation paper, that is really meant. I hope indeed that, as has already been said, the debate in this House will be treated as an important part of that consultation. When I first read MINIS I was obliged to recall from my rather slender classical education the legendary brigand Procrustes, who had a bed which he carried around with him. If his victims were too small they were stretched to size, but if they were too big they were chopped off. I began to wonder whether the Secretary of State had some ministerial Procrustean bed that he was taking from one department to
1168
another. I am bound to say, because the services take an interest in form, that looking back at the performance of the Department of the Environment—as this House has had occasion to comment quite recently—does not inspire one with confidence that this system should be installed in the Ministry of Defence.
The other point that needs making very strongly is that the Ministry of Defence is very different from any other Ministry—and I had the honour and privilege of serving in quite a number—for two reasons: first, because it is half military and half civilian it is essential that the two bodies work well together; and, secondly—and there is no escaping this—the Secretary of State for Defence, unlike the Secretaries of State for the Environment or Education, is accountable to Parliament for every penny on the defence Vote. He cannot just threaten to shut grants off to local authorities and the rest. Everything that happens is his ultimate responsibility, and that makes it a very different organisational structure, with a need for the Secretary of State to be informed in all different channels from what seems now to be proposed.
Apart from my more recent experience, I had the unique experience in 1964 of going into the department a few months after it was set up as a tri-service department, being delegated by the then Secretary of State to be responsible for the integration, so far as we could, of the three services under the late Lord Mountbatten. I should like to place on record that, but for Lord Mountbatten's leadership, I do not believe we would ever have made a success of a combined services Ministry of Defence.
It is very important to stress that in this field caution and slowness, frustrating though they might be, are extremely important, because the services are very sensitive to what they may see as threats to their identity. Of course, the quality of the personnel of all our three services is the envy of many other nations and it largely derives from the traditions—from, for example, the regimental structures in the Army.
When I went back in 1976, I found that a good deal had been achieved although, quite obviously, one could wish that more had been done. It seems to me that it is not enough merely to say that the identity of the services must be retained, as the document does when it goes on to suggest that the chiefs of staff of the three services will not necessarily have access to their own Secretary of State. It says nothing about the access, which I deem it important that they should have collectively, to the Prime Minister. I found that a great nuisance, but I would defend their right to have that access and it is important. going right down through the services, that that should be known.
I also think it was a tremendous mistake to suggest that the vice-chiefs should be abolished, because I found that they were the key personnel in all three services. I do not see what function a chief of staff will have if he is not able to deal with operations and policy matters—if he is merely to be a shop steward for his service, although I can testify that they did that job extremely well in my time.
Nor would I suggest that one needs to stick to Buggins' turn, although it is well-known that each service makes it its concern to see that a very well

1169
qualified officer is available when, on the rotation, their turn would normally come to provide the chief of the defence staff. I accept that one must strengthen the centre, but, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, stated in his letter, which has already been referred to, it is very important that they should have adequate staffs to advise on strategy and defence policy.
Since time passes, I would make only one final point. In my view, it is also a mistake to suggest that the Chief Scientist and the Chief of Defence Procurement should have access to the Secretary of State only through the PUS. I was reminded of an adaptation of the old American saying that "The Lovells speak only to the Cabots and the Cabots speak only to God". I hope that there is no parallel there in what is being suggested as the new structure for the Ministry of Defence.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, as someone whose inglorious military career never raised him above the ranks, I feel a certain diffidence in taking part in a debate dominated by ex-Ministers and by those who have served with great distinction in the services. But it is important to emphasise that we should nevertheless be open-minded about the very serious set of organisational problems which has been submitted to us by the present Secretary of State in the consultation document.
It is also worth remembering that the chiefs of the armed services have not always been infallible in their prescriptions. They defend today with vigour the position of the chiefs of staff. There would have been no chiefs of staff if civilians had not pressed them upon the unwilling armed services of the pre-1914 period. We have heard an eloquent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Balhousie, as a former Chief of the Air Staff. There would have been no service for him to be the head of if the then admirals and generals had had their way in the post-1918 period. The development of defence has been a collaboration between civilian thinking and military thinking. This ought to make us at least open-minded about a civilian input into the theory of the organisation of the ministry.
My own concern is not with a particular interest. I take the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, that the morale of the services is likely to survive even errors at the top. My interest is in how the public views our organisation for defence and whether we can fully defend the present structure against possible criticism. It is not so much a matter of the competition between the various services for the necessarily limited resources that government and Parliament can allocate. It is becoming much more a question of how far defence, as a general category of expenditure and effort, including expenditure on highly trained and able men and women, can be justified and defended. I am not altogether happy about that, and I shall give my reasons, for what they are worth, in the debate on the Defence White Paper which we are to have tomorrow.
The main point is that there is some uncertainty—I believe understandable uncertainty—not merely about the nuts and bolts of the internal arrangements:
1170
about whether the formal and the informal structure of power within the ministry correspond. The present Secretary of State tells us that they do not. There is also uncertainty about whether the kind of thinking at the centre takes into account an era of change which is so rapid as possibly to make obsolete, almost before they are formulated, any policies, programmes or priorities of individual services. When we are seriously talking about star wars, do the stars belong to a single service?
Similarly, on scientific advice, I strongly agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, that scientific advice is of exceptional importance. It ought not to be mediated through anybody. The strengthening of that advice ought to be at least as important as the strengthening of financial control, which gets a much larger share of the discussion document. Somebody ranking as a Second Permanent Under-Secretary will clearly carry a great deal of weight in the ordinary way in which ministries operate.
Therefore, although I am willing to be convinced by noble and gallant Lords, who have great experience of these matters, and by others, I remain at the moment prepared to give some credence to a Secretary of State who is interested in and concerned about the way in which his ministry functions. The experience which he brings to it may not be wholly irrelevant. In that case he will clearly decide.
I should have thought that this was a great step forward. I can think of no previous case of this kind, where we have been given a discussion document and are here as one of the Houses of the Legislature to discuss it, and where it is regarded not as some kind of secret (we are always told that the Government are obsessed with secrecy) but as something which the public have the right to know about and to discuss. Therefore I join in welcoming the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Balhousie.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, the proposals set out in this open Government paper are a reversion to those which were put forward by Lord Mountbatten when he was Chief of the Defence Staff in 1962. They were not accepted then, largely because of the objections of his fellow chiefs of staff. They feared then that such an organisation would mean that the advice given to the Secretary of State by the central staff, particularly if it were integrated with the Civil Service staff, as is now proposed, would be too greatly tempered to suit the political and financial convenience of the Government; that it would not represent the real military need; and that it would lack the realism which derives from responsibility for execution and from the experience of those who have spent their lives in the service.
The current proposals raise the same fears. Nobody now wants to revert to the pre-1964 situation, nor does anyone contest that the Chief of the Defence Staff is responsible for the command of any forces engaged in operations overseas which are not operating under NATO command, that such situations occur rarely, and that they are not likely to be on a large scale. We must remember that the primary task of the Navy is to be prepared to operate with other NATO navies; that the primary task of the Army is to be prepared to operate with other NATO armies; and that the

1171
primary task of the Air Force is to be prepared to operate with other NATO air forces. In no case will British forces, executing these NATO tasks, be commanded by the Chief of the Defence Staff or by any of the single service chiefs of staff. In Lord Mountbatten's day there were still major joint-service commands overseas which could become involved in operations. That is no longer the case. Therefore the operational need for greater unity has largely disappeared.
Almost all of the business of the Ministry of Defence is concerned with organisation. The so-called policy staffs are principally concerned with how many units there should be—that is to say, combat ships, squadrons of aircraft, army units; how they should be equipped; what is needed to recruit, maintain and train them: and how they are to be accommodated. As has been said by many speakers, policy and management in these fields, the responsibility for which the Defence Secretary proposes to separate, go hand in hand, and are inextricably intertwined. Efficiency and morale, for which the single service chiefs of staff are to continue to be responsible, depend on sound and sensible policy, efficiently managed with expertise and consistency. That depends upon achieving the optimum balance between all the different factors—human, material and financial —which affect both the short-term and the long-term needs of the service.
No central staff, without close links with the units and with the training machine, which has no responsibility for execution, can replace this essential function of the single service staffs. Advice to the central staff must come from the single service source. The Defence Secretary's proposals appear to deprive the single service chief of staff of the means to weigh up all the factors affecting his service and to provide advice, based on that balance, to the Chief of the Defence Staff.
The proposals give total responsibility for management of the single services to their chiefs of staff, presiding over the executive committees of their service boards, which thus appear to become superfluous. This is accentuated by the proposal to establish a central office of management and budget, which would allocate what are called responsibility budgets to not only individual members to the service boards, but also major commands, which are all single-service. This central allocation of responsibility budgets, combined with the proposal to devolve greater powers within those allocations to commands, would severely limit the ability of the single-service chief of staff and his executive committee to "manage" his service. Are the service boards being preserved because it would need legislation and a lot of procedural readjustment to abolish them, or is it intended that they should gradually wither away for lack of any real function?
The proposals as they stand are open to severe criticism, and they have received it. But if they were modified to preserve the essential function of the single-service staffs, they could represent an important improvement, although probably no saving in manpower, senior or junior. There is no doubt that it is still very difficult to obtain a truly objective
1172
assessment of future needs, particularly in the equipment field.
We all know that sailors are biased in favour of ships, in which they can go to sea, airmen in favour of aircraft, in which they can fly, and soldiers in favour of bodies of men, particularly those with historic associations. Rather than introduce a significant increase in the central staff to achieve this (which is what the Secretary of State is proposing), more use should be made of the defence operational analysis establishment, which should be strengthened. Having originally been the Army operational research establishment, neither the Navy nor the Air Force has contributed sufficiently to it or made enough use of it. The result has been that it has not been able to produce the answers for them in time to affect decisions. I suggest that that might meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
There is one principle permeating the proposals that I welcome. It is the emphasis on placing responsibility for advice, decisions and execution on individuals rather than on committees. Committees are time-consuming. They are often inefficient and they seldom initiate anything. In technical matters they tend to result in unsatisfactory compromises, which do not provide the optimum technical solution. However, one must not overlook the fact that they are an essential element of the democratic process and that concentration of power in the hands of individuals has its dangers, particularly if it is military power.
I hope that in replying to the debate the noble Lord will be able to assure the House that the proposals as originally set out in March have been modified in the process of consultation to leave the single-service chiefs of staff with sufficient staff, and their boards with sufficient financial authority, to meet their responsibilities both for giving advice to the central machinery and for maintaining the morale and efficiency of their respective services.
6.33 p.m.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: My Lords, as the most junior officer so far to speak, I would first remind your Lordships that the services were the first nationalised industry, that they are the one that has never gone on strike and has never wanted to do so, and that they go on doing their duty. Most of this paper, some of which is good, has become known to us only by leaks. This is a complaint I have had against the present Government and other Governments, that there are too many official leaks, and, as a result, there are many unofficial leaks. If that is not bad for the morale of those concerned, I do not know what is. There have been leaks on this very question.
Of course, we must go for common procurement to reduce costs. That is a good concept, and the way of doing it will be discussed and sorted out. From a soldier's point of view, it is good to see an extra armoured regiment—but I will give your Lordships some facts first. At the moment, the armoured regiments in Germany cannot man their tanks even when up to establishment. Something wants sorting out there. The take-home pay of some soldiers in Germany now is less than it was three years ago. That is partly because of the LOA having been reduced. I

1173
know that there is to be an increase, but it has not come into effect. But not so many of those who are already serving are thinking of signing on.
I do a lot of travelling across the Atlantic, and I saw what happened in Canada. God defend that the same thing should happen here!—a mix-up of services, with everybody wearing green. Also, I see now a change in the United States, where they want to get away from a single military channel of advice and a single civilian channel of advice. They want to have what we have had. But now we seem to be changing, if these proposals come about.
There is a danger that the chiefs of staff, who are officially responsible for morale and management, will be blamed because of what is happening when, as has been said, they have no responsibility for what has happened. As one noble Lord commented, the chief of staff is really becoming an inspector-general—and they were done away with just before the beginning of the second world war. I wonder also how many senior officer posts are being abolished as a result of all this. Again, rumours and leaks say that a large number will be abolished. The pyramid is already getting steep in the services, and it must not get to the point where it is almost impossible to climb. I would have thought that, from the Government's point of view, the more in uniform the better at the present time.
Another rumour that is going around, and has been published in the press, is that the service directors of public relations are to go. I have some experience of that aspect. I had the honour and pleasure of serving under the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, as DPR for the Army: also for Mr. John Profumo and Mr. James Ramsden, with equal pleasure. I also served under the Ministry of Defence public relations officer Godfrey Hobbs. If I was the defence public relations officer today, I could not answer press inquiries about the frigate that hit a bridge on the Thames. The news reported that it performed a three-point turn. To me, that means almost an about turn, but I think it was in fact about 33 degrees. How could a single-service chap, trying to answer on behalf of the whole defence set-up, reply? He could not. The press want to know domestic details about the services when they ring up.
Finally, I believe we are entitled to know when it was that the present Chief of Defence Staff was told or consulted about this paper before it was published; and if and when the chiefs of staff were consulted.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Lewin: My Lords, in the very short time available to me the most useful service I can perform is to describe what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to as the Nott-Lewin initiatives of 1981, when changes were made in the responsibilities and organisation of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. My urge to make changes was born of many years of frustration at the inability of the chiefs of staff to grapple with the very difficult problems of strategic priorities and resource allocation. This frustration came to a head in the defence review of 1981, which was carried out at extremely high speed—far too fast for the reaction time of the chiefs of staff organisation. The single-service chiefs of staff, with their dual responsibilities for advising on broad strategy and resource allocation, and with their supreme
1174
responsibility as guardians of their own service, were fully occupied with defending their single-service interests. As CDS, I found it impossible to get them to grapple with the broader issues of strategy.
In the relative calm of the aftermath of that defence review, I made proposals to the then Secretary of State which were based on five principles. The first was that the Chief of Defence Staff should become the principal military adviser to the Secretary of State and to the Government in his own right, and no longer as the chairman of a committee with collective responsibility. I have nothing against committees—indeed, they are a very useful forum in which to debate matters—but I am against collective responsibility.
From that first principle followed the second: that the Chiefs of Staff Committee would become the forum in which the Chief of Defence Staff sought the advice of his colleagues. No longer would it be a forum of collective responsibility. The third principle preserved the position of the chiefs of staff. They would remain the professional heads of their single services responsible for their morale and efficiency. They would remain responsible for giving advice to the Secretary of State and to Ministers across the whole field of strategy, resource allocation and their own single service matters. They would retain their right of direct access to both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, so that if they do not like the advice that the CDS gave they had a way out to represent their own view.
The fourth principle concerned the central staff, which before had been responsible to the Chief of the Defence Staff in his position as chairman of Chiefs of Staffs Committee, and not to him individually. Therefore, the CDS had no staff of his own; he had only a staff which was responsible to the collective body. With these changes the central staff became accountable to the Chief of the Defence Staff in his own right. At last he would have a staff of his own and could set it studies with terms of reference which he did not have to get agreed with all the chiefs of staffs beforehand.
The fifth principle—and a vital one—was that the Chief of Defence Staff should become the chairman of a senior appointments committee which would consist of the chiefs of staffs. This committee would have responsibility for overseeing the promotion and appointments of all three-and four-star officers—Lieutenant-Generals, Generals and their equivalent—and the appointments of some two-star officers to important posts. This is essential to preserve the careers and the promotion prospects of those officers who might serve with objectivity in central staff appointments to the disappointment of their own services and with prejudice to their future careers if they go back to their own services which will be responsible for promotion from then on. In the present situation the chief of staff of a single service is solely responsible, in a situation which existed before 1981, for promotion and appointment of three-and four-star officers in his own service. If one accepts "Buggins' turn"—which I certainly do not—this meant that an individual single service chief of staff was solely responsible for selecting the future Chief of Defence Staff, and that cannot be right.

1175
These proposals were given wide discussion by the Minister of Defence, endorsed by the Secretary of State and approved by the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State chose a rather obscure way of promulgating them. They were, in fact, communicated in a letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence on 11th February 1982. They attracted very little attention at the time, but in my view they were the most significant change in a military organisation and the Ministry of Defence since 1964. Six weeks later the Argentinians invaded the Falklands and the new organisation was given a thorough test. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cameron, and other noble Lords, have been kind enough to say that it worked.
Now the Secretary of State has published a consultation document for discussion within the Ministry. I understand that there was no prior discussion before that document was launched in the Ministry. Obviously the Secretary of State expects consultation and discussion before detailed proposals emerge and are implemented. I have great faith in the wisdom of the Secretary of State who obviously knows about management, believing that he will listen to advice from within the Ministry of Defence, and indeed to advice that may emerge from this debate tonight.
If I were still in the position of advising the Secretary of State there are three important pieces of advice I would give to him. The first is that in reorganising the central staff I hope that he will not create divisions applicable to single services—Navy, Army and Air Force. This will only perpetuate the worst rivalries between the single services. War is no longer a matter for single services in isolation. We learnt that lesson in World War II. Each service is dependent on at least one of the others. If there are any divisions in the central staff I hope they will be functional and, as far as warfare is concerned. I hope they will be land/air, sea/air or maritime.
The second piece of advice is that I hope he will to the maximum extent integrate the service and civilian staffs. For too long there has been wasteful duplication of service and civilian staffs operating on the same subjects alongside one another. Here, I believe, there is certainly room for savings.
The third and quite the most important piece of advice is—here I echo many of the noble and gallant Lords who have already spoken—that if the single service chiefs of staff are to continue to give valuable advice on the whole field of strategic priorities and resource allocation, which I am sure they should, they must have adequate staffs of their own. This does not mean there is not room for change. I am sure that through history the naval, general and air staffs have been too large and the central staff too small. Those, then, are the pieces of advice that I hope the Secretary of State will heed.
I now turn briefly—and here I regret I must disagree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cameron— to the Motion on the Order Paper which refers to our standing in NATO and the morale of our forces. First, our standing in NATO. The senior military body in NATO is the Military Committee. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, was a most effective
1176
chairman of that body. Its members are the chiefs of defence of the NATO countries and, in permanent session, the chiefs of defence permanent representatives. The single service chiefs of staff have no position in NATO command. NATO operational command is exercised by three major NATO commanders. They are unified commanders who have command of all three services. They have land, air and naval deputies to advise them.
In my view, the sort of changes we have already made and which are likely to emerge from this consultation document will, if anything, strengthen our standing in NATO because they enhance the position of the chief of the defence staff. As to morale, in my experience the man at the sharp end does not look to Whitehall for inspiration. He looks to his immediate operational commander and, through him, to the operational commanders up the line. It was "Bomber" Harris, Monty, Bill Slim and "Dickie" Mountbatten, ABC and Philip Vian who inspired the soldiers, sailors. airmen and the public in the last war; not the people in Whitehall.
The greatest service that the Whitehall organisation can do is to provide the operational commander with clear directives, with the resources to carry out those directives and with timely political decisions based on sound military advice when he needs them. I believe that, wisely implemented, the changes which the Secretary of State is now considering will ensure this.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I lack the experience or knowledge to take part in the mainstream of this debate but should like to single out a relatively minor matter which is in the MINIS paper and where I hope that the Secretary of State will proceed as he proposes; that is, the setting up of a central defence Arms Control Unit.
I take for the moment the story of Trident. In the first paper setting out the reasons for procuring the Trident force, the Government touched on arms control only in so far as they pointed out that the Trident force would not infringe any existing treaty. The paper did not touch on the question of disarmament at all. The statement on the Defence Estimates which we shall be debating tomorrow does touch upon Trident and disarmament when it says, rather disarmingly, that if there are deep strategic reductions between the United States and the Soviet Union,
"we would want to review our position and to consider how best the United Kingdom could contribute to arms control."
Well, yes, indeed, but of course we do not have the slightest idea how we could, because nobody has given the matter a moment's thought. That is why I hope that this new unit will be set up and will be immediately directed to think about that.
If the unit swiftly reports as follows, the Secretary of State will know that he has a good unit. I mean by that, if it reports, first, that four boats is the minimum number that can ensure that one is always on station, and reduction in that number is therefore not possible; second, that it has already been agreed by the United States and the Soviet Union that any weapon system will be deemed to carry the maximum number of

1177
missiles, warheads, and so on, that it has been tested with; and, third, that if a weapon system is claimed to be carrying less than that maximum, the claim must be verifiable by the other side. This would require constantly updated on-site inspection, which would be incompatible with the level of security required for the Trident force.
If the unit goes on to report that the British Trident force is, therefore, an intrinsically undisarmable system, and that, if real multilateral nuclear disarmament ever really begins around it, it will face the Government of the time with a choice between sudden and total strategic nuclear disarmament and becoming an obstacle to the whole multilateral process—if the unit reports like that, the Secretary of State will know that he has a good unit.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I think that we should all be grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cameron. Indeed, I agree greatly with practically everything that he said. I would propose to confine myself to the morale aspects of his Motion, which I do not think have been touched on perhaps as much as they should have been, and to concentrate particularly on Canada, where I had the privilege of being the naval adviser to the British High Commissioner in 1965 and 1966, when the Canadians were introducing their own very similar arrangements—similar in this case in particular in relation to the reorganisation of their staff and the abolition of policy staffs for the three service chiefs, and, indeed, the abolition of the three service chiefs as well.
It is true that they were also put into a common uniform and that Lord Mountbatten, who visited Canada while I was there, thought that that was going too far. But the common uniform was only part of it, and while I was there it had not really been introduced. The point that I think I would ask my noble friend the Minister to convey to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is that Mr. Hellyer, who introduced this in Canada in 1965–66, subsequently went downwards on the ministerial ladder and never again held as high an appointment.
I have had quite a lot to do with the Canadians. My father commanded the Canadian cavalry brigade during the First World War. I think you could probably say that the Canadian Army grew up during that war. The Canadian Navy was very much under RN control in the intervening peacetime. It grew up, as indeed did the Royal Canadian Air Force, in the Second World War. It had its difficulties. I was in the Western Approaches for practically the whole war and had a lot to do with it. Indeed, at one time I had a Canadian captain in a British ship. He went on to be the equivalent of our C-in-C Fleet at a later stage.
The Canadian Navy had a sticky start because the Canadians multiplied the size of their navy ten-fold during the first two years of the war, and it was extremely inefficient to begin with. But it is fair to say that it came out of the war as a fine fighting force, and it was a splendid partner in NATO in those post-war years. It did some quite impressive work all on its own. It initiated the carrying of helicopters in small ships—destroyers and frigates—before either the
1178
Royal Navy, or certainly the United States Navy, had even thought of that. It carried out great developments with extensive trials in hydrofoil A/S warships. It was a good, and, when I knew it, a thriving force, full of enthusiasm. Then Mr. Hellyer did his fell deed.
I agree with noble and gallant Lords who have said that the sailors, soldiers and airmen are not directly concerned about what happens to the people in their ministries, but their officers are. If their officers, particularly their local commander-in-chief, is deeply disturbed at what is happening and reflects that, it reflects on the morale of the force as a whole. Certainly back in the late 1960s it was true that the removal of any semblance of coherent operational leadership within the naval service headquarters (which itself had been abolished) knocked for six the morale of the officers and the sailors suffered badly. Only last summer I was talking to a Canadian admiral, now retired, and I asked whether they had recovered from that. He said, "Quite frankly, no". The single uniform has been sort of phased down and it does not appear very often, but the Canadians suffered badly and it affected their morale. They knew that their senior officers did not have the knowledge in regard to policy-making staffs which they could use when they had to argue for their own service.
I know that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, has much greater experience in these things. I am surprised that he is quite so enthusiastic about what is suggested here. It would seem to me that the five principles which he spelt out to us are quite far enough to go. It surprises me that the Secretary of State wants to go further.
Turning now to that point (as I think perhaps I have a minute) it seems to me that the area in which the Secretary of State has demonstrated his own skill has been in introducing MINIS into the Department of the Environment and that he has done great things in trying to introduce a spirit of accountability in the Civil Service. The services have their own spirit of accountability. He does not need to carry it further there.
One of my friends who was very senior in the Ministry of Defence told me about six or seven years ago that he thought the efficiency of the Ministry of Defence would improve dramatically if 60 under-secretaries and their supporting staff were sacked from the Civil Service. It is that sort of thing which I think that noble and gallant Lords have touched upon, too. I should have thought that, if the Secretary of State concentrated on making the Civil Service more efficient, and allowed the single-service chiefs of staff to maintain their status by having proper policy staffs to support them, that is the kind of situation with which we want to end up.
,6.58 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I share the diffidence—in my case it amounts to terror—expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in venturing to take part in a debate in this exalted company, which of course includes the noble Lord who has just spoken, the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton, and others. I shall speak for five minutes. If I have not said what I want to say by the end of five minutes, that is just too

1179
bad. But to make quite sure that I make my main point without being closured by the clock, I will say straight away that I am sure that nothing must be done to disturb the leadership provided by the professional service chiefs. That means, of course, that I am entirely, in my respectful way, behind the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who started the debate. That is to me the beginning, although not of course the end, of wisdom.
But I think that there is a special aspect of this which is just worth touching on in these few minutes. We have to see this in the light of a decline and fall since the war of the service Ministers. They have almost ceased to exist, certainly in the old sense. When I first began speaking for the Government in this House, there were three service Ministers who were members of the Cabinet. By the time I was Under-Secretary of State for War, they had been ejected from the Cabinet, but still they were quite important people.
When I was First Lord of the Admiralty for a few months in 1951, we were again still quite important people. For example, I was a member of the Defence Committee. So the service Ministers still had some power of offering leadership but they were apt to be there for too short a time, apart from any personal failings.
When we appeared again in Government at the time of Mr. Wilson's Cabinet, in the old sense the service Ministers had disappeared. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will remember this all too well because he was the Minister for the Navy and was not allowed to make the representations which he has just laid before the House this afternoon. It would have been much better for all of us if he had been allowed to make those representations to the equivalent of the Defence Committee, but they had been downgraded to the point where this was impossible. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, to his eternal credit, resigned from that office. I am sure one of the principal grounds for that was that he did not have a chance to make these views plain.
So the service Ministers have been steadily downgraded. In my opinion this makes the argument for making quite sure that the service professional chiefs are not downgraded overwhelmingly convincing. In any case, the services looked to the professional chiefs more than they would to the rather itinerant service Ministers.
When I was Under-Secretary for War, I remember Lord Montgomery taking me down to the Staff College. I was placed on a platform beside Lord Montgomery and I suppose I was nominally in command of him—but not in any real sense. He gave an eloquent address to all these officers in uniform and I was a rather timid civilian sitting beside him. He finished his address by saying,
"Never forget this, gentlemen: the politicians are our masters"
there was loud laughter at this remark as they noticed the relative confidence of the Field Marshal and myself—
"and it is up to us to lead them up the garden path!"
That was very well received at the Staff College. So even then, when the service Ministers were rather important, even if the Secretary of State had been
1180
there instead of me, he would not have been in the Cabinet and he would not have cut all that much ice with those staff officers.
So then it was all-important that the professional chiefs should be identifiable because, if they were not going to provide the leadership, no one else was. That is even truer today. I have been quicker than I thought. I have spoken for less than five minutes, and I applaud emphatically the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.
7.3 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I presume to intervene among all this noble and gallant top brass for only one purpose, which is to draw attention to the position of the volunteer reserves and cadet forces under this proposed reorganisation. For brevity, I should like to refer mainly to the Territorial Army, or the TA, which is of course the largest component of the volunteer reserves at the moment.
May I remind your Lordships' that the TA provides nearly 30 per cent. of the mobilisation strength of the British Army at a cost of about 1.4 per cent. of the defence budget at the moment. When the planned expansion of the TA is complete by 1990 it will represent about 40 per cent. of the mobilised Army. It is therefore the most cost-effective part of our forces and vital indeed to our defence strategy.
Over the past four years the TA has gone from strength to strength. Overall now it is about 96 per cent. recruited. It is well-equipped and its morale is high. For this we are greatly indebted to the priority given to the TA by Her Majesty's Government and credit is especially due to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, who has taken a very personal interest in the TA and the cadets. For example, his recent appeal by personal letter to 600 major employers, asking for their support, has resulted in a very encouraging and remarkable response. I am delighted to take the opportunity of thanking him on their behalf.
But the reserve forces are not attractive only on military and financial grounds. They also provide a very valuable element within the civilian community, which brings home the importance of defence and voluntary service. There are 14 territorial, auxiliary and volunteer reserve associations, known as TAVRAs, which cover the whole country and are responsible for the recuiting, housing and administration of the TA and, to varying degrees, the other volunteer forces. These are efficient, low-cost organisations which operate, in the words of the White Paper, on the basis of responsibility budgets. Their membership consists mainly of prominent people from all walks of life who give their services free. It is they who provide the bridge between the civilian and military worlds. I believe they are indispensable to encouraging and sustaining support for the volunteer forces. The work of the associations is being coordinated by their council in London.
Essential to these well-proven arrangements are the close links which have always existed between the associations and their council, on the one hand, and the Ministry of Defence, on the other. I am therefore concerned that any reorganisation should not damage these arrangements. It is especially important that this should not happen at a time when we are in the process of expanding the TA, which is happening now.

1181
Since its formation in 1908 the TA has always had its own director in the defence Ministry, who has never been below the rank of major general. This enables all elements of management and financial control to be combined under one director, who can concentrate exclusively on TA and cadet affairs and, most importantly, is at the right level. I believe it is vital that this continues.
I therefore, strongly hope that the Directorate of Territorial Army and Cadets remains much as it is now at two-star level within the Army Department. It may be possible, with advantage, to extend the director's responsibilities to accommodate certain selected aspects of the other reserve forces. I personally think that that would be desirable. It may also be possible to delegate more responsibilities to the associations. But beyond this there can be no justification for change, and it must be a mistake to disturb a system which is working so well. I believe that this present situation gives proper recognition to the importance and status of our volunteer forces and also provides the surest way of their continuing as an expanded and operationally effective component of our services into the future.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, the maintenance of the morale of our fighting services is clearly absolutely crucial. But I will say nothing more about that because the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, has expressed what I feel so much more authoritatively and eloquently than I possibly could. But I do find it very difficult to believe that a prime determinant of morale is organisation at headquarters in Whitehall.
Unlike so many people who have spoken in this debate, I have not served in the Ministry of Defence, but I have had a long association with it, as secretary of the Joint Intelligence Committee, dealing with the MoD and the Treasury, and then for six and a half years as secretary of the Cabinet, including chairing one of the Defence Review steering committees. I do not intend to breach any confidences, or give any examples, but I am left with the profound conviction, that, at least until the Nott/Lewin reforms, the present organisation in the Ministry of Defence did not give either the best service to Ministers in terms of the presentation of policy and resource options or the best service to the armed forces in terms of clear and consistent direction, with sufficient priority given to teeth rather than tail.
Why is this? The underlying aim of the 1963 White Paper was a unified policy-making within the Ministry of Defence. I think most people expected that the amalgamation of the old service departments would be followed by further streamlining and rationalisation. I do not believe that that has happened, and indeed in many ways the old federal structure is more entrenched than ever before.
This is not to say that the Ministry of Defence is inefficient. It is not; though anyone who studied its organisation chart closely would think it a miracle that it worked at all. But, given the virtual unanimity of the people who have spoken in this debate tonight, perhaps to redress the balance I can put my worries a little more bluntly than I might otherwise have done.
1182
I think there are four weaknesses which stem from the present organisation. First, the Ministry is slow to respond because so many people have to be consulted and there are so many vested interests. This applies particularly to things which go to the higher reaches. I except, of course, something like the Falklands operation, where all tribal loyalties were put on one side and it was all hands to the pump.
Secondly, I think that the present organisation tends to mean that any solution which emerges is a compromise solution, and we all know a compromise solution is no one's first choice and you tend therefore to get something which is second best. Thirdly, once that compromise has been reached, it is extremely difficult to modify or adjust it, or the whole deal comes unravelled. Fourthly, I am convinced that the Ministry of Defence employs too many people, particularly at high level, both civilian and service.
I believe therefore that what was suggested in 1963 and adopted in 1964 is even more necessary now because the services are more interdependent, because hardware is more expensive and takes longer to procure, and because resources are scarcer. Therefore, the need for difficult policy choices and clear priorities is greater than ever before.
I welcome the Secretary of State's willingness to tackle this problem in a radical way. I am not arguing that he has got all the answers right. I do not think, as is evident to anyone who has read the consultation document, that he is arguing that either. I am not altogether clear precisely what role is envisaged for the chiefs of staff. I think that there is some flavour of a distinction between the people who matter at the top, those who deal with all the interesting policy things, and the people who are left to get on with management. We have all learnt, or have been told, in the Civil Service that management is just as important as policy. In any case, in this field, what we are talking about often is not management but leadership.
I believe that there is a crucial distinction, which the consultation document is attempting to make, between an integrated—in every sense of the word—civilian service, an integrated tri-service staff, reporting to the Secretary of State on key policy and resource issues where Ministers are necessarily concerned and have to take an overall view, and, on the other hand, the maximum decentralisation and delegation to individuals who are accountable. I hope very much therefore that the Secretary of State will be able to develop his proposals in a way that will achieve those objectives and at the same time will carry the confidence of the fighting services.
7.13 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I remind myself that the intention of the debate is to,
"call attention to the necessity of maintaining the morale of the three services and their standing in NATO".
I take it as axiomatic that the standing in NATO or the standing of any nation in relation to its allies will depend largely on the morale of the services themselves at home. I wonder, therefore, what is the effect of the proposals of the Secretary of State on morale. This is the question that is really before us.
The paper, the MINIS report, has only two allusions

1183
to morale. The word itself appears, I think, once only, in paragraph 7 of page 4, where it says:
"I envisage that they should continue to be responsible"—
that is, the chiefs of staff—
"for the total efficiency and morale of their Services".
This passage has been quoted once or twice already. It goes on:
"In future, however, I wish them to report through CDS to me for that purpose".
I would have expected that sentence to read, "If it is suitable, it shall happen", or something of that sort, that they shall report through the Chief of the Defence Staff to the Secretary of State. It does not say that. It says:
"I wish them to report‥. to me".
I do not suggest for a moment that the significance of that difference was plain to the writer of the passage, but to me it is powerful enough to cast a shadow over the whole document, I am bound to confess. I read again:
"I wish them to report‥. to me for that purpose".
What is the purpose? We go back one line, It is to ensure,
"the total efficiency and morale of their Services".
The chiefs of staff are responsible for the morale of their services to the Secretary of State.
That tempts me to go back a page to look at the other allusion to morale. The actual word is not used, but I think that paragraph 5 refers to the same subject. He quotes from the 1963 White Paper, Central Organisation for Defence. That was 21 years ago. It seems a long way to go back for an authority. The quotation reads:
"the fighting spirit of the individual man in battle derives largely from his loyalty to his ship, his unit or his squadron".
I dare say that it does. It also depends on such things as loyalty to comrades, courage, resolution, physical fitness and well being, which, in turn, depend on adequate food, clothing, training, discipline and so on. Fighting spirit is not exactly the whole thing that we are talking about.
It is possible that no serviceman now serving will ever see a battle or do any fighting in the whole of his service life. I hope that he will not, and I do not believe that he will. Fighting spirit arises out of the absolute spirit of the man in peacetime, surely. The absolute spirit of the man in peacetime, if I may use that phrase, comes under the general heading of what we refer to as esprit de corps.
That phrase is well enough known and is probably understood, but there is no harm in trying to define it now and again because it is not all that clear. There are two parts to it. Firstly, there is the mental attitude of any individual towards the organisation to which he belongs; that is to say, the effect (the spiritual effect, if you like) that it has on him. Secondly, and the other way round, there is the attitude of mind, the spirit, of the organisation itself as the sum total of all the attitudes of those individuals to whom I have referred; that is to say, the spirit of the organisation as the sum of all the other individual attitudes—and the sum, not for the first time, is greater than the sum of its parts.
1184
Probably the chief ingredient of esprit de corps is pride. It may well be pride in a ship, a regiment or a squadron. But there is no mention or suggestion anywhere in the document of any awareness that a man may be proud of his service. The sailor is proud of the naval service, the fleet in which he serves. Correspondingly, the soldier and the airman. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, I think, said,—he will correct me if I quote him madly wrong, but I do not think that I do—"Do not let us delude ourselves that the fighting forces do not know what goes on at the top". The noble Lord went on to say, I think, that 20 years ago that might have been so, but it is not so now.
I am sure the noble Lord is right. They read the newspapers, they look at television, and they hear the wireless. They know what goes on. Every time the authority of their leaders is whittled away or curtailed—it can happen over and over again—it is experienced and felt as a denigration right the way down the line. Whether or not the fighting spirit of the man is undermined is not the question. The question is whether or not he is affected by the action of somebody outside his service knocking the man at the top and reducing the standing in his eyes of his leaders. This is what I believe is done by the document. I confess that I do not like it.
One of the reasons possibly for the new organisation is the distrust evinced by Minister after Minister, I suspect, of the inter-service rivalry that goes on. It is a harmful thing, possibly, but it is also a good thing. The harmful aspect puts me in mind of a marvellous piece of advice that I heard some years ago from my noble friend who sits just in front of me, my noble friend Lord Whitelaw. I have borne it in mind for years. My noble friend said, "When anything goes wrong—and something will always go wrong—what I do is to see how I can turn it to my advantage".
Lord Graham of Edmonton: He has not changed, my Lords.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, my noble friend is also free to correct me if I have it wrong. This is the exact opposite of what Ministers do when they say that something is going wrong in the organisation and they will therefore get rid of it. Inter-service rivalry is a good thing, and if the inter-service rivals get tiresome then one can get rid of them. As it is, I think my seven minutes are up. I hope I have made the point that I do not like this document. I think I detect in it a great arrogance and a refusal to consider at all the individual soldier, sailor and airman.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we are all indebted to the initative of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cameron of Balhousie. His speech tonight has served us very well indeed in a number of ways. I took particular note of one or two of the comments that he made. He talked about responsibility without power; he talked about power without responsibility; and he named names to whom, in his view, that tag should be attached. He talked about the denigration of the chiefs of staff, and in a letter that he wrote to The Times he expressed his concern that a weak chief of defence staff

1185
and a strong Secretary of State could be a lethal combination. He has given us illustrations of how that could be the situation here today. I took particular note of the comments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton. I think I have it right in saying that he damned the proposals powerfully when he called them raw, commercial techniques, inappropriate when dealing with men being asked to die for one.
This short debate is about confidence, or the lack of it, morale, or the lack of it. Noble Lords do not easily or irresponsibly take the time of this House unless they are moved by matters of vital concern, of national concern. That is why we on the Labour Benches have taken very careful note of the reactions in many quarters to the current proposals of the Government to centralise staff at the Ministry of Defence. I want to say at once that we do not cavil at endeavours by any Secretary of State to effect savings in the running of his department. What we expect the Minister to justify tonight is the merit of these precise changes, the effect of these changes. We will await with interest his rebuttal of the main charge in the Motion before us—that these changes are damaging to the national interest and that they weaken the morale of our fighting forces.
There is an attractive ring about many of the phrases in the document. Some examples are:
"moving towards a more coherent structure for decision-making on central issues";
s"The Ministry will need to be strong and resilient and its decisions need to be right";
"We need to strenghten the fighting effectiveness of our forces";
"It is my intention to improve efficiency and to achieve significant savings".
But as the House will have deduced, not once but many times before, it is a case not of what one does or says one will do but of the way that one does it. We shall want to examine closely just how the Secretary of State sets about his task.
We have noted, for instance, that he is consulting urgently with the procurement executive, representing 43,000, responsible for buying £8 billion of defence equipment. How can they be made more efficient? In the Defence Estimates debate on 25th October last year the noble Lord. Lord Trefgarne, told us, at col.
234:
"The Ministry of Defence is by far the largest single customer of British industry. In all, more than 90 per cent. of our defence equipment expenditure is spent here in the United Kingdom, supporting no fewer than 242,000 jobs directly ‥. and 193,000 indirectly. MOD procurement of non-equipment items supports a total of 160,000 jobs, and sales of defence equipment abroad another 145,000".
Those words underline the size and the scale of the defence industry. It is indeed big business, and inevitably there must always be savings to be made. No one on these Benches will take offence at a process designed to get better value for money. But can we be told how much less money will be needed to perform the same tasks? Will procedures be tightened? Will real waste be eliminated? We on these Benches will want to get our priorities right. Can the House be told about the plans mentioned by the Secretary of State in another place on 12th March to improve efficiency and to achieve significant savings?
How are significant savings to be achieved by the document before us tonight? How will the result of this
1186
review of the future development of the organisation be translated meaningfully into higher spending, for instance, on jobs, on health, on education and on pensions? I believe that the country will want to have from the Government not just phrases or promises but real benefits, if not for the fighting forces then from other aspects of Government expenditure. Can we be told whether, regardless of any efficiency savings, the Government are still committed to fill any gap created with more expenditure, plus 3 per cent.? We want to reduce expenditure on arms. How hard are this Government trying to do just that?
I know that noble Lords in all parts of the House will have noted with great interest the report of a meeting of Foreign Ministers and their decision to re-launch the Western European Union. We shall be glad to have the Minister's comments on this and upon its relevance in relation to NATO. After all, this debate concerns service morale in NATO. It appears to be a French initiative and it needs to be made abundantly clear that it will not weaken or upset the aims and objectives of NATO itself. Some of us noted the highly critical comments of Sir John Nott, but provided there is complete understanding this could be a way of bringing France back into more active participation with NATO. We shall need to think about this again, but the Minister's preliminary observations will be appreciated.
The Minister will have had his attention drawn to certain reports. I quote the Daily Telegraph of 21 st May, which indicated that the chiefs of staff have signed a memorandum expressing anxiety at the major reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence's policy-making machinery. Can we be told if that is true? Can we be told what they said? Can we be told the terms of the ministerial response to them? The Mail on Sunday tells us that there is speculation that unless the Secretary of State modifies his hard line the chiefs may appeal directly to the Prime Minister. Has that appeal been made, and what was the response?
There has been much unease at the intentions of the Minister, best summed up in some newspaper headlines: "Armed Chiefs to Lose Power"; "Heseltine's Surprise Attack on the Forces"; "Concern to Keep Up Service Morale"; "Ex-Naval Chief Attacks Defence 'Utopia' Proposals"; "Need for Care over MoD Dismantling"; "Concern over Heseltine Plan"; "Heseltine Axe Angers Service Chiefs".
The basis for these comments, the unease, the distress, have all been borne out fully in this debate tonight. I believe that we should heed fully the plea of the Admiral of the Fleet, Sir Henry Leach, when he wrote in The Times on 7th May:
"So far throughout the 1980s defence has been in a state of continual turmoil, brought about by a succession of reviews, each more disrupting than the last. What is badly required now is a period of stability in which all concerned can implement a clear policy and get on with the job. Imposing a monstrous upheaval of internal organisation will hardly facilitate this".
Nothing said by interested and concerned Members of this House can match the deep knowledge of those who have spoken from their former or current responsibilities for caring for the morale of our fighting forces. Their right to do so is beyond question. The spirit of their speeches added greatly to the value of

1187
this debate. They were right to raise the issues. They are joined and supported from these Benches. They deserve some straight answers, and I hope they get them tonight.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken today, first, I should like to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cameron, on initiating our discussion this evening. Indeed, this debate must be unique in the wealth of knowledge and experience that has been drawn upon in the course of discussion. There can be few occasions when four former chiefs of the defence staff, a former Secretary of State for Defence, and a former Secretary to the Cabinet all speak during a short debate, not to mention three former defence ministers and, yes, one parliamentary under-secretary.
Defence is a matter which should concern every citizen. The way it is organised and managed is a matter of national importance. It is also, as the noble and gallant Lord's Motion before us today suggests, of great significance to our servicemen and our NATO allies.
The proposals for changes in the defence organisation which my right honourable friend announced to Parliament on 12th March, and which we published at that time as a defence open government document, marked the beginning of a period of discussion and consultation on the issues raised. The Government therefore welcome informed comment and advice on ideas at this stage, before they are given final form.
Your Lordships have expressed a variety of views and raised some important questions about our proposals for change. All that has been said we shall reflect upon before we reach firm and final views on how our proposals will be carried forward in detail. However, I hope that this evening I shall be able to add to your Lordships' understanding of the Government's aim and intentions in this important area, and perhaps provide some reassurance to those who have expressed their doubts.
I would ask your Lordships, first, to consider the wider context in which our proposals have been framed. I should like to stress three points. First, this Administration have given the highest priority to the strengthening of the country's defences. Not only has the defence budget risen substantially in real terms since 1979, but we have also, I believe, over that period restored the morale of our services and their confidence about their future. Britain's standing in the Alliance is high. For all of us, the services' military success in the Falklands acted as a reminder—if it were needed—of the brilliance, determination and sheer professionalism of our armed forces. By our defence policies we have shown that the Government's deterrent posture is firm, and that we are determined to maintain strong armed forces, well equipped and properly manned. That is the defence policy background against which the Government's proposals for changes in organisation ought to be considered.
My second point concerns the forces themselves. We recognise—and it would be only sensible for any
1188
British Government to recognise this—that the country's defence depends principally on three its services, each with a glorious history, each with its own powerful traditions and loyalties, and each determined to serve this country to the best of its ability in the future. We are not embarking upon the Canadian type of organisation, where there are much smaller unified services.
It is the starting point in my right honourable friend's proposals that the separate identity of the three armed forces must, and will, be preserved, and I know that this was very much in the mind of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, chided my right honourable friend for omitting from this paper reference to the morale of the services, but I would refer the noble and gallant Lord to paragraph 5 in particular.
Thirdly, it is our aim to preserve what is best in our institutions, while striving to improve them where we can. There can he few who regard any organisation as so perfect that it cannot be improved, and so we must keep our minds open to organisational change. The Government have laid great emphasis on defence and we must be satisfied that we are getting value for the money we spend. The taxpayer has a right to expect that the systems for managing that expenditure are subjected to rigorous questioning from time to time. A rising budget must be put to the best possible use, and that must mean, in the case of defence, more resources for the front line, with support services and administration provided at the minimum necessary cost.
These are, of course, not new sentiments, but that must not lead us to be complacent about them. The defence organisation is not just about money: but your Lordships will agree that the allocation of resources between, and within, the services is one of the central issues for the higher defence organisation.
That, in brief, is the context in which my right honourable friend is examining the existing defence organisation, adopting for that purpose the management information system (MINIS) which he had himself developed. As your Lordships know, it is not a new idea in the Ministry of Defence that costs should be cut where possible, that parts of the organisation should be regularly scrutinised, or that there should be annual reviews of long-term plans. What is new about MINIS is the concept of a comprehensive and systematic review by ministers and top management of the work of the middle- to senior-ranking officers and officials.
The conclusions which my right honourable friend reached from his detailed examination of the department at work over the last year are set out in the open government document concerning the structure of the defence organisation. Your Lordships may have noted that the title of this document refers to MINIS and to the development of the organisation for defence.
So far as allegations of over-hasty elaboration of these proposals are concerned, I should like to stress that while the changes we are seeking are substantial ones, they are, as we see it, evolutionary and not revolutionary. We are in no doubt that there is much that the present organisation does extremely well (for example, the mounting of the Falklands campaign)

1189
and the quality of the staff, service and civilian, is very high.
But there is, we believe, scope for worthwhile improvement, building on past developments and seeking in particular to realise now the aims and objectives which underlay the establishment of a unified defence ministry 20 years ago. We hope thus to ensure that the country's defence needs are met effectively and efficiently.
A number of noble Lords who have spoken have recognised that change is desirable. There are differences of emphasis and view about what should be the changes. It is understandable that some should be cautious in approaching the Government's proposals, because I believe that we have raised some fundamental questions. What form of organisation, we have asked, is required for the formulation of defence policy, the direction of operations by the armed forces, and the efficient administration of the support services? Is there too much bureaucracy? What is the role of the ministry as an administrative headquarters for the services? How does the organisation affect efficiency and morale of the services?
Having described the context in which we have raised these questions. I now turn to some of the key features in the Government's proposals. A central requirement of any British Government must be to satisfy themselves that our forces have the personnel and equipment they need to serve as a credible and effective deterrent to our potential enemies. At the same time, the Government must be able to satisfy themselves that the nation can afford the associated costs. At an early stage in the process ministers need professional military advice. Such advice is, of course, available under the existing organisation and it is of a high quality. We cannot, and would not, expect to look to one man for all our military advice, but we do look to the Chief of the Defence Staff as the Government's principal military adviser. That is already his position, and it was strengthened by the changes introduced during the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin's, term of office, to which he and a number of other noble and gallant Lords have referred.
The changes that we are now considering in the area of military advice relate mainly to the organisation of the staff below the level of the Chief of the Defence Staff and his chiefs of staff colleagues. Since 1964, when the unified defence ministry was set up, it has been the formal position that the naval, general and air staff are part of the defence staff. The late Lord Mountbatten, who, as noble Lords will be aware, was deeply involved in planning the 1964 reorganisation on the basis of his own experience, used to refer to his wartime planning for south-east Asia operations as the "spirit of the hive", where all were concerned to carry out the same plans in a way that was best for all.
The elements of the present defence staff have, we feel, developed along rather different lines. Our concern is that the defence staff is not structured to operate in a way that will ensure invariably that a defence-wide view is taken at an early enough stage when major policy issues, including service budgets and expensive equipment budgets, are considered. As
1190
a result, the strengths and weaknesses of the argument put forward on behalf of a particular service may not be sufficiently debated, and compromise may have to follow. Hence we have proposed that a new combined defence staff should be formed by bringing together the relevant parts of the work of the present Central Defence Staff and the Naval, General and Air Staff, plus some civilian secretariats who already work closely alongside their military counterparts.
As we have made clear, the new defence staff would be structured from what are termed single service building blocks. I should like to reassure my noble friend Lord Tenchard that this staff will not be isolated. It will rest firmly on a single service experience and expertise. It would, however, be responsible to the Chief of the Defence Staff and, as appropriate, the Permanent Secretary. But it would provide a service for all the chiefs of staff and, of course, for Ministers. Its work would cover defence policy, operations and the military requirements for equipment. I can assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cameron, that the service chiefs of staff would be able to put forward their views on defence staff proposals. As the professional heads of their own services and as members of the Chiefs of Staff Committee they would of course receive the support they need to enable them to carry out their role. I might add here—and this was in the mind, I know, of the noble Lord. Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Mulley—that the service chiefs of staff would under our proposals retain their right of direct access to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister.
There is no intention in our proposals of reducing the weight which Ministers give to military advice or of diluting in some way its quality. We are sure that military views will continue to be expressed to us with force and conviction. The arrangements we are considering need not inhibit the process. We do understand the importance of the professional knowledge and expertise which only a particular service can bring to bear. We accept entirely the need to ensure that the "single service" expertise is available as required.
We also understand how important it is that the sailor, soldier, and airman should know that decisions which affect him—whether they are about operations which may put his life at risk, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, pointed out, or about his pay and conditions—can be taken only after Ministers have had the benefit of the advice of senior officers of his own service. Such advice may be provided in future via the combined defence staff, which will of course be staffed at the senior levels by officers of all three services. Officers within the defence staff will naturally he able to represent a view on behalf of a particular service and ensure that it is fully weighed in the balance when policy decisions are made. Similarly, I see no reason why an officer of the defence staff should not be able to represent his own service in discussion with NATO and other colleagues. These points are ones that we shall have very much in mind in the framing of working procedures.
The role of the service Chiefs of Staff has been a major theme in this debate. My right honourable friend's proposals assume that the principal concern of each service chief of staff will he the oversight of the

1191
management of his own service. The chief of staff would remain responsible for the total efficiency and morale of his service, but in future reporting to the Secretary of State though the Chief of the Defence Staff for that purpose. Such an arrangement should, in our view, ensure that there is the necessary formal linkage between the development of policy and the vitally important management tasks of the services.
I need hardly remind your Lordships how vast and important these management tasks are with a defence budget this year of some £17,000 million, service personnel numbering in total over 300,000 and a civilian establishment of some 200,000. We shall be looking to the chiefs of staff to draw up programmes of work aimed at streamlining management and devolving day-to-day administration to the commanders-in-chief where possible. In the defence support organisation such as the stores depots and workshops, there are many managers "In the field", service and civilian, and our aim is to delegate greater responsibility to them through a system of "responsibility budgets". The principal of delegation from the top down, coupled with clear statements of responsibilities, is one that I believe your Lordships will warmly support.
A further major element in our proposals is the creation of an Office of Management and Budget. The aim here is to achieve stronger control over corporate planning, the commitment of resources and the monitoring of financial and management systems. To achieve this, the office would bring together in a more formal way many of the existing staff and functions of the Permanent Secretary. The Controller General—who would be the Second Permanent Secretary—would be, as it were, the department's "finance director", and, as such, a member of each of the service executive committees. He and his staff would approve proposals for budgets managed by board members and would scrutinise, on behalf of the accounting officer, new requirements for major equipment projects.
The creation of the Office of Management and Budget would be designed to achieve clear direction and control of the Civil Service staff effort in this area. Clearly there would need to continue, however, to be close and constructive working relationships between military and civilian staffs at all levels. We are certain this will be achieved.
May I now turn to some of the points that have been raised during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, asked me about the question of the succession arrangements for the chief of the defence staff generally. As I think the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, mentioned, the former Defence Secretary, my right honourable friend Sir John Nott, decided in November 1982 that in future the CDS should be chosen from a number of candidates as the most suitable officer available and not necessarily in accordance with a strict rotation between the services. My right honourable friend intends that this procedure should he followed when the next CDS is selected. Certainly there is nothing in his proposals on reorganisation that invalidates this procedure.
Several noble and gallant Lords asked me about the
1192
role of the Defence Council and the Service Boards under these proposals. The constitutional and legal position of the Defence Council and the Service Boards would remain unchanged. This is especially important in relation to certain statutory responsibilities, particularly in respect of service personnel cases with which I am myself much concerned. The service Chiefs of Staff would continue to be members of the Defence Council. The frequency of meetings of the Defence Council and the boards has varied over recent years depending upon the circumstances. As is true of all aspects of my right honourable friend's proposals, we shall be seeking to develop arrangements for decision-making that are practical and efficient to meet the needs of the day.
A number of your Lordships have stressed the importance of support to the chiefs of staff. I can assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, that we shall give particular attention to his advice, and to the provision of support to enable the chiefs to carry out their role, in working out our proposals in detail. I also took careful note of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. The Government of course attach great importance to the achievement of realistic and verifiable arms control, and we believe that the proposals for the defence arms control unit will strengthen the arrangements for handling these matters within the Ministry of Defence.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the position of service Ministers. The changes to which he referred were made in 1981 with the main aim of increasing the Secretary of State's ability to delegate functional responsibilities to his Ministers and to emphasise the defence as opposed to single-service responsibilities of the department as a whole. Political direction has, I believe, been strengthened as a result, and in particular there can be greater ministerial involvement in procurement matters at an earlier stage than was possible in the past.
My noble friend Lord Ridley referred to the question of reserves. The question of the future organisation for the Territorial Army and reserves who make such an important contribution to our defence effort has been much in our minds. This is a matter that we shall be considering carefully bearing in mind the need, on the one hand, to ensure that there are appropriate arrangements to develop policy generally, and, on the other, our aim to devolve management responsibilities.
We have heard much about responsibility and power, about confidence and morale, but it has pleased me to hear too about leadership. Better definition of roles and clearer lines of responsibility will give extensive scope for leadership at which the services surely excel.
May I now sum up like this, I have sought to explain the wider context in which our proposals for the defence organisation have been framed. I hope that I have reassured your Lordships that our intentions are to improve and to develop the organisation so that Ministers, the services and the tax-payer can be satisfied that the best decisions are taken in the country's defence interest. We do believe that, as the necessary changes are worked through in detail, it will be generally accepted that a sharper definition of roles

1193
and responsibilities and a tauter structure can be achieved without putting at risk the best features of the present organisation or the confidence and morale of the services on which so much depends.
For the present, my Lords, we have not reached final conclusions on the details of the proposals outlined in the consultative document. This debate has therefore been most timely, since it has offered us the opportunity to hear a number of different points of view, many based on valuable past experience. We must not forget, too, the valuable lessons to be learnt from distinguished members of your Lordships' House no longer with us who set their minds to the task of producing the best organisation for defence. I have listened carefully to your Lordships' speeches and we shall reflect on what has been said. Debate upon this important matter is healthy and stimulating, and we shall benefit from it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, a number of questions were asked during the debate. I appreciate the constraints of debate, but all questions were asked seriously. Can we look forward to replies in writing?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I will certainly cull the pages of Hansard and write to noble Lords as appropriate.
Lord Cameron of Balhousie: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to this House for the great interest which the debate has generated. I am grateful to those who have taken part in the debate and have spoken on this very important matter. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will, as he says, take back to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State what I believe to be the spirit of this debate on some of the issues which affect the chiefs of staff, such as the policy direction, which I believe to be a key issue.
I am very grateful for this debate and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
7.53 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the workings of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, from both an environmental and an agricultural point of view, and whether they can see any further ways of improving the quality of the countryside.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, three years ago we had a full, detailed and interesting discussion on the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Since then the subject of conservation has never been far from the headlines. So, I took it upon myself to pose this Question to Her Majesty's Government.
Before compiling these remarks I talked to the Chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council, the Chairman of the Country Landowners' Association and the Chairman of the Countryside Commission; I have met senior officers in the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and conversed with national park officers from several national parks: I
1194
have talked to senior and regional members of the National Farmers' Union; I have talked to the RSPB, whose chairman is my noble friend Viscount Blakenham, and he is to make his maiden speech today. His father, who many of us knew, was a distinguished Minister of Agriculture in other times and my noble friend looked absolutely marvellous in Onslow livery as my father's page at the Coronation! Therefore, I look forward with especial pleasure to what he has to say.
What have emerged from these discussions are some criticisms of the workings of the Act, but also the possibility of future intra-conservationist squabbles which could be brought about by the difference of emphasis between the generalist and the specialist conservationist. Conservation is both very scientific and very precise and is also very subjective when it comes to judgments of landscape beauty and countryside matters. I will embroider this possibility with two illustrations. The first is the story of the Greystoke Tunnel on the Basingstoke Canal, of whose preservation society I am president. The society wishes to restore the tunnel—an 18th century one which collapsed in the 1930s. Excellent, one would think, hut, say the bat lovers, several species of bats have made this tunnel their dwelling place and if it is restored they will no longer have a home there.
The next example is illustrated by a painting of Bletchworth House which shows the North Surrey hills as treeless grazing down. If a farmer applied for a grant to remove the trees from Leith Hill and restore it to grazing down, every single conservationist—and I can promise you that there are very many of them in Surrey—would be up in arms; there would be an outcry. But there is also an outcry that grazing down is disappearing at the rate that it is. Those are snags that I foresee. The criticism over the Act's workings I will come to later.
The second of my impressions is much more satisfactory. It is that for the first time for a long time there is an enormous amount of agreement as to what needs doing and a general consensus on the problems that we all have to face. A sea change has come about in the attitude of the NFU. They have shown that change in the brief for the debate which they have sent to several of your Lordships. They have said that there must be a change from the end price agricultural support system to a country management system. That is a Damascene conversion; it is a change which could have a splendid effect on the countryside. I think it could produce a few more jobs in the countryside. After all, conservation is a labour intensive occupation and farming is a resource intensive occupation. It could result in the lowering of energy use in farming; it could produce less strain on the common agricultural policy and, consequently, less strain on the British budget contribution. Of course, it must be Community-wide.
These are immensely inmportant results. They follow through, in that MAFF must be persuaded to use the common agricultural policy and agricultural funds for the countryside and conservation as well as agriculture. It follow that the present row between agriculturalists and conservationists will be greatly reduced and the source of friction will be removed if this change of attitude comes about. Mr. Holbeche of

1195
the NFU said to me only the day before yesterday on the telephone that it was up to the industry and politicians to educate MAFF civil servants. MAFF is already using agricultural funds in the Peak District National Park to help a constructive programme of paying farmers to farm in a way that encourages flower-rich meadows surrounded by stone walls instead of paying them to increase the grazing and to remove the stone walls.
In passing, it is worth noting that the Cecils have not missed a trick in 400 years, and one could not expect them to pass up an opportunity to help themselves liberally to public funds which we, the public, in spite of warnings about the dottiness of the system, so generously proffer. I refer of course to the £20,000 a year being given to my honourable friend Lord Cranborne. I did tell him I was going to say this, and he did not seem to mind, so I am not going behind his back. All I can say, is that I wish I had such a singularly spectacular pheasant drive which could be subsidised so generously.
The danger of these large amounts of management payments seems to be that it increases the expectations of the small farmer and then raises his consequent disappointment. This is particularly noticeable in some of the SSSIs which are being formed in the Hebrides.
Through talks to both agricultural Ministers and DOE Ministers, together with reading Kenneth Carlisle's excellent CPC publication concerning the countryside, I think there is a move to pay people to do something rather than pay people not to do something which they really had no intention of doing in the first place, and above all to stop abuse of the system such as that by Fountain Forestry. Here again, I underline that they are doing nothing wrong because only three years ago we set up the system which encourages them so to do. They bought an SSSI with a complicated Scottish name which I cannot pronounce—and applied for a grant of £300,000 to plant it with acid rain-producing conifers. The NCC objected and now they want £20,000 for not having £300,000 to which they hoped they were entitled, thus leaving the SSSI in the state in which we all want it.
This is not a correct use of taxpayers' money. It is very nice for the shareholders of Fountain Farming and it is totally and utterly correct for the directors of Fountain Farming to have taken that attitude. There is no criticism of them.
Also forecast here and in another place was the three-month loophole in the Act which must now be closed. I believe that both the NFU and the CLA would back legislation so to do, as would the conservation bodies. During the three-month period, 11 SSSIs have either been damaged or destroyed following service of a notice under Section 28(2) of the Act. This loophole can be closed by amending Section 28(5) of the Act, the constraint on owners and occupiers to carry out specified instructions, to include reference to Section 28(2) (the prenotification consultation letter) as well as subsection (1)(b) (the formal notification). The effect would be to require owners and occupiers to give notice to the NCC of intended operations during the consultation period as well as after notification of the SSSI.
While a Section 29 order can be made to extend the period of consultation on a potentially damaging operation, called a PDO, the administrative procedures inevitably take time. If this is after the expiry of the statutory three-month period of notice of intention to carry out a PDO, there is no legal constraint on that operation. An additional "stop" power should be introduced to cover the, say, four-week period in which the Secretary of State could reasonably be expected to reach his decision on the order. Tealham and Tadham Moor would probably not have been damaged if the Act had read as I recommend.
One or two minor amendments' would be helpful. The period of notification allowed in Section 28(6)(c) should be extended from three months to a minimum of six months to give a more realistic time for discussion between the NCC and owners. The Section 29 timetable should commence from the date of the order and not the date of the original notice to carry out a PDO. This would require minor changes to Section 29(4)(a), Section 29(5)(c), Section 29(6)(a) and Section 29(6)(b).
Certain national parks, notably North Yorkshire, have refrained from objection to improvement out of financial nervousness. This financial nervousness extends to county councils. One shire county council chairman said to Mr. Derek Barber of the Countryside Commission, "I would love you to have more money but this morning I had to make several teachers redundant". Some farmers are saying that the bureaucracy is too complicated for them to accept management agreements so they go ahead and carry out the improvement without grant. While we are on grants, surely the headage payments should now make way for some other form of hill farmer support: large veterinary incomes are earned by keeping hordes of black faced sheep alive until counting day, when they can all drop down dead because they have had the subsidy.
MSC changes have seriously damaged the conservation programmes of Hereford and Worcester County Council. Section 25 of the Act imposes duties upon these county councils which are eminently suitable for MSC schemes, especially as Whitehall produces no funds for these duties to be carried out. Similar withdrawals have harmed the Glamorgan Heritage Coast project and also the coastal resources unit of the Polytechnic of Wales.
There is concern in the bird world about the different attitude to culling licences of the English and Scottish departments concerned. It is felt that the Scots are still showing the attitude of 19th century gamekeepers, as, I regret to say from the press report it appears, is the noble Lord, Lord Burton. Mergansers, goosanders and cormorants are still being shot in large numbers under licence. The RSPB is unaware if any research has shown serious damage to fish stocks by these birds.
When the noble Lord, Lord Rayner, reviewed the NCC he said that it was understaffed. Thus the notification system of SSSIs is far behindhand. Not surprisingly, as the NCC has only ten field agents, this causes delay in notification and delay in processing management agreements, and consequently an anti-

1197
NCC and conservation attitude among the farmers concerned because they say that incompetent bureaucrats are in charge of the scheme.
There is the anomaly that it is an offence to dig up certain plants unless one is a farmer. The classic example of this is the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust digging up a few sundews on a footpath. They were photographed committing an offence, and within the next few days, the owner not only destroyed the whole lot but was also eligible for grant so to do.
To conclude, I hope that we can move to a system of melding the countryside activities into one by proper financial signals which, in turn, will minimise the conflict between conservationist and farmer. Probably one will have to have an extension of the tree preservation order or building order system: after all, I cannot pull down my 17th century tithe barn without permission.
William Marshall said in the 18th century:
"No spot on this island can he said to be in a state of nature. There is not a tree, perhaps not a bush, now standing upon the face of the countryside which is in an identical state to nature alone".
That quotation is the first in the United Kingdom pavilion at the Liverpool Garden Festival. We countrymen owe it to our fellow citizens not only to be farmers, but to be gardeners and gamekeepers as well. So, my Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for introducing this subject this evening, and particularly for the obviously detailed consultations that he has had with the relevant bodies and the detailed information and criticism which he has put before your Lordships this evening. In view of the long and detailed examination of the Act when it was a Bill before your Lordships' House, I think it is important that from time to time we should take an opportunity of this kind to review the working of the Act. My justification for intervening briefly in this debate this evening is that I am president of the Society of Sussex Downsmen. I am glad to see that my predecessor in that office, the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, is also proposing to speak in this debate this evening, from his much wider knowledge than mine. For that reason, I shall be anxious to hear what he has to say.
Understandably, the references that I shall make in my remarks are from, and pertaining to, the area of our country which I know best, though I believe that the points that I shall make arising from the Sussex area are not untypical of the rest of the country. A main purpose of the Society of Sussex Downsmen is to preserve the beauty of the Sussex Downs and to ensure that walkers and horseriders can continue to enjoy that beautiful countryside. In doing this, the society has over many years been concerned with just that range of problems with which the Wildlife and Countryside Act deals. For instance, the noble Earl has been referring to the compensation payments to farmers who forgo development. We recall that that particular section of the Act was most controversial in your Lordships' House. Some years before the passing of the Act our society was concerned, in one instance that
1198
I recall, with the preservation of a threatened area of fine landscape. But it came up against the problem of the cost of the compensation which would be involved.
I refer to the particular society to which I belong, but many other organisations are deeply concerned about the need to preserve the South Downs. For instance, I have recently received correspondence from the Sussex Federation of Women's Institutes, which has expressed deep worries about some examples of recent intrusions of commercial industrialisation into that area of outstanding natural beauty. All this means that constant vigilance on the part of such volunteer organisations is necessary to avoid encroachment into the downland by, perhaps, motorways, housing estates, industrial development and unsuitable farming activities.
During the course of the last two years or so, we have had to deal with two major threats of particular concern to us. The first was the threat of drilling for oil. Application for permission to do so was being considered. I recall that we had a very useful debate on that subject which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I do not propose to go over that same ground again. The other threat to our downland was a proposed Brighton by-pass which threatened huge stretches of beautiful downland country. We were one of the leading organisations in protesting against that proposal.
I realise that some of the problems that I have been referring to lie outside the strict provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, but since the Unstarred Question of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, goes broader than the particular working of the Act and he asks the Government about their broader intentions. I suggest that the two incursions to which I have referred are subjects worthy of consideration in this evening's discussion.
In both those cases, battles have been fought by mobilising public opinion and making representations—very detailed and extensive representations—to the appropriate authority. Although in both cases the protesters have, unfortunately, failed in their major objectives, it is worth noting that their protests have had some minor, but useful, effects on the ultimate decisions. In the case of oil drilling, for instance, conditions have been laid down which, it is hoped, will constrain the developers from causing undue damage to the environment. In the case of the by-pass, though no major changes in the plan have been achieved, some of our members were very diligent in ensuring that the plans enabled, or will enable, pedestrians to have access to the downlands behind the by-pass. But for their action of this kind, whole districts north of Brighton would have been prevented from having access to the downland.
My Lords, I make these points simply to show that vigilance and protests can have minor, though worthwhile, results even when the major decisions are of an adverse kind. This vigilance in our society is exercised by a team of district officers. Their annual reports make most interesting reading for those who, like me, love the Sussex Downs.
Two points emerge from a perusal of their annual reports. The first is that there are many problems which can be tackled not in a negative, protesting way,

1199
but in a positive, collaborative way. They can be solved, and are solved, after consultation and collaboration between the downsmen and local authorities, the landowners, farmers and other developers. This I think is worth hearing in mind because sometimes the issues of conservation become unduly emotional and develop into matters of confrontation between farmers and conservationists whereas, very often, it is a question of balancing conflicting considerations and seeking by consultation to reach a solution satisfactory to both sides of the argument. We have proved in a number of cases that that is a possibility.
The second problem that is revealed by the work of our district officers concerns the maintenance of rights of way, which is a matter with which the Act is very much concerned. It is our society's experience that in the area of the South Downs there is a very considerable backlog of problems concerning footpaths and bridle paths which need official investigation and action. What is holding up things in clearing the backlog is not any lack of interest or will on the part of the local authorities whose responsibility it is, but rather the fact that they do not have sufficient staff to cope with the problem. I believe it is true—and, if it is not, I hope that the Minister who will reply will explain the situation—that the Department of the Environment has issued a circular to the local authorities insisting that no extra staff should be taken on for this purpose. If that is so, then I think it is much to be deplored in the light of the backlog in this matter.
It is because of my concern for the maintenance of rights of way that I have a great deal of sympathy with Mr. Tony Baldry, the Member of Parliament for Banbury, and my honourable friend Mr. Andrew Bennet, who are both seeking to promote in another place Bills providing for greater access to the countryside. Mr. Baldry makes the case that there is a confusing number of authorities concerned with footpaths and that the Wildlife and Countryside Act places a variety of duties on individual landowners and upon the various tiers of local authority. He suggests—and I think that it is a sensible suggestion—that there should be a consolidation of the relevant legislation and a simplification of the procedures and responsibilities. It is only a Ten-Minute-Rule Bill that he is proposing and we know that the likelihood of success with a Ten-Minute-Rule Bill is minimal, indeed. But if, through consistent action, he, Mr. Bennet, or any others (or, indeed, the Government, if they propose to take an initiative in this matter) were to succeed in bringing about such proposals, then, as I see it, many of the problems about which our vigilant downsmen in Sussex are constantly worried would find a much readier solution—and, indeed, would not arise at all.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, towards the end of his speech raised the question of sites of special scientific interest, and I should like to say a few words about that before I sit down. I heard not long ago that the number of occupiers of land involved in such SSSIs was 30,000. Each one of them has to have a formal document calling his or her attention to the situation. I am told that in two years it has been possible to issue the appropriate document to only 10 per cent. of those occupiers. This must surely mean that it will take years
1200
before that particular part of the Act can be properly implemented.
The reason for that backlog is the same as the one I instanced in relation to footpaths, which is that there is a limit on the staff available for carrying out this work. So when the Minister comes to comment, as I hope he will, on the last phrase of the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, namely that which asks whether the Government have in mind,
"any further ways of improving the quality of the countryside".
I hope we shall hear not only about new proposals, if indeed there are any, but about new resources which it seems to me are necessary in order to implement what has already been agreed under existing proposals contained in legislation which Parliament has already approved and is on the statute book. I hope we shall hear of new resources for preserving Britain's countryside.
8.21 p.m.
Viscount Blakenham: My Lords, in keeping with the traditions of this House. I ask for your Lordships' indulgence as this is the first time I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships. What I am going to say is intended to give support and encouragement to those involved in the difficult task of coping with the different pressures brought to bear on our countryside.
May I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Onslow for his reference to my father who, in this and another House, was fully exposed to these types of pressures, understood them and worked wholeheartedly and resolutely to resolve them. My noble friend also mentioned my connection with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I have another non-financial interest in conservation as president of the Sussex Trust for Nature Conservation, and should declare a financial interest in agriculture in that I am fortunate enough to farm in Suffolk, a county which has seen its fair share of the debate on the difficulties of integrating modern farming methods with the needs of wildlife and conservation.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was a major step forward. It provided immediate protection for individually threatened species of flora and fauna and promised long-term protection for sites of special scientific interest, the key wildlife habitats. It did so against a background of voluntary co-operation and reasonableness of spirit, and all the principal interests pledged their best efforts to make it work. However, a number of problems have arisen in the implementation of the Act. The first is that it is taking far longer than anyone envisaged for the Nature Conservancy Council, whose task it is, to renotify existing special sites and notify potential new sites. This has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Oram.
At the moment, only about a quarter of these sites are protected under the Act and the job of notification and renotification will not be completed until the end of 1986 at the earliest. Meanwhile, damage to a number of these sites is occurring. To how many is not clear, and I believe that the NCC should be encouraged to publish a list of this damage on a regular basis, so that any future debate can take place against an informed background.

1201
The second problem is that Section 28 of the Act allows for three months' consultation before a site can be notified. Whatever the good intentions of the NFU or the CLA, they can have no direct control over the actions of individual members. Some owners or occupiers are taking advantage of this period of grace to undertake damaging operations before they are legally bound by the Act. So far, the RSPB knows 12 sites where damage has occurred in this way and there are others under investigation.
A third problem is that when sites have been duly notified, potentially damaging operations are sometimes being undertaken without informing the NCC, as required by law. The NCC now knows of 17 such cases. A fourth problem is the potentially large amounts of regular compensation that will have to be paid out of public funds if the Act is to work as it stands without planning controls. It was always known that this would be costly, but the sums involved in a few years' time are likely to be very large indeed, particularly if the Ministry of Agriculture continues to provide incentives to "improve" marginal land and wildlife habitats.
So these appear to be the main problems. What are the solutions? First, the solution to the slow speed of notification is to make additional manpower available to the NCC as the noble Lord, Lord Rayner, has recommended. There was a moment, not so long ago, when the NCC said that it could not handle more staff, but its administration has been strengthened and this is no longer the case.
The solution to the second problem is to close the three-month loophole, when damage can occur while consultation is taking place. A Bill to this effect has been introduced in another place and should be supported as a matter of urgency. In addition, I believe that Section 29 of the Act, which gives the Secretary of State the power to impose an immediate stop order on damaging operations, should he broadened to allow the NCC temporary stop order powers of their own; for at the moment it is taking the NCC two to three weeks to prepare their case and by the time the Secretary of State grants the stop order, the damaging operation may already have been completed.
The solution to the third problem of deliberately flouting the law is to increase the comparatively low level of fines involved and to provide for different levels of fine according to the size and importance of the area affected.
The fourth problem, the question of compensation, is altogether more difficult. For reasons too long to go into now, the financial guidelines have, I am sure, to be reviewed, and further thought should be given to part grant aiding voluntary bodies to acquire and subsequently manage positively some of the important wildlife sites, rather than permanently pay out large slices in compensation to farmers for not doing something. This is not only more positive but can actually be more cost-effective.
I would give as an example the fact that on West Sedgemore over a period of years the RSPB has spent nearly £1 million on acquiring 700 acres which leaves 1,800 acres of the SSSI still outstanding over which the NCC are going to attempt to reach management agreements. If they are successful it will cost them
1202
anything between £150,000 and £200,000 a year to reach these management agreements. They might be better off giving a substantial sum to the RSPB to help them buy more of the sites and then the cost would no longer be a continuing one.
But, perhaps more important than that, I believe that on countryside matters some integration in terms of both responsibility and budget should take place between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment. I think it is only in this way that a shift from a surplus of foodstuffs to sensible conservation measures should take place without additional cost to the taxpayer, and I would ask Her Majesty's Government to examine the mechanisms by which this may be achieved.
Finally, now that the problems of wildlife and conservation are much more fully understood by the farming community, I think that a considerable responsibility lies with the many conservation bodies to avoid the use of emotive language and to ensure that they are seeking co-operation rather than confrontation. If this can be achieved and the improvements I have mentioned made, then I believe that in due course we may all be pleasantly surprised.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, although I cannot claim to have had the father of the noble Viscount as a close friend, I was acquainted with him and had a great respect and admiration for him. I am quite certain that he would have been indeed proud to have listened to the noble Viscount make his maiden speech this evening. It is rare indeed to find somebody who has such a close knowledge of the subject of which he is speaking, who has the ability to marshall his thoughts in such an orderly and concise manner, and, on top of that, is able to express those thoughts in the manner displayed by the noble Viscount. We are very fortunate to have him with us, and I hope that we shall hear him frequently. I should like to think that some at least of his qualities stem from his Suffolk agricultural background—or even his foreground!
My Lords, conservation is a difficult, complicated and emotional subject. There are so many aspects to it. There are, of course, the aesthetic aspects of conservation, which are probably what affect most people. They want to see the countryside as they have known it and as they have loved it; and this is entirely a subjective matter which, as in the case of architecture, can give rise to many arguments and differences of opinion. Then you have the scientific aspect of it, and you find those who wish to preserve the habitat of certain rare species of flora and fauna, unnoticed by the great majority of people and unknown to very many people, but still of enormous significance and importance in our national heritage.
Thirdly, you have the historic aspect of it: the canal tunnels, for example, to which the noble Earl has referred, and various matters of that kind, such as ancient British remains and such matters. Those, too, must be preserved. Finally, and perhaps most difficult of all, you have the problem of' access to the countryside. It is most difficult because so often allowing access to the countryside in itself may destroy or damage those other things which the aesthetes, the historians and the scientists want preserved. So it is a

1203
highly complex problem, and I do not think we can criticise too much if we find that the Act which we are now discussing has not fulfilled all the hopes of those of us who are concerned in these matters.
How has it worked during the three years that it has been in existence? It certainly has many things to its credit. Above all, it has increased the consciousness of all people about the need for conservation in one form or another and about the threat that exists to many of the things about which we are concerned; and it has made not only the rural people conscious of this but has also increased the consciousness of the urban dwellers possibly even more. Particularly, it has made farmers far more conscious of what their duties are. It has helped in this gradual shift which is taking place, and to which the noble Earl has referred, from food production at all costs to another aspect of the duty of those who have the privilege of owning or occupying the land. It has made them conscious of it, and conscious not only of their duty on this but also of the cost of doing it.
Similarly, it has brought consciousness to the urban dwellers as well. It has made them realise that the countryside is not just something which happens, which is there for their enjoyment—and occasionally. I am afraid, for their vandalism—but something which has to be cherished and looked after, and, above all, which has to be paid for.
I think those are very great achievements by an Act in a relatively short space of time, and I myself have no regrets that it became an Act in the form that it did. But undoubtedly there have been abuses. How widespread those abuses are it is impossible to know. We read about them in the newspapers, and undoubtedly they have taken place; but it may be that if one were able to have a complete statistical analysis of these abuses—and possibly the Minister, in his reply, can give us some figures which it would be very valuable to have—we may find that in fact they are very small. Certainly, in that case we should not condemn the Act because of them, although we should seek to minimise and, if' possible, abolish altogether such abuses.
My own feeling is that it is ony right and proper that those who are going to enjoy the results of conservation should be prepared to pay for them. After all, there is not very much difference between conservation in the countryside, and the various matters to which I have referred, and the provision in the towns and cities of open spaces and of public parks. They are places for the enjoyment and recreation of those who live in the surrounding areas, or for the enjoyment of visitors who come from farther afield. Nobody would expect that a public park in a city should he provided free of charge. Somebody has to pay for it; somebody has to pay for the use of the land on which these public parks are situated, for the care of the gardens, for the cultivation of the flowers, for the absence of weeds and all the other things which lead to one's enjoyment when one goes into a public park.
That is a principle which I think should be applied equally to the countryside. Those who are going to enjoy these amenities should be prepared to pay for them; but that does not mean to say that they should pay more than the actual cost of providing those
1204
amenities. They should not be expected to pay for the theoretical and hypothetical profit which the owner of that land might have made had he done something different with it. I do not think it is right, and I do not think it is equitable or fair to the taxpayer at large, that a farmer or a landowner should come along and say: "Here we have some wetland, here we have some moorland, here we have some woodland. I was thinking of doing something with it which would have enabled me to earn a very large income from growing daffodil bulbs or any other form of profitable crop"—possibly some of the things that the noble Earl himself grows—"and, therefore, I am being denied a profit of £100 an acre, index-linked for the next 20 years, and you, the Government and the taxpayer, must pay me for it". That seems to me entirely wrong, just as it is entirely wrong for the owner of a listed building to say: "If I were able to pull this down, I could put up a tower block and have an enormous income from it. Therefore, for the privilege of maintaining this building you must pay me the profit I would have got had I put it to some other use".
Whether this Act as it is at present gives an absolute right to farmers and landowners to claim the loss of profit which they might have had, I do not know. If it does, I believe that that should be altered. But I also believe that the farmer or the landowner who owns land which is classified as an SSSI, a site of outstanding natural beauty or anything of that kind, should be compensated to a modest extent for the loss of its present-use value—not its potential-use value—and should also, if necessary, be paid for maintaining it in whatever form of cultivation the experts in this field think is right.
I know that in many cases the conservation societies, the local bodies, do their own maintenance with free volunteers, and that is a far better system if it can be done. But if, for some reason or other, they would prefer to have the farmer do it, then by all means enter into a managment agreement and pay him for the work that he does, but not for the potential profit that he might have earned.
That is my main criticism of the Act as it has operated over the past few years. The objective was right and the means that it adopted were, broadly speaking, right. It has been subject to some abuse, and we must look very carefully to see how great that abuse is and how great it is likely to be in the future. If it is more than a very insignificant amount, steps should be taken to right that particular wrong which has become apparent.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I am very happy both be the first on this side of the House to have an opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Blakenham on a delightful speech and to have been able to hear him following with such a firm tread in his father's footsteps. I, too, have the happiest memories of his father, as do so many of us in both Houses. We certainly heard today a very well-informed and very well-delivered speech, and we lock forward to many others.
Perhaps I may also add that, by an odd fluke. I was at one time president of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and was also at one time president

1205
of the Sussex Trust for Nature Conservation. I did none of the work, but took all of the credit, as presidents usually do. So I feel that I can speak for the members of both bodies—one very small, and one quite large—and say how very glad they will be that their president. and their chairman, in the case of the RSPB, has made such an excellent speech.
I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Onslow has asked this Question at this time. The timing was very good, because I feel that fresh winds are blowing. What I present this evening—and I shall be as brief as I possibly can—will be entirely, my own views though, as some noble Lords know, I happen to be a member of the Nature Conservancy Council, whose long-term strategy is to be launched on the 26th of this month.
When in the course of my few remarks I speak about nature conservancy, I am, of course, speaking of the whole countryside and not just of SSSIs or nature reserves. The area outside the reserves and the SSSIs is all too often ignored, and great damage can be done to it. There is a great deal of habitat loss. It has sometimes been exaggerated, but it is, I am convinced, very serious indeed. There is damage to the whole ecosystem and I see a high risk of unacceptable and irreversible damage occuring if nothing is done to stop it.
So far as the resources of the Nature Conservancy Council are concerned, or perhaps I should say of nature conservancy as a whole, I cannot help feeling that successive Governments have failed to provide sufficient resources. The Wildlife and Countryside Act placed costly added responsibilities on the shoulders of the NCC and other conservancy bodies. But today the NCC's duties are only roughly half matched by their resources and the annual cost, in terms of each person in the population, is rather less than one bottle of Coca-Cola. That is all we are able to spare for nature conservation as a whole in this country, which seems rather ridiculous.
I estimate that nature conservation as a whole needs another £10 million a year—and I have done my sums very carefully—for each of the next five years. That would exclude the cost of land purchase or compensation, which is likely to amount to just about the same annual sum of £10 million. But in that same period of five years, looking forward, agriculture is set to receive over £1,000 million in capital grants and, roundly, £500 million in headage payments.
If 6p or 7p in every pound that farmers can expect over the next five years were paid to them not to "improve" their land or farm it in ways that would damage its scientific value, the farmers would be perfectly happy. Not a penny extra would be needed in taxes and the Nature Conservancy Council, and indeed, all who care about our marvellous countryside —which practically everybody does—would applaud. What are we waiting for, and why are we waiting? I feel almost like asking your Lordships to burst into song and sing "Why are we waiting?" but I shall not.
I should now like to say a very few words about agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture appears to think that we are still living in a siege economy. Grants and subsidies to farmers are largely indisciminate. They cost the taxpayer a great deal of money and they distort the pattern of agriculture in a way which is very
1206
hard, if not impossible, to justify. It is not only the common agricultural policy which does that; it is our own pattern of support, too.
Yet over the years, under successive Governments, other industries—steel, coal, textiles, aircraft, railways, and so on—have all been under very careful scrutiny and have had to shape themselves accordingly. In spite of this great outpouring of grants and subsidies, a great many farmers are not a whit better off and are in the hands of the banks. So there must be something very wrong somewhere. It is time to question in a radical way all our assumptions about farming and all our assumptions about forestry.
I think, too, that it is time that there was a new White Paper about growing our own food. Over the last six months or so I have put down to the Government a series of Questions for Written Answer on the general subject of producing various commodities here at home, how much we import, and so on. I had a bit of a flea in my ear—a very polite flea, of course—in the replies that I had, because I kept on being told that Her Majesty's Government would continue to encourage the production of barley, wheat, and so on as long as it is "economic so to do." I had the same answer to practically every Question—which did not really answer the Question. I felt that I was almost being told to mind my own business, but I am sure I was not.
But barley and wheat are running out of our ears. We have to sell it at about half the world price to the Soviet Union, while at the same time millions, perhaps tens of millions, of Africans are starving because their Governments have no foreign currency; and even if they could purchase this grain, they have no means of transporting it when it gets there. So I ask again: Why are we waiting?
I said that I felt that fresh winds are blowing. I really do believe I am right in saying that. I believe that my Government will tackle and solve the urgent problems of habitat loss, to which I have referred, the Nature Conservancy Council's resources, and the resources of conservancy bodies as a whole, and that they will look with great care at the proper balance between agriculture and nature conservation and do their utmost to get the balance right. Nothing will be gained by waiting any longer, and a lot would be lost by doing so.
I want to refer to a much broader and complicated question which follows directly from the question that has been asked today by my noble friend. How much easier it would be to solve all these questions, upon which, in the longer term, the success or failure of the Nature Conservancy Council's strategy depends, in an entirely new structure at national and local level, in which land use and land management were never considered without full account being taken, as a matter of course, of their possible environmental and social impacts. How much easier it would be. How easy it is to say that without knowing precisely what the answers are. I appreciate that fact also. But it needs to be, said and it needs to be said a great deal.
If we were to do this, it would mean an end to the sectoral approach. This was the wise advice given in the world conservation strategy, which the Government welcomed. The advice was that economic, social, ecological and cultural questions are

1207
inseparable, interlocked and interdependent. But to approach the question of nature conservation in this way would mean adopting a completely new philosophy and completely new policies. It would mean a radical re-think of what many people regard as outdated policies. But we have a radical Conservative Government, rooted in the countryside. So I ask for the third time: Why are we waiting?
I make no apology for my serious criticisms of the failure of past governments to face up to these questions. The Nature Conservancy Council—here I speak for my chairman—applauds this Government for introducing the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, much the most far-reaching measure of nature conservation of all time. We value highly the good relations that we have with the Department of the Environment. Especially do we value our relations with my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, who will be replying to this debate, and with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. William Waldegrave. We value equally highly the advice and help that we have from their senior advisers. But the job is only half finished. So I ask for the fourth time: Why are we waiting?
8.54 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, because the happening on the North Yorkshire Moors to which my noble friend Lord Onslow referred was in my part of the world, I am unable to resist the temptation to begin my speech by referring to it. The story makes good copy. I was amused to see it in Kenneth Rose's column in the Sunday Telegraph, where he summarised this horror story.
I am not quite sure what lessons my noble friend would like us to draw from it. The lesson I draw from it is that when you hear a conservation horror story it is well worth looking into it to see what actually happened. Things are very seldom what they seem. Plants are, regrettably, destroyed under most forms of development, whether it be because of the building of a motorway or because of the building of new headquarters for Green Peace. It happens every year when farmers do their routine autumn ploughing. The plants that have grown up in the crop are turned in.
If a site which has got to be developed contains plants which, because of their rarity of their scientific value, should be preserved, the Nature Conservancy Council can intervene. In this case they did not do so because they judged that there was no great scientific value in this site. The developer went through all the procedures correctly. The National Parks Authority acted correctly. When they thought that some rather scrubby conifers required protection they offered a management agreement, which was accepted.
The National Parks Authority, after taking scientific advice from the NCC and from their own ecologists, presumably judged that the value to the community of a developed piece of moorland—in this case the development was to be grass for livestock and a caravan site—was greater than the value of the moorland as it stood. The local naturalists trust, of which I am a member, took a different view, though this view was not backed by the experts. They picked a plant in order to make a point. The only point, it
1208
seems to me, that they made was that Section 13 of the Act which we are discussing should be either altered or repealed. Section 13 says that you may pick flowers but that if you do so you can be prosecuted, because under that section it is an offence, but that if you do it as part of a lawful operation it is not an offence. As I remember it, that clause received the full approval of your Lordships when the Bill was discussed in 1981. I see absolutely no reason to alter it.
The outstanding effect of the passing of the 1981 Act has been the new climate of opinion which has arisen. I am very glad that my noble friends Lord Onslow and Lord Chelwood and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, have referred to it. Farmers were very quick, if they had not already done so, to take on board the message that most farming operations have a conservation aspect. As the Act came to be administered the NCC also came to understand that most conservation projects have a human aspect. Unless those two basic facts had been understood, the whole purpose of the Act would have been frustrated.
This brings me straight to the matter of cost. Those who criticised the Act said, even before it became effective, that the cost of operating the system could not be met by the Government; therefore the Act could never work. Subsequently it has been alleged that on occasions the NCC has been prevented from carrying out its function of protecting certain sites because funds would not be available. Neither of those things has happened. In no case, I believe, have the Government failed to produce the money that is needed for conservation. For a government to devise a whole system of protection that depended upon voluntary conservation by private individuals, backed up by management payments, and then to fail to produce the funds would be ludicrous—and not only ludicrous but politically foolish.
In Mr. Carlisle's pamphlet Conserving the Countryside—a Tory View, he says in the summary that the compensation offered for management agreements is excessive and that funds will run out. The latest figure we have been given, which was quoted in The Times agricultural correspondent's piece yesterday, is that since the Act has been in operation there has been paid out for the management of SSSIs, in capital sums, £1 million and in recurring payments about £ ¾ million. That is hardly excessive. I know that this is only a beginning. The process of making management agreements, as we have heard tonight, is slow and many sites have still to be notified and considered. My noble friend Lord Chelwood gave the figure of £10 million as the likely cost in five years' time. I have been told that it may well be realistic to suppose that in time the cost of management agreements will be running at about £12 million a year. Is that excessive?
As Mr. Carlisle points out in his pamphlet, this year it is expected that the Arts Council alone will receive over £100 million, and £12 million is about the size of the budget needed to keep the Royal Opera House going. Will NCC funds for conservation be allowed to run out? I doubt it, for the reasons I have given.
With my noble friend Lord Onslow, I think there is evidence that national park authorities may be inhibited from operating Section 42 of the Act. The

1209
cost of management agreements offered by national parks—except Exmoor, which is a special case—is funded as to 75 per cent. by the Government. There may be unwillingness on the part of the local authority to incur the other 25 per cent. It may make them reluctant to lodge an objection where there is a MAFF grant-aided project on which they are asked to make a comment or object as necessary. It has been suggested that the Government should consider funding of the Section 42 management agreements.
My noble friend Lord Onslow and the noble Lord, Lord Walston. have made much of the need to pay people for managing land when called upon to do so for conservation purposes, and of the undesirability of paying compensation to people for not doing things. I sympathise with them but I must confess that I find it difficult to make any practical recommendation. The whole philosophy behind the treatment of SSSIs is that the owner or occupier will be persuaded by the NCC, on the one hand, to undertake management of a positive kind that will maintain the land's conservation value; on the other hand, to refrain from embarking upon more intensive operations.
By way of encouragement, owners and occupiers were to be offered payment in line with the NCCs statement which was published on 10th August 1982. It was said that the Nature Conservancy Council was comitted to the principle:
"that owners and occupiers should not be unreasonably disadvantaged by any constraints resulting from the notification of their land as an SSSI."
I do not believe that anybody could quarrel with that. The level of payment appropriate in agreements arising out of the Act are set out in the Government's financial guidelines—under which the NCC operates. If noble Lords are unhappy about the result of working under those guidelines, then no doubt the guidelines could be modified in the kind of way that has been suggested—but I am sure the general principles are sound.
My noble friend has spoken also about compensation. I remember very well that when I was presiding over the CLA one of my more agreeable duties was to visit our members and branches in Wales. When I asked how they were getting on and about what problems they had, they would reply, "We had a terrible winter, and have the sheep scab and SSSIs". I quote that not to indicate that our Welsh farmer members were less enlightened than their English colleagues, because very much the opposite is the case. What it illustrates is that restraints on production can be very keenly felt when one is operating on the margin.
It is also a reminder that in Wales one can have very large areas with SSSI status which can engulf numbers of complete farming units. The same type of pressure was felt by some of the small farmers on West Sedgemoor. These are the people who will be most affected by milk quotas, which in turn will affect levels of management payment. These are the people who will need all the encouragement they can be given if they are to restrict their farming for conservation reasons.
My noble friend Lord Onslow referred to the complicated procedures surrounding management
1210
agreements, but there must be safeguards against abuse. If one wants safeguards, then one must accept a fairly rigorus system of control. My noble friend referred also to the role of MAFF. I am sure that the wider role of MAFF as embodied in Sections 42 and 31 is fully accepted, but if it is the case that ADAS should he strengthened on the conservation side, then I would support that; but I thought they were functioning effectively.
It may be desirable to ask the Minister of Agriculture to consider the matter of notification and prior approval for a limited number of grant-aided schemes—certainly for schemes involving new land drainage. It is very difficult for the NCC to know what is going on, now that the existing power has been scrapped. On the subject of drainage, more attention probably needs to be paid to Section 48, which lays down the duties of water authorities with regard to nature conservation and the countryside. Too much is being heard about controversial drainage schemes affecting our diminishing wetlands.
Nothing I have so far mentioned could not be improved by administrative means. However, there are two specific areas where legislation is called for and to which reference has been made already tonight. I fully agree with my noble friend about the need to tighten up protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest from the very small number of occupiers who knowingly and deliberately damage them during the notification process. That kind of action is wholly inexcusable.
It is a measure of the new climate of opinion that the severest condemnation of those offending farmers comes from their fellows. I remember very well sending out from the CLA during my presidency our own instructions to site owners, which included these words:
"It is crucial, if the spirit of the Act is to he honoured, that this consultation period should not be abused and that no listed operations he carried out during it".
1 stumped around the country telling farmers that if they disregard this guidance they would be subject to tighter control. We have heard of the 11 sites, out of the 222 notified, that have been damaged or destroyed. Some of the damage has been serious and some less so—but any damage in these circumstances is unacceptable. I, too, support the new legislation of the kind embodied in Mr. Peter Hardy's one clause Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill.
Secondly, I follow my noble friend Lord Blakenham and others in believing that the gap that exists when a Section 29 order is being contemplated should be closed. I believe that there should be statutory backing for an extension period in that case; or, better still, a standstill order while the Section 29 order is being prepared. Experience has shown that these orders take time to formulate.
It is sad that these two legislative measures seem necessary, but while there remain a small minority of people who are oblivious of their duties towards the countryside we must have them. I would be interested to hear from my noble friend when he replies from the Front Bench what, if anything, the Government intend to do to improve this situation, which I think is serious.

1211
It is getting late, and there is enormous scope for discussion on a subject which I know is very dear to the heart of my noble friend Lord Onslow, so I confine myself to these few matters which seem to me to be most in need of attention. Perhaps I should add this proviso to my reference to the possible need for legislation. If the powers of the NCC are to be strengthened, measures will also have to be taken to make it possible on occasion to move aside the shield of infallibility under which NCC works in order to see what lies behind it. I am thinking of some kind of review procedure for particularly contentious cases.
We must be grateful to my noble friend for putting this Question, not least because it has provided, if I may say so, the occasion for an impressive maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Blakenham. I hope we shall hear a great deal more from him in the future.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to add my voice to those already raised in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, on a very fine maiden speech. I think the conventions of your Lordships' House prevent me from referring to him as my noble friend, which he certainly is. Perhaps I may call him my noble kinsman by marriage, which he also is. He is also a colleague. We have been together in business for many years, and I can tell your Lordships that the wisdom, experience and perspicacity which he brings to that he will bring also to your Lordships' House. I hope that his major responsibilities in business will not prevent him from addressing us frequently.
Like every other noble Lord, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for giving us this opportunity to review the working of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I think that what most people feel, and what I find as I go round the country—which I do quite a lot in my capacity as chairman of the National Trust—is that the Act, so far as it goes and in spite of its imperfections and inadequacies, has done a great deal to change the atmosphere, as so many noble Lords have said, and has been a great step forward. Everyone wants to give the voluntary principle on which the Act is based a chance to work. It still has some way to go; hut the voluntary principle is, of course, backed up by reserve powers. The Nature Conservancy Council can ask the Secretary of State to make a nature conservation order, and then the land can be compulsorily acquired. It is rather a complex business, but basically the Act relies a great deal on management agreements, voluntarily entered into and buttressed by these compensation payments.
The main concern is whether the resources are available to underwrite these agreements. Relatively few have been entered into because they take such a long time to process and because the NCC, as has been said, does not have the staff to process them faster. I am told—and noble Lords will correct me if I am wrong—that there are 536 such agreements in the pipeline but that there are only 12 land agents to negotiate them and only about 20 per cent. of those in the pipeline have come through. No doubt there are adequate resources to meet the cost of that 20 per
1212
cent., but if they had the staff to go faster—at a minimum desirable rate of progress—I dare say the funds would not be there to back up these agreements with the compensation payments necessary. Therefore, one wants to see the resources increased both in manpower and in money if this system is to work. If the resources are not available one must fall back on mere prevention.
I, for one, should like to see the Act given a chance to work, but it needs money to support it. Noble Lords referred to the projects on which we spend money. The noble Lord. Lord Middleton, mentioned the Arts Council, of which I used to be chairman. I am not going to say that I think the Arts Council get too much, but in relation to the needs of the countryside it is absurd that the NCC should be short of £10 million, if that is what it needs to do the job properly. When one considers how dear the countryside is to the hearts of millions of people who do not care about the arts at all, it does seem that we have our priorities strangely mixed up. But for heaven's sake do no let it be thought that I am suggesting that less money should go to the Arts Council—far from it.
The first point, I think, is that the spirit of the Act requires that these voluntary agreements be entered into. In the National Trust we are party to a number of them. I have every reason to think that they will work very well. We do not of course get any compensation. That would be quite wrong; we ought not to—in spite of the principle which, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, pointed out, has been adopted. I do not think that it is the fault of this Act that it has been adopted—the principle that you pay people for doing things that they never really intended to do, and that you pay them for loss of potential profit instead of actual profit. I agree with him that that is quite wrong. But I do not think that it is the fault of the Act.
My only other point is this. However much the nation should or can afford to pay for conservation, it ought to he seen as part of a single exercise. It seems to me that the care of the countryside, for what it can produce, for the pleasure that it gives and as a habitat for plants and wildlife, is all one exercise, because these things have to he kept in balance with one another. We ought not to separate, as we do administratively, the twin objectives of conservation and food production. It seems to me to follow that we ought to make one Ministry responsible for both objectives. I should have thought that it ought to be MAFF which dispensed such subsidies as may be necessary for food production and compensation for limiting food production in the interests of conservation.
All questions of balance in any undertaking have to be resolved by some one authority responsible for holding that balance. In my opinion, MAFF would do it very well. It is already recognised in statute that the Minister of Agriculture has some duties towards conservation. The 1968 Act enjoined him to exercise his functions with regard for natural beauty and the amenity of the countryside. The 1981 Act, which we have been discussing, says that if he is asked for a grant in respect of land in an SSSI or a national park, he must consider and further the conservation of flora, fauna and other features of interest before responding; and if the Nature Conservancy Council or the National Parks Authority object to a grant being

1213
made, he must consult with the Secretary of State for the Environment before making a grant. It is not clear who decides.
It seems to me that both in practical and psychological terms we should get better results by making the Minister of Agriculture decide whether to make a grant or whether instead to make a compensation payment for a management agreement. Of course MAFF will not be keen to take on that responsibility. It now has a straightforward job. It is an economic ministry. The people in the ministry are human, and they will not fancy having to perform a controversial balancing act such as that which I have suggested. Nevertheless, in this populous island, conservation is here to stay. To my mind, the logical consequence is an integrated approach to food production and conservation—I say integrated in the hands of MAFF, and I am sure that it would respond.
I have one last point which has not been mentioned this evening. The Question of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, refers to what else the Government have in mind for improving the amenities of the countryside. I forget the exact wording. There is one thing which to my mind does more harm to the countryside than almost anything else, and that is litter. We are becoming the dirtiest people in Europe under the influence of the packaging industry and of our own filthy habits. I do not think that one should always ask the Government to do everything, and I do not quite know what the Government can do about this, but I have absolutely no doubt that we should try to think of ways in which money can usefully be spent in educating people about litter and doing something in schools. I know that something is done already, but perhaps much more could he done. Perhaps something can be done by way of fines (fiendish fines, I would hope) and by way of rewards, if they can be thought of. I am afraid I have no sensible suggestions to make. But when we are talking about amenity, beauty, and so on, I do not think that we should forget that litter is nowadays disfiguring our countryside in a way that was absolutely unthought of 50 years ago. I hope that noble Lords may be able to come forward with suggestions as to how this awful situation can be improved.
9.18 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, it seems more than three years ago since many of us were here trying to unscramble the numerous problems we were faced with during the course of the consideration of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. It was during the passage of that Bill that I had the honour of addressing your Lordships for the first time. I therefore have particular pleasure in welcoming the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, to the House and congratulating him on his maiden speech. I agree with everything that he said. I know that we very much look forward to hearing him in the future.
I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Onslow for asking this very important Question. It is perhaps in some respects a little too early to be making accurate assessments as to how the Act is working, but I think it is fair to say that, unfortunately, there are
1214
obvious problems which I fear are unlikely to rectify themselves without a change in legislation.
I think that on the whole the Bill has been a major step forward in protecting the countryside and helping us better to understand and appreciate the countryside, as other noble Lords have said. I think it has also served to make landowners and farmers better realise the enormous interest and concern that the general public have for the countryside at large. But I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who said that these problems are complex; indeed they are. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and long may it be so. However, I believe that a great deal more should, and could, be done, not simply through legislation, but by a basic change in attitude, and financial direction, by the Government.
The voluntary approach must be seen to work through a responsible lead from Government, with controls where necessary. However, for this to be effective, I believe more information is required as to what is actually happening on the land itself through modern farming techniques—something about which I feel we do not know much. A far greater co-operation in this particular field is I think needed between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture—so often, I fear, seen pulling in opposite directions. Above all, we need to see a greater personal liaison between those government bodies responsible for the well-being of the countryside and the farmers themselves. There is no substitute at all for this personal contact.
Moving on to the Act itself, it did of course commendably strengthen the role of the Nature Conservancy Council, but the additional work load imposed upon that organisation, and in particular the notification process of the SSSIs, has simply not been matched, I fear, with the necessary increase in staff, as, indeed, other noble Lords have said. Apart from the notifications taking so long, the result is that the remainder of the countryside is being neglected. This position must be rectified.
Furthermore, the fact that sites are still being destroyed during the three-month consultation period demonstrates to me, and I know to other noble Lords, the need to strengthen Sections 28 and 29 of the Act and allow a statutory period of similar length to be imposed on all potential sites where no operation which would damage the area can take place. I think it is important to note that this will not impede in the long-term, the basic voluntary approach which we on this side of the House believe is so fundamental to the workings of the countryside.
However, I am bound to say that some of the lists of damaging operations which I have seen are what I might describe as somewhat imposing and not necessarily conducive to co-operation between the NCC and the farmers and landowners. In fact, they do not always seem to relate to the reasons for the original designation.
Moving on to Section 32, to which other noble Lords have referred, my own personal feeling is that the way it is being carried out at the moment is politically uacceptable. I know it is difficult to work out, as my noble friend Lord Middleton has said, a practical suggestion as to how these levels of

1215
compensation should be paid, but they cannot go on being paid to people for doing nothing or in respect of something which they may do in the future, with the use of public funds. I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government to look at this urgently and to come forward with a much more equitable solution.
Moving away from the Act itself, but still on the question of legislation I must confess that since I have had the privilege of sitting on the Yorkshire Dales national park committee I have become increasingly impressed by the system of prior notification of agricultural grants and the consultation process which follows. In certain circumstances I think it is fair to say that MAFF have perhaps been a little slow in overcoming the problem of retrospective grants. This is something which I think should be stopped as soon as possible. However. I believe that the system should be extended to the country as a whole. That is a view that I am sure will not be shared by certain noble Lords on this side of the House. I am thinking in particular of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and I am interested in hearing what he has to say on that matter.
However, I have been told that the NFU would be in favour of this extension, though I do not know whether or not that is true. I hope it is, because I do not think it would impede sensible farmers in any way whatsoever, and it would bring to our attention more effectively those who are inclined to behave in what I shall describe as an irresponsible fashion.
I have mentioned my concern about the inability of the NCC to involve itself as effectively as it might in the countryside. This brings me to the second half, and in some respects, I believe, the more important part of my noble friend's Question, namely, whether the Government can see any further ways of improving the quality of the countryside. I believe that we are in real danger of having two distinct types of countryside. My noble friend Lord Chelwood referred to this. They are those areas of sufficient scientific importance to warrant SSSI status and the rest. Obviously, this is far too simplistic a view. There are endless examples of where caring landowners and farmers—the majority, in fact—are doing their level best to look after the countryside in a caring and sensible way while at the same time attempting to make a living—a point that is sometimes forgotten.
What is required above all else is necessary information and guidance to carry out these obligations in an effective manner. There is far too much going on agriculturally that we do not fully understand. I feel that more must he done to reconcile the needs of food production and the consequential damaging results on the countryside. Despite the vast increase in the use of chemicals, hardly any work appears to have been done on their effects on the natural environment. We know what they do for agriculture. But that is only half the story. The total reliance on them is frightening, although I suppose that it is fair to say that as we see changes in the common agricultural policy, we may well see a change in the input of this type of operation.
I should like to give an example of one very important project in which I am personally involved as a game conservancy. We have a project known as Cereals and Game Birds, totally funded by farmers. We are monitoring the effects of agro-chemical sprays
1216
on hedgerows. Blocks of unsprayed headlands six metres from the hedge are being compared to similar sprayed areas. The yield difference between the two areas has proved negligible as, obviously, the growth rate around the hedge tends to be greatly reduced. The weed build-up has been slow. This has been monitored. The results are encouraging. Related to the whole farm—the farm concerned is 2,200 acres—this represents 2 per cent. and an equivalent saving in chemicals of around £1,500 for the farm a year.
After one year, on the sprayed areas, there are five species of butterflies. On the unsprayed areas, there are 21. Partridge chick survival rate has increased by three times on the unsprayed area. It is fair to say that we expect increases in all forms of flora and fauna. Indeed, the British Trust for Ornithology will be monitoring the effect on song-birds. It is extremely optimistic that it will show the same results.
In addition, the scope for the protection of the cereal aphid predators, which of course live in the hedgerows, could be of immense importance in the consequential reduction in reliance on sprays. The production of food and the ecological effects can no longer be regarded in isolation. Research of this type is urgently required and a lead by Government is needed to give farmers and conservationists the right information. I sincerely hope to hear an assurance from my noble friend on the Front Bench that more is going to be done in this direction to serve the countryside as a whole.
In conjunction with this increased information which we require, as I have already said, the NCC must be encouraged to carry out in a more effective manner its role for the countryside at large. But on a budget of £ 1–5 million per annum, and a further £1–6 million for compensation and capital projects, et cetera, I do not believe that it is likely to succeed. We all know that money could be made available; indeed, we have had examples from noble Lords as to where it could come from. If I may, I should like to mention my particular baby: that is, that last year, on drainage grants alone, MAFF spent £35–1 million in England and Wales. Ten per cent. of that figure is greater than the combined figures available at the moment to the NCC. I think that speaks for itself.
We need more useful research, greater financial assistance to the NCC and also a greater encouragement by Government of management agreements, which again is something that has been mentioned by noble Lords. My experience is that many authorities are reluctant to proceed with management agreements because they have no confidence that money will be available. I say to them that there is only one way to find out, and that is to go ahead and do it. The onus is on the Government to come up with the necessary funds.
I should like to refer briefly to the uplands, which is the part of the world from which I come. I know much has been done in trying to prevent the erosion of many of the features in the countryside, but it is no good. Hay meadows, heather and dry stone walls are still disappearing, and in some cases they are disappearing at a very alarming rate. I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Onslow say that MAFF were actually giving money for protection of this sort in Derbyshire. All I can say is that I wish to goodness they

1217
would come to Yorkshire. I am afraid I can see no evidence that MAFF are advising farmers to take heed of conservation matters.
A point my noble friend Lord Middleton made was that things were improving as far as ADAS are concerned. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with him on this because I have seen no evidence at all that ADAS have strengthened their hold over conservation matters. How nice it would be if they could start giving farmers the sort of advice on agriculture and conservation combined for which I believe the Act was attempting to provide. In fact, I would go a stage further. I should like very much to see an ADAS officer attached to each national park authority in the hope of trying to bring together these two conflicting interests. It is a problem that certainly we have in our part of the country, and I know that others have it as well.
I should like to give your Lordships an example concerning MAFF. A tenant farmer of mine and I attempted to get through the Ministry of Agriculture a grant for the reduction of mollinia grass which was coming into an area. The aim behind our application was to try to get heather back—a good conservation move. Unfortunately, this did not work, for the simple reason that we could not demonstrate to MAFF that we were going to produce an increase in stock numbers. I think that sums up the big problem we have at the moment, particularly in the uplands. I would hope to see changes so that the conservation and the farming sides could come much closer together.
1218
I hope that we shall soon have the opportunity to debate the report of the Countryside Commission on the uplands. As my noble friend Lord Onslow has said, a great deal must be said on that subject, and we cannot go on relying exclusively on the hill livestock compensatory allowance system. There has to be a closer integration of the agricultural, social and environmental sides. But I do not believe that now is the time to debate that particular point.
Finally, the care of the countryside is largely a question of attitude, plus the necessary finance. I believe that even a modest switch in emphasis would go a very long way. I believe that, if we are to succeed, the Government's priorities will have to change and we must start thinking of the countryside as a whole and not just as isolated areas. It must not be neglected. The Act has gone far, of that there is no doubt, but in my opinion not far enough.
Noble Lords have referred to the excellent booklet written by Mr. Kenneth Carlisle, which somehow preempts everything that conservationists would like to say about the countryside. I should like to refer to the foreword, which is by William Waldegrave, the Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment. It says:
"I am absolutely delighted to provide a foreword to this first-rate pamphlet. As usual there is a middle way, and Conservatives who are not johnny-come-latelies in their concern for and knowledge of the countryside in Britain are the only party in a position to find it".
I hope to goodness that they do, and quickly.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, first, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, that if we could pursuade the Government to encourage local authorities to place skips in advantageous places around the countryside, it would help the litter problem enormously. It has certainly helped in my village.
Perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend Lord Onslow that he rephrase his Question to read:
"Do Her Majesty's Government consider that all those involved in the countryside are actively encouraging and helping the 1981 Act to work?"
For it is not the Government who make legislation work; it is we in the sticks who make or break this operation, a point that was made by my noble friend Lord Onslow in a slightly different way. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will reply that there is absolutely nothing wrong, or very little wrong, with the 1981 Act and that the great majority of organisations —particularly the Ministry of Agriculture and the Countryside Commission—and farmers improve the quality of the countryside and actively support the 1981 Act.
Certainly, for a change, John Young in last Saturday's Times thought so and I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Blakenham, in an excellent maiden speech. plead for reasonableness between us all. However, I shall try not to he anodyne, and I shall suggest two areas that my noble friend on the Front Bench might care to look at with a view to further improvement. They are of course, first, farmers and, secondly, the Nature Conservancy Council.
All individuals make mistakes and because farming is so open to the public eye, our mistakes—my mistakes—are seen by all, and most of all by the farmer himself. However. I would ask your Lordships to look at the recorded mistakes which some noble Lords have already mentioned. According to my figures, there have been 22 reported cases of damage to sites of special scientific interest—abuses, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, called them. By no means all were damage by farmers; one, for instance, was by a golf club. But most important, 11 of those 22 cases were offences against the 1981 Act and prosecutions will no doubt, I hope, follow.
These figures prove the futility of those who want more legislation and planning. They demonstrate that we can make laws and regulations, but that it is the will of those who live under them that matters. Everyone knows, or should know, that the carrot is better than the stick. The 1981 Act, thank God, relies on the carrot.
However, as your Lordships know, and many have mentioned. there is a three-month loophole in the Act so far as sites of special scientific interest are concerned. Although the number of farmers exploiting this loophole has been very small. I should be happy. in common with my noble friend Lord Middleton, to see it closed, if possible. Perhaps again my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale would comment on this in his reply. So much for the farmers' sins.
During the passage of the 1981 Act whenever anyone got into a muddle, or had a problem, the cry
1220
went up, "Let the NCC deal with it". I therefore have much sympathy for the plight in which the NCC find themselves, and if I now utter some hard words I trust that your Lordships will take them as being constructive rather than destructive of the NCC and, in my noble friend Lord Onslow's words, aimed at minimising conflict between the farmers and the conservationists.
The NCC are not capable of doing the job they have been given. They have neither the quantity nor the quality of staff to do it. My reasons for such a statement are as follows, and not because I am suffering, as perhaps my noble friend Lord Middleton would suggest, from either sheep scab or sites of special scientific interest. Far from it; I believe I am less favoured.
The NCC officers come in contact with farmers, and not just those with sites of special scientific interest. It is important therefore for them to appreciate that their appearance on the farm, sometimes preceded by a horrific statutory notice, may cause suspicion, alarm and even hostility, and of course the fear of compulsory purchase. It may not be their intention to do so, but certainly that comes over. I think that when my noble friend Lord Middleton was joking about sheep scab and sites of special scientific interest, that is what my Welsh neighbour was more or less saying.
The NCC staff are usually young, with little local knowledge, and not trained, as ADAS men have been for many years, in getting farmers to co-operate. This attitude can cause a chain of non co-operation—a situation which can be further inflamed if the farmer finds that the NCC have not even bothered to read his case. I can give your Lordships examples of that.
I would reinforce these criticisms by asking your Lordships to look at the series of questions put to the Chief Scientist and his assistant by Sub-Committee 1 of your Lordships' House on 16th May this year, terminating with question 328, which asked whether there had been close co-operation between agricultural and conservation interests. The reply was:
"The relationships 10 years ago were not at all good. They have improved that and particularly at local level. There seem to be problems that, as it goes up the scale in the different levels, then the extent of the breakdown in communication tends to become greater."
I think personally that that was quite an admission, though at least it was honest.
I would therefore ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to look at this problem and also to ascertain whether some members of the NCC really want the 1981 Act to work. I should like to see a statement that all members of the NCC, council and staff—and I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Chelwood is not here—are determined to make the voluntary approach, as epitomised in the 1981 Act, work. I have read encouraging articles by their chairman, but I have grave doubts about some of his council and staff.
I should also like to ask, what is the NCC's attitude to a changing agricultural and rural scene? It appears to me that they want to stop the environmental clock in 1984. Is this really so? Are they not interested in looking forward to a new and perhaps altered environment? I noted with great interest the remarks of the

1221
noble Lord, Lord Oram, about a forward-looking approach, and I hope that the NCC do too. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale can tell me whether my attitude or view is wrong over this, because, if my reservations on their present attitude are anywhere near correct, I am afraid I would ask my noble friend not to give the NCC a farthing more money until he can assure me that they have put their house in order—my noble friend Lord Blakenham assures me they have—despite the Rayner Report and pleas by other noble Lords.
It is my job, and that of those of us who live in the country, to make the 1981 Act work through the voluntary approach. Any other method is far too expensive and impractical, and I hope my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale can assure me that the Government and the NCC in particular have similar objectives.
9.46 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords. I should like to add my thanks to those already tendered to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for asking this Question, although frankly I wish it had been a Motion moved at three o'clock in the afternoon. It is quite clear from the gravamen of the speeches we have already heard that this is a matter of the most intense interest to a great many Members of the House, and, personally. I have already benefited very much from the very substantial contributions, not least that made by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, who I think has given us an extremely interesting insight into his own direct experience as a landowner, a farmer and a member of the Parks Authority. But it is too late tonight, with other speakers still to come, to go into too great detail.
I begin by saying how delighted I was that the noble Earl. Lord Onslow, quoted from the brilliant satirical article by Lord Bruce-Gardyne in The Times newspaper of 21st March. If any noble Lord has not had the pleasure of reading it. I suggest he goes to the library, perhaps tomorrow, and does so. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, is not here to make an equally brilliant oral contribution to the debate tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who is replying to the debate tonight, may be relieved to hear that although I gave notice to his department earlier on I am not in fact going into the detail of the Halvergate Marshes, which are regarded by a large number of conservation bodies in this country, if not by the farming community, as the touchstone of whether or not this Act can be made to work. I understand that the noble Lord. Lord Renton, who is much better informed than I am on the matter, is going to do so, so I will not take up the time of the House in asking what exactly did happen in the other place this afternoon beyond just reminding your Lordships that as recently as 4th April the Minister. William Waldegrave—for whom I think we all have a very warm regard--stated in another place that he could assure Members that Halvergate was safe for a year. I am hoping that with the encouragement of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the noble Lord the Minister will be able to tell us that that assurance is still valid.
1222
I was much entertained to hear about the sheep scab and the SSSIs' affliction in my native country. I suggest that one of the reasons why Welsh farmers have considered that they have had perhaps rather frequent visits from the Nature Conservancy Council in Wales is that I believe we have been much more rapid in Wales than in either England or Scotland in proceeding with notification, or particularly renotification, of sites of scientific interest. But I am now told that the officers of the NCC in Wales have been called to heel and told that they must adopt the more elaborate procedures which are now current in England and Scotland. If the Minister can enlighten me on that I should be grateful, because I understand that we have in Wales already been able to undertake about half of the notification procedures, which is a higher proportion than that quoted for either England or Scotland. I wonder whether it is necessary that in England and Scotland more elaborate procedures should be followed. If I can be enlightened on that, I shall be interested.
Nevertheless, of the sites where damage has been done either three or four are in Wales. The reason that I am dubious about the precise number is that I have details from the Nature Conservancy Council of four sites, but it says of one of them that consultation began on a 10½-hectare proposed site of special scientific interest. Before the consultation period was over three of the 10½-hectares had been ploughed up. This was the key part of the site and therefore the NCC has not proceeded to notify the remainder. In those circumstances, it may not even he a statistic.
There are other sites, not large in number I grant you, which have aroused public concern. For example. I have here details of one of the sites in Cardiganshire. In May this year—this was widely notified in the local press—the landowner had ploughed up 20 acres of water meadow, felled seven acres of trees, thereby destroying over 50 species of plants, some of them rare, and the breeding grounds of curlew's, lapwings and butterflies. I am afraid it did the image of the farming community in the eyes of conservationists no good at all.
Having said that, I should like to echo some of the positive things which were said particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and also by other noble Lords, about how we can make this kind of incident virtually impossible by tightening up a relatively small area of legislation—that is, the three months' gap. Most people observe this entirely honourably and conscientiously, but the publicity given to one conspicuous rogue farmer, if I may call him that (he may not have been, and all kinds of circumstances may have made him do it), for one serious and disturbing incident of this kind, may be blow's up by the press beyond justification; nevertheless it does great damage to relationships. If one felt that this gap was stopped and that people could not take advantage of the possible loophole, I think a great deal of good would be done. There is also the question of a shorter stop notice when application is being made to the Secretary of State, which can also be evaded by anybody who for one reason or another is determined to do it. Someone may have a grudge against being approached at all. There are all kinds of psychological

1223
as well as financial and commercial reasons for doing this kind of thing.
It would be more satisfactory altogether, if we mean the procedure to work, to make it as watertight as possible. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, appeared to me to be in sympathy with that point of view. I hope very much that the Government will accept that this is a perfectly genuine situation where we believe that some relatively minor legislative action could make the situation sure beyond peradventure and avoid these very disturbing incidents which receive considerable publicity and spoil the atmosphere, probably to a much greater degree than the extent of the damage justifies.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, referred to the difficulties of drainage and prior notification. I gave notice to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that I intended to ask him some questions about this, arising out of a response which he made in your Lordships' House on 25th April last year, when we were debating the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the water industry, which, among its various recommendations, referred specifically to Section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
We received what appeared to be very satisfactory assurances at that time that the Government were proposing—in relation to land drainage, on the one hand, and to river corridors and proper surveys of the natural resources thereof—to develop a common approach to the carrying out of surveys and to agree funding arrangements and to arrange for coordination between the Natural Environment Research Council, the Nature Conservancy Council and the various water authorities concerned. My informants, who were engaged in these various bodies, tell me that, as far as they can make out, except for a small grant from the NCC, nothing has really happened. This may be incorrect; but, if something really substantial has happened, then I should be grateful if we might be publicly informed thereof.
The drainage situation is one which causes very considerable concern in various parts of the country. I normally refer to the Principality of Wales because that is the area with which I am personally most familiar, but I have friends in Oxfordshire, for example, who were telling me only a couple of days ago of the absolutely disastrous exercise by engineers on a tributary of the River Thames in North Oxfordshire which had utterly destroyed the angling interests in that area: because the engineers had come along, had virtually canalised part of the river, had straightened it all out, had smoothed the gradient, cut down trees, cleared the weeds—everything in order to get better flow, which was all that they were concerned about. My friends said to me: "There were no pools, no shade: there were no holds for the fish and angling had been ruined". The only comforting thing, they said, was that a similar proposition has recently been called in by the Thames Water Authority for further consideration because of the protests of local interests at the insensitive way in which some of the drainage operations are carried out. They are an engineers' dream and an anglers' nightmare.
1224
This leads me to ask the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, what has happened to the interdepartmental committee which has been sitting for an interminable time examining the internal drainage system? When may we receive the report? When is it going to be published? Is it going to be in the form of consultation? Can he please reassure us about some of these drainage operations which really are among the most damaging and insensitive from the environmental point of view. The water authorities, with the best will in the world, have only very limited control over what can be done by the land drainage authorities which are attached to them.
Finally—there are a great many other points that one could raise—I think that one must, in all of this, emphasise the problem of the inadequate number of staff available both at NCC and with ADAS to carry out adequately the propositions which were contained in the Act. I was very much interested to hear the noble Earl, Lord Peel, say that in his part of the world there are not enough ADAS staff—who most of us believe are the absolutely crucial intermediaries in all this; those of us who years ago gave evidence to the Strutt Committee, and so on, have always said that they are the people who work best with the farmers, who understand the farmers' problems and who, many of them, are already knowledgeable in environ-mental matters and, where not, they could well be further trained in that direction. I know that in Wales there are not enough to carry out the functions in the way that they themselves would wish to carry them out. I was interested to hear from a different part of the country that this also appears to be the case there.
I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, regarding what he said about some, at least, of the NCC officers. Again, many of them are relatively young people who have had good scientific training, good laboratory training, but they do not know how to talk in the sort of language which will persuade farmers that what they are trying to do is important to the farmers as well as to them. This is where ADAS, if only there are enough ADAS officers available, can usually be more successful working hand in glove with the NCC people who have perhaps more detailed scientific knowledge of what is required.
Those of us who are concerned with the Countryside Commission were very glad to learn that they at least have been allocated five new posts, two of which I think are to be devoted especially to work in national parks, but they have been given no extra money whatever for these five appointments. The money has to be taken from other activities in order to appoint five new members to their headquarters staff.
I will not weary the House at this late hour by proceeding further on this, but if the Government will the way, they really must will the means. This applies most of all, I think, in providing adequate staff resources to carry out the admirable intentions, particularly of the voluntary system which is the philosophy of the 1981 Act.
10.1 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord

1225
Blakenham on an excellent maiden speech in which he pointed out so succinctly some of the deficiencies of the 1981 Act and proposed solutions to them. My noble friend has a great deal of experience in business and in administration, and in countryside with wildlife committees. The House has therefore been fortunate to have his advice tonight and it is hoped that we shall be able to look forward to many future contributions from him on all matters.
I should also like to join with other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Onslow on introducing this debate. Clearly, a little time needs to pass before the effects of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 can be properly noted—and from the present date it is certainly fitting to attempt to look at these effects.
With any countryside legislation which is recent, it may, however, be cautioned that since different aspects of the land set their own pace, care should always be taken when subjecting them to the same time cycle for the purpose of analysis. While developments such as those in commercial timber can be clearly seen every five years, changes in certain geological features of course may well be noticeable only every 5,000 years. In regard to wildlife and conservation in general, the probable effects of certain plans and measures may often take many years to materialise.
But those measures contained in the 1981 Act are certainly of the type that can, and should, be checked fairly frequently. Although the workings and methods of the Act have been criticised on several grounds, its particular aims retain general approval. These aims were, first, to preserve and protect from damage the 4,000 sites of special scientific interest identified in the United Kingdom and, secondly, to align to the EEC directive concerned and to bring up to date legislation to protect birds, other animals, and plants.
The criticisms of the Act which have arisen have done so on practical grounds and as a result of its voluntary basis. It has been claimed that the procedure for renotification of sites is inefficient, since it takes a long time to carry out and may be disregarded without penalty by the owner. It is further claimed that the level of compensation to which an owner is entitled is too high and the principle of compensation itself even anomalous, since the owner may not have a genuine alternative use for the area of land where he has been compensated.
Following from this, it has also been alleged that the reputation of the countryside is suffering owing to an unfair advantage which is seen to have been given to land occupants as a result of the workings of the Act.
Allegations such as these are always difficult to prove, but I think there is a need in this case for their investigation, where possible, and hence also for the consideration of remedial action, where necessary.
In view of that, and when he comes to reply, I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will indicate what plans the Government may have to reduce costs of administration and compensation and to increase protection for sites of special scientific interest, while maintaining the present voluntary basis of the scheme.
1226
Another area of investigation is the use of tax incentives to encourage the sale and hence also affect the management of SSSIs. In this regard I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister can say whether the Government consider that there is a case to improve the existing sales inducement by increasing the tax concession on sales beyond its present level of 10 per cent. Secondly, I wonder whether he can say whether the Government are considering extending this concession to sales agreed between an owner and the Nature Conservancy Council (to which cases it is currently limited) to those sales between an owner and other conservation bodies.
In spite of the present voluntary methods under the 1981 Act, it has also come up against a certain level of mistrust. In Scotland this is particularly so among crofters and other owners in the Highlands and Islands. However, on the credit side much good will has developed between owners and the NCC, and I have some knowledge of the work of its Scottish branch. Therefore I believe that quite a lot of credit should be given to the work of the very small staff of the NCC, as well as to other organisations, such as the forestry, farming and wildlife advisory groups whose voluntary work has recently contributed much useful advice to farmers on the subject of conservation.
But to look further from the protection of SSSIs, with which the 1981 Act deals, to the conservation needs of the rest of the countryside, there is of course a more comprehensive role which any new measures made now might well adopt. Under this heading I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale can indicate whether the Government are planning incentives to achieve better integrated land use by owners and occupiers and, if so, whether he would consider tax incentives related either to income or to capital, to be more effective in achieving this purpose than grant aid.
In this context there is perhaps the comparative advantage which the reward of a tax incentive has over the reward of a grant or compensation payment. If the latter may give rise to the allegation that an owner has been paid public money for doing nothing, conversely, a tax incentive by definition has to affect the level of money an owner pays the Revenue instead; and he qualifies for the benefit of paying tax at a lesser rate only if he can show that he has carried out a useful function on the land. By this, I do not mean to criticise at all the principle in general of grant aid and compensation, but simply to inquire what balance of incentives the Government would propose in any future scheme of land integration. Can my noble friend also say what type of body or joint bodies might be planned to administer any such schemes, so that the potential conflict between the demands of agriculture and those of conservation are kept to a minimum?
In summary, my Lords, in spite of alleged deficiencies in the workings of the 1981 Act, its conservation aims retain national approval, and there is surely scope for correcting any evident deficiencies without altering the co-operative and voluntary nature of its basis. If, in so doing, the Government were at the same time to introduce further conservation measures beyond the remit of the 1981 Act, there could then be encouraging prospects of better integration of land use,

1227
better relations between Government agencies and owners, and a greater level of confidence and trust between those who work in the towns and those who work on the land.
10.9 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in his excellent maiden speech my noble friend Lord Blakenham said that the 1981 Act was a major step forward. Indeed, I think that the debate we have had tonight is of itself some evidence of that. It was a major step forward at the time, in spite of misgivings expressed on both sides of your Lordships' House. But, as my noble friend Lord Onslow said, there is a new climate of opinion, and several examples of it have been given. I should like to add the further example of the establishment of the Farming and Wildlife Trust, and I hope that it will receive very wide support from farmers and landowners.
This debate is, perhaps, itself a yet further step forward. It is both a progress report and, alas!, a report of lack of progress in some respects. At this late hour, I will exercise unusual self-restraint and refer simply to one particular matter, to which the noble Baroness, Lady White, referred and said that I would deal with. I want to deal with a serious East Anglian conservation problem—the threat to the Norfolk Broads and especially to 750 acres of Halvergate grazing marshes, in particular, all of which are classified as being of grade one landscape value by the Broads conservation authority. A number of farmers want to drain those 750 acres and to plough them up for growing cereals.
Perhaps I should just mention the background to that urge. It affects the Ministry of Agriculture, whose responsibility in these matters has been mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Gibson, and other noble Lords. It is a responsibility which we should not forget. because the compensation that is paid at present through the Department of the Environment and the local authorities is really compensation in relation to agricultural policy. Therefore, the Minister of Agriculture should bear his share of the responsibility: indeed, it is arguable that he should bear the whole of it.
The fact is that this, the largest single block of classic open grazing marsh, is of exceptional significance from the wildlife point of view. I will not go into details; it is so well-known. The threat comes from the fact that cereal prices are, and have been for several years, very high. That has transformed the farming economy of a great part of East Anglia from the mixed farming that it was until about ten years ago to essentially one based primarily on cereal production—and very good incomes are being made from it. This has the result that the compensation payments which are paid to prevent conversion to agricultural production have to be proportionately high, because of the requirements of the Act and because of the income from growing cereals that the farmers would receive if they could develop their land in that way.
The other background feature follows from the one I have just mentioned, and it is this. There are 20,000 acres of Broads marshland, and nearly all of them are potentially at risk of arable conversion—conversion to
1228
growing cereals. But to prevent conversion of only one-quarter of those 20,000 acres would cost no less than £1 million a year of public funds in compensation to individual farmers.
So much for the background. May I now explain to your Lordships—although the facts are not easy to get hold of and are a little befogged—what is actually happening? So far it affects only 750 acres, where I think five farmers gave notice that they wanted to change the traditional marsh drainage—but it is grazing marsh; it is not entirely lacking in drainage —and to convert it into thorough drainage, with pipes, tile drains and properly dug ditches on very level land.
They were approached with a view to compensation agreements being made. I understand that negotiations are still continuing over most of the 750 acres and that the cost will be quite considerable. In the case of 92 acres, the Norfolk Broads Authority, who do not have this sort of money, have made it clear that they are not prepared, owing to their lack of funds, to enter into a management agreement with the farmer concerned over the 92 acres. There is, therefore, an impasse over those 92 acres as well as uncertainty over the rest of the acreage.
This brings me to what I have been asked to say by the CPRE. Perhaps I may make three points. The first is a general point: that if compensation payments are to be offered to farmers at Halvergate. 100 per cent. of the money should he paid either by the Ministry of Agriculture or, failing that, by the Department of the Environment, because the Broadlands authority does not have the money with which to do the job. Indeed, it seems wrong that it should have to bear the cost of what is essentially the support of agricultural policy.
My second point is that I understand that the Countryside Commission has in being an experimental scheme for the management of the Broads for conservation purposes. One would hope that both the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture would declare their support for this scheme. It would very much help if that were to happen and it would go some way towards integrating environmental considerations and agricultural policy.
So much for those two general points in relation to the Broads. I now turn to an immediate problem with regard to the 92 acres. We were told by the noble Baroness, Lady White—I did not know this—that in another place my honourable friend Mr. Waldegrave said as recently as April last that the Halvergate Marshes were safe for a year. I do not find that to be a very encouraging prediction for the future.
I would have hoped that, somehow, the Government could get their heads together and make them safe forever, with the help of all these various bodies, whose duty it is to do these things. The 92 acres will certainly not be safe for very long, unless the Secretary of State for the Environment uses a power, which he has the right to use, to remove the permitted development rights for the under-field drainage which the farmer concerned is preparing to carry out. This means that action must be taken very quickly. We all know that there are times when, if a minister expresses the will to do so, the great bureaucratic machines, upon which so much depends in this country, can move quickly. I hope that, even if he cannot give me

1229
a specific answer this evening, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will take that point on board and will tomorrow take immediate action to see that it is passed on.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I must apologise for rising to speak at this hour. I thought that I had my name down on the list of speakers but I am told that my request did not reach the appropriate authority. I know that there is nothing more depressing than an extra speaker at twenty minutes past 10 o'clock.
However, the part of the world in which I live has been deeply affected by this Act, to which, owing to the excellent initiative of the mover of the Question, we can give some attention tonight. I perhaps take a slightly different view from that which has so far been expressed.
Before I speak about that view, I should certainly like to join in the congratulations to the noble Viscount. Lord Blakenham, who made an admirable speech and reminded us all of his charming father. I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for giving us this opportunity for debate.
There are very considerable misgivings about this Act in my part of the world; and I refer to the far north of Scotland and to the islands. They are felt not only by farmers but by the population in general. We hold some misgivings as to the principle of the Act. It appears to us that the Nature Conservancy Council is a non-elected body which is perhaps insufficiently accountable to anyone. Secondly, it seems to us that its officials promote orders which sometimes interfere gravely with private rights, that their reasons for doing so are secret, and that there is no appeal against them. Thirdly, when orders are made, this results in absentee control by people who know little or nothing about the area concerned.
So much for questions of principle. As to the way in which the Act has been administered—and I refer entirely and purely to Orkney—I am told that between 12 per cent. and 16 per cent. of the land area of Orkney has been designated. I am told that in other parts of the Highlands the figure is as high as 24 per cent. I think that that is excessive. It seems to me to devalue the whole purpose of the Act.
When orders have been made under the Act, there has been very considerable interference with rights long-established; rights held by crofters and by udal landowners for which they have fought for generations. I refer to such matters as the right to open new peat banks and the right to make peat roads. I understand that these are now subject to approval by this remote Nature Conservancy Council. Candidly, to my constituents that appears to be entirely wrong.
I know that a lot of the council's work is quite excellent, but some of its officials do seem to be somewhat tactless and forget that they must proceed by goodwill. I should like to point out that least in Orkney and the Shetlands, the farmers and the crofters are not in the least antipathetic to conservation. Many of them are very good naturalists or keen ornithologists. One is astonished to hear that there is inevitably a conflict between all types of agriculture and conservation.
1230
Furthermore, my ex-constituents are extremely non-destructive people. I can remember one man who was trying to recruit seamen in the Shetlands saying. "It is a peculiarity of the Shetlanders that they never fight with one another and they never throw coal at the seabirds". This is quite astonishing to the English. The divers which nest in Orkney have used the same lochs, owned by the same crofters and their ancestors, for generations. Neither the divers nor my constituents feel that they need a Nature Conservancy Council to come along and remind them of their mutual obligations.
In my own house three years ago, swallows turned up and built a nest in the coalhole. They soon discovered that a more salubrious habitat would be the local farmer's barn. The local farmer had never seen a swallow, but he was perfectly willing to open his barn all summer. But if a man in a bowler hat from Glasgow had turned up and told him, "We've made an order on your barn and you must keep it open, and you must not remove your machinery without our permission", then reluctantly, excellent man though he is, he might have been rather annoyed. They must exercise tact.
I then come to this question of compensation. I was deeply interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I have read something about this. It seems quite incredible that we are paying £1·25 million compensation for breaking in, as I understood him, a marshland for the purpose of producing more grain. I understand that there is a vast surplus of grain in Europe. That appears to be the economics of Alice in Wonderland. Furthermore, I do not think that my ex-constituents want compensation for behaving in a decent way to the animals, flowers, and so on, which are around them. But they are getting interested in this whole business. When they hear what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said about a large landlord getting £20,000 a year for not cutting down a wood I can assure noble Lords that they will prick up their ears. What do they get? I am not aware that small crofters and farmers have been paid any large sums in compensation. I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Skelmersdale, will assure us that the same principles of compensation apply in Scotland as they do in England and apply to the small landowner and crofter as they do to the big chap. There will be a lot of interest in this and I do not remember anything of this sort so far taking place in Orkney.
When we come to the question of what we can do, to my mind the legislation needs to be looked at again, but that will be a lengthy process and nearly all revision of legislation only makes matters worse. But there are a few things which can be done right away. I am sure that the NCC does admirable work, but I ask it to stop designating areas in Orkney and take a look at what has happened and how existing areas are getting on. This may be true of other areas in the Highlands, too. Secondly, we should look at this question of compensation to see that the same rules are applied to the small man as are applied to the big man and in Scotland as in England. Thirdly, some appeal system, even if it is unofficial, should be initiated. Fourthly, the NCC should ensure that its officials know that all this should proceed voluntarily, as has been said, by agreement and that they should exercise tact, remembering that ultimately it all

1231
depends on the goodwill of the local people, which in my part of the world is too readily forthcoming.
I wholly agree with the noble Earl who tabled the Question that the type of agricultural legislation which we have had should be altered and should take account of conservation. The public authorities should also take care when they are every year taking over acre upon acre of good land. No doubt some of it is essential for housing, and so on, but they are still going on taking more land than they need. They are still cutting the verges quite unnecessarily in many parts of the country.
I want to conclude by saying a word about the Royal Society for the Preservation of Birds. This society is now the biggest landowner in Orkney. Furthermore I want to pay them a compliment. Their local staff are quite excellent and they did a most remarkable job on Fair Isle, where they benefited not only the birds but also human beings. That was largely due to the genius of George Waterston who, alas, is dead, and to some extent to Ian Pitman. However. I must say that absentee landlords are to my mind a little dangerous. While we may admire the RSPB, it should give up, for the time being, acquiring land in Orkney. I also say to it that I think it is time it promoted a change in the schedule of birds attached to the Act we are discussing. The great skua of Bonxa is becoming an absolute menace in Orkney and Shetland. It has driven Richardson's skua out of Foula and it is a plague upon the mainland of Orkney. If people are worrying about duck and divers it is the great skua which is going to finish them off, not the Orcadian crofter.
Conservation is vital but, not unnaturally, it must be tackled in different ways in different places. We are not suffering from vast industrial developments. We are not suffering from the iniquities of the local farmers. I am afraid it is the enthusiastic bird watchers, and so on, who trample all over the place who are, if anything, damaging the environment. Different treatment is required in different places and I hope that that will he realised and that we shall go from strength to strength, learning from our experiences up to date.
10.29 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Grimond having had a good go from this Bench, it necessarily behoves me to be as brief as possible, though I think I should make it absolutely clear that the fact that his name was inadvertently missed from the speakers' list was due to no fault of his. I agree entirely with my noble friend. I have grave suspicions of non-elected bodies exercising unaccountable power without adequate scrutiny. But that is one rather general matter. I am sorry to hear from him that the harmonious spirit of co-operation which has begun to develop between the Nature Conservancy Council and landowners, farmers and others in the countryside in England and Wales has not yet crossed the Pentland Firth. I think we must hope that that mood of co-operation finally arises within the Orkneys, and. indeed, in Shetland, too.
Like other noble Lords, I must thank the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for bringing us back to a subject on which we spent so very many long hours. I think, some
1232
years ago. Some noble Lords will recollect that at that time I had the honour to be chairman of the Countryside Commission, a position which is now held with very great distinction by Mr. Derek Barber, with whom I had a discussion about this debate earlier today. It necessarily follows that I took an active part in those debates, as did many noble Lords who are here with us today, and thus, like other noble Lords, I am very interested in the outcome of the very hard work which we did those many years ago.
As a former chairman of the Countryside Commission, my interest has necessarily been rather more towards the countryside than the wildlife aspect of this Act. I think it is right to say that the two are not entirely the same. In that connection, I would say that I very much agreed with Mr. Heseltine, who was, Secretary of State at the time, when he took the decision not to amalgamate the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. It seemed to me that in order to discharge its statutory duties the Nature Conservancy Council has necessarily from time to time to keep people out of the countryside, whereas the statutory duty of the Countryside Commission is to promote access to the countryside: in other words, to get people in. It has always seemed to me that it is rather better for these two bodies to act harmoniously, but separately, in partnership, as they now do, rather than their being amalgamated, which I think perhaps could have resulted in certain difficulties.
In general, I think it is perhaps a little too soon for us to say whether the Act is right or wrong, or whether it requires altering this way or that way. I understand that the Countryside Commission is going to present a full and considered report on the workings of the Act at the end of three years of its existence. I have no doubt that the Nature Conservancy Council will be doing likewise. Possibly at that time in your Lordships' House we might very well have a much fuller debate, rather than just a debate on an Unstarred Question, although I am sure that we are all grateful for this.
Having said that I think it is too soon to make final judgments, we can in the meantime make preliminary assessments. My assessment, like that of most noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, is, I would say, broadly optimistic. I appear to have detected a change in mood. This has been referred to by many noble Lords in their speeches. I think that there is an increasing realisation by people in the countryside —both those who work in it and those who merely visit and use it—that the productive use of land, whether agricultural land for producing food, forestry land for timber, water production, or whatever else, can go hand in hand in harmony with conservation and recreational use. We have seen that develop over the years.
If we look at the history of the Forestry Commission, there was a time when people certainly could not picnic on Forestry Commission land. To talk to forestry commissioners now, you would almost think that they had actually invented picnic sites and not that they were something in which they had reluctantly acquiesced. They knew perfectly well that people were going to come to the forests, and, if they were, it was much better that they should be provided for and that they should come to those places which

1233
were best for them. That has happened. We have seen the same development with the water authorities. Noble Lords will remember the time when we were not allowed anywhere near reservoirs. We might do objectionable things in the water, or perhaps our dogs might! Now we are able to fish in them, swim in them, sail on them and in fact visit and walk round them.
There is an increasing realisation by those who manage land productively in the countryside that land management and production can go hand in hand with recreational use and with conservation. The realisation by those involved in agriculture that conservation is not necessarily antagonistic to profitable agricultural productivity has certainly grown apace. I think more and more farmers are realising that conservation itself can perhaps be profitable and enjoyable and can form a very proper part of farming, and can, indeed, be properly integrated with farming in the more usual and customary sense.
One particular matter upon which I would comment is this. As some noble Lords may remember, I was fortunate enough to persuade your Lordships to introduce an amendment into the Bill (as it then was) to protect areas of limestone pavement from the point of view of their being very unusual landscape features of immense attraction and as well as immense importance in conservation terms. At the time that I used to visit those particular areas, in North Yorkshire, I found this fascinating area of limestone pavement, which many noble Lords will have seen. I found that lumps of limestone from those pavements were being carted away, mostly by people with lorries, in order to deposit them in rockeries in towns throughout the length and breadth of the country. When I visited the same area recently I could see no further signs of that kind of devastation. Therefore that is one part of the Act which, from my own observation, I can say appears to be working very satisfactorily.
As noble Lords have said, there are of course difficulties. As has been said over and over again, the main difficulty is that of funding—a point very clearly made in the admirable speech of the noble Earl, Lord Peel. He made a very similar point in his maiden speech, when we were discussing the Bill (as it then was) at a very much earlier stage. The point was made very effectively, too, in an outstanding speech by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. Personally, I should like to endorse very heartily his plea that sooner or later we should establish a carefully thought out, long-term integrated land use strategy for the whole of Britain. That is an immensely important matter, which I think would justify a full-scale debate in your Lordships' House, rather than merely a few remarks in this particular debate. It was a very important point in a very important speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, made the point about the 25 per cent. required from the national park authorities for the funding of management agreements. He expressed the view that that was too much for the national park authorities to bear at the moment, unless they are to be financed in a very different way, and he suggested that perhaps the percentages should he changed and that central resources should bear a much bigger proportion of the funding agreements.
1234
Many noble Lords referred to the time factor. Indeed, the noble Viscount, in his admirable maiden speech, referred to this matter. It is the matter which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, referred to as the 3-month loophole. As was said, there is no doubt that damage can be done to areas during the consultation process before notification. That is something about which we might like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, when he comes to reply. So there are two points—funding, and the question of the time factor.
There are a couple of minor points which have been brought to the attention of more or less all noble Lords. Noble Lords will recollect that five years ago we spent a great deal of time on the Bill discussing the whole question of bulls and the running of bulls in fields through which rights of way exist, and so on. It is my view that the Act, as we finally got it, was right. However, it would appear from the information we are now being given by the Ramblers' Association, that either the Act is not always fully understood by those who own the hulls and run them in the particular areas, or perhaps it is not being operated properly. I do not think that there is much that is defective in the Act, but it seems, from what the Ramblers' Association tells us, that it is not working very effectively at the moment in this regard.
The association also makes the point about the ploughing up of footpaths on rights of way and states that though the law requires restoration of those footpaths after they have been ploughed up, many are not being restored. However, those are minor matters.
We have a very difficult task ahead of us. Somehow or other we must reconcile two conflicting national policies, both of which are of immense importance. Land in general and countryside land, in particular, in this country is in very short supply. Indeed, there are few parts of the world where it is in shorter supply. Not only is land and countryside land in short supply but it is also coming under ever increasingly heavy demands. Somehow or other, we have to reconcile two conflicting national policies; first, the need to maximise the productivity of our land be it for food, forestry or whatever, and secondly, to preserve outstanding areas of landscape or natural habitat at the same time. There is a conflict, and it is my view that all conflicts can be resolved at a price. I hope that we shall hear that we are prepared to pay the price for resolving this particular conflict.
10.40 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, at this hour, with so much said, I shall try not to repeat any of the major points that have been made. We are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for bringing forward this debate. It is particularly timely in view of the Halvergate discussion that I, too, had come well briefed to cover. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for saving me the task of going through it all again. I could perhaps say, however, that the reference by the Minister in another place appears in column 954 of the Qfficial Report of 4th April. I have little further information. At this moment work has begun on the 92 acres. Excavators are on site and are preparing, if they have not already begun, to deepen

1235
the ditches. If, therefore, the noble Lord the Minister is to make any impact on the situation, he must do so quickly. If there is to be an Article 4 direction, which I hope there will be, it will need to be made immediately.
I should like to offer congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, on his excellent speech. In another part of this House in another context, the chairman referred to the leaders of the RSPB as being descended directly from Saint Francis. We therefore treat him with great respect, and I am sure that that respect is carried on in the House this evening.
The debate has been extremely valuable. Since the Act was passed, there is no doubt that concern for conservation of the environment and the protection of wildlife has continued to grow. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, said that the Act has caused this, and I too am sure that the Act has been largely responsible. However, we must give credit to the BBC for its very sympathetic, informative and sometimes exciting programmes on wildlife which have reached wide audiences and which have heightened public awareness of the value of our natural heritage and the need to be vigilant in its protection. We should give credit, too, to the responsible press reporting of particular issues that have brought environmental problems increasingly to public notice. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, pulls a face. I did refer to the responsible reporting that takes place, and not to the more exciting press that is not always fair in its descriptions.
We must now examine whether the Act needs to be amended. Part I has not received a great deal of attention except from the noble Earl who opened the debate and from the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham. Two main problems seem to arise from Part I. The provision to obtain a licence to kill birds that are causing serious damage to agriculture or fisheries is being used responsibly in many cases. But there is evidence that in some cases, especially in Scotland, licences are being issued almost on demand and the subsequent shoots are being used as sporting events, very often profitably. This is prohibited by the Act and by the EEC directive on bird conservation. The proper management of birds causing damage to crops is well established and is being operated successfully in some areas. There is no need for mass killing and DAFS in particular should be called upon to prove the need for their generous issuing of licences. These licences should be issued as a last resort.
The second item in Part I is the important new provision in the Act for the register of birds of prey in captivity. It is now over 20 months since registration started, but no statistics have been issued to show how many birds have been registered, how many are held illegally or how many illegally-held ones have been discovered. Thefts are continuing, and we need to know what progress is being made. Perhaps the Minister can provide answers for those questions.
I turn now to Part II, which has had a great deal of attention from most speakers tonight. I will not dwell on the three-month loophole, though later on I will mention it once more. Obviously it is something that needs to be plugged, and this needs to be done before
1236
much longer. I have a letter from the National Farmers' Union which draws attention to this very point. It says:
"The NFU understands that eleven new sites"—
I believe the RSPB think it is 12, but we will not quibble over that—
"have suffered some damage during the consultation period before notification, and before the legal requirements to notify operations can apply. In order to prevent this occurring, the NFU had indicated that it would support a short amending bill to require occupiers to follow the procedures presently applicable to notified SSSIs during this period".
The letter goes on to say:
"The NFU believes that the Act should be properly enforced, for example through the prosecution of deliberate offenders".
I understand that there has not been a single prosecution of offenders under this Act, and I think one must ask, "Why?"
I believe the NCC are so worried about the effects of the loophole that we have just discussed that many sites which await notification are being left on ice purely because the NCC fear they will be destroyed if they notify them formally. Surely that is the very opposite effect from what the Act intended, and it is a great pity if that is happening. Therefore, we need to see stronger action taken against people who are offending and in favour of plugging the loophole.
The majority of the existing SSSIs are still not renotified and thus are not protected by the Act. I understand that the NCC estimate that they will not complete the task until the end of 1986 at the earliest. Here I can give noble Lords one example of what is happening for lack of renotification. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, for one, will be relieved to hear that this is not the act of a farmer. In a village in Cambridgeshire there is a chalk quarry in which a rare man orchid was growing. It has been a nature reserve since 1948 but has not been renotified, for the usual reasons of pressure on time and because everyone supposed it to be safe because it was so well known.
This quarry was let to a rifle club which has now bulldozed the site—not simply ploughed it or pruned it in any other way, but bulldozed it. Although the local authority in question is to take action against the club, that does nothing to lessen the plight of the orchid, which is unlikely to survive. There are a growing number of incidents, even on renotified sites, of owner-occupiers carrying out damaging operations without consulting the NCC as they are required to do. I understand that, to date, the NCC know of 17 of these, but still there are no prosecutions.
During the Second Reading of the Bill there were a number of questions raised on Part II. Some of them included the SSSIs, and I think it might be useful to refresh our memories on these and to see how they have fared. I understand that at that time there were in the country 4,000 SSSIs, of which 2.000 were considered to he at risk. My noble friend Lord Melchett, who, incidentally, very much regrets that he cannot be here this evening because he is out of the country, made a calculation that with 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. being destroyed or damaged each year at that time, by the end of four years—that is, now—25 per cent. would have gone. I must ask the Minister: has this fear proved correct? Do we have the figure for

1237
this? Can he say how many have been destroyed or damaged in the last four years?
Much has been said about the philosophy of continuing compensation and, indeed, about the grant system generally. I was interested to see that it was during the Second Reading debate at col. 1050 that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, himself asked this question. He is now in the happy position of being able to answer his own question. I hope that when he replies he will be able to give us a well-considered answer on the value of continuing compensation.
One other point which arose on Second Reading which is worth mentioning, which did not find its way into the Act and on which perhaps we could also be informed, was the question of marine reserves. They were excluded from the Act. We should ask whether that exclusion is still justified. Perhaps I may remind the House that the Berne Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Habitats and the Bonn Convention on the Protection of Migratory Species make it a duty to protect marine environments as well as those on land. Are the Government satisfied that we are not in breach of these conventions? Perhaps 1 may remind the Minister that of the 30 estuaries in Europe and North Africa that harbour wintering birds, half are British, and it seems to me that we have a great responsibility.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I believe that marine reserves were included in the Act in Committee.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I beg your pardon. I failed to find this in spite of my search. However, my question still stands. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether that too is working. There is no need to say any more on the question of compensation, so I should like to touch very briefly on Part III of the Act, which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned.
The Ramblers' Association has raised the point about hulls. I trust that we shall receive an answer from the Minister on that matter. However, I should like to go a little further on the question of reinstatement of ploughed footpaths and suggest that, in fact, the law needs to be strengthened, and that it is not simply a question of the existing law. I think that the law should be strengthened to the extent that members of the public should have a right to prosecute those who unlawfully plough up rights of way. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.
I shall conclude my remarks fairly briefly. The question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, about the need to bring all these policies under one hat, and he suggested that it should be that of MAFF. I think that environmentalists may be forgiven if their blood runs a little cold at this suggestion, because the approach of MAFF so far has been patchy, to say the least. There would need to be a distinct change of MAFF policy and a much greater understanding of the needs of conservation before that would be an acceptable solution. Indeed, reference has been made to the Forestry Commission. Although Forestry Commission policies may have become more enlightened in regard to picnic places, they are anything but enlightened in regard, for example, to the replanting of broad-leafed trees and the selling off of particular
1238
pieces of land, though I know that that was under Government direction. However, I do not think that we should take too kindly to bringing all those responsibilities under one hat without a very distinct policy being spelt out.
There appears to be no doubt at the end of this discussion that amending legislation is needed—first, for the three-month loophole and secondly, to give power to the NCC to obtain an injunction restraining activity pending negotiations on a Section 29 conservation order. I think that that is too urgent to wait for the results of trials, because damage is being done. Indeed, this particular protection should apply to national parks as well, which I understand are not covered by it at the moment.
Thirdly, there is the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, that increases in penalties for offenders need to be very much greater than they are now. They were peanuts even in 1980 and they are certainly not worth considering now. There needs to be a considerable increase in penalties. We need to strengthen the law in relation to ploughed-in rights of way, and no doubt if we were to embark on the path of amending legislation there would be many other suggestions forthcoming.
I am assured by the official Opposition in another place that it is willing to make some of its parliamentary time available for the introduction of amending legislation, and is willing to co-operate with the Government in every way to speed the process of an agreed Bill. This is a generous and unusual offer, and we hope it will be acted upon by the Minister, and with the urgency that this evening's debate has shown to he necessary.
10.56 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I hope I can speak for the whole House and say that it seems strange to be speaking in a debate on this subject without the advice from behind me of the late Lord Glenkinglas, an acknowledged expert in this as in so many other fields. He is sadly missed by your Lordships. However, I am delighted to welcome the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Blakenham, with his experience as chairman of the RSPB. I hope we shall hear him again soon and often when he feels he can spread his wings but still refrain from the controversy on this regrettably most controversial of subjects.
In welcoming my noble friend Lord Onslow's Question this evening I am particularly pleased that it refers both to the environmental and the agricultural point of view. Under normal circumstances my noble friend Lord Belstead would be on the Bench beside me to hear, for example, the interesting and rather firm, almost radical, speech of my noble friend Lord Chelwood. He has asked me to apologise to the House that a long-standing ministry engagement outside London prevents this. However, he agrees with me that the Government's job must be to examine the matter in a balanced way and also to prevent those involved from taking up entrenched positions.
Conservation at all costs can no more be right than defending to the last the farmer's right to do what he will with his fields and hedgerows wherever he may farm. Neither attitude is helpful to constructive

1239
discussion; nor, indeed, is the fact that hardly a day goes by without an article attacking the Wildlife and Countryside Act being published. That being said, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that there are many balanced and informative programmes on the television, and articles in the press. We in Government also seek a fair balance. The Government yield to none in the strength of their commitment to conservation of the countryside. Our efforts to bring the Wildlife and Countryside Act onto the statute book are ample proof of that.
At the same time—and I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Walston—we have responsibility for the continued prosperity of the farming industry, and that responsibility cannot be dismissed lightly, as some of our critics would, it seems, have us do. Farming is as much a business as, say, making ball-bearings. Safeguarding the means for farmers to achieve high productivity and earn a decent living is important, and it is unreasonable to say otherwise. The Government firmly believe that these two objectives need not be irreconcilable.
The 1981 Act represented the best safeguards for the countryside which could at the time practicably be achieved. It emerged, a 4-winged imago, from a chrysalis matured in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Avon, who was the best possible (I might almost say fortuitous) choice: a man who was neither a farmer nor identified with the conservation lobby. He was therefore in the best position to weigh arguments dispassionately and to present them to colleagues. It would not be untrue to say that he did this often overburdened with ideas for improvements from all sides of the House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I think that in justice my noble friend should mention that my noble friend Lord Onslow farms a great deal of his own land as well as being a keen conservationist, and therefore perhaps he was an ideal person to introduce this debate.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point, but I think I ought to get on with my speech. It would not be untrue to say that my noble friend Lord Avon—or, indeed, anybody speaking from this Box at that time—was often overburdened with ideas for improvements from all sides of this House: ideas which were not practical at that time because the agreement of all those involved—conservationists, farmers, Government departments, your Lordships and Members of another place, not necessarily in that order—was not forthcoming.
Many of the disagreements which arose during the passage of the Bill have resurfaced since and were, I thought, exemplified by the two adjacent speeches of my noble friends Lord Chelwood and Lord Middleton. But there is no doubt in my mind that we could not have had this balanced debate which we have had today during the passing of that Bill or, indeed, at any time up to the present day. The message I have received tonight is that your Lordships have a general desire to make the Act work. At least, I confess
1240
I had drawn this conclusion until I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, which rather threw me.
The most often perceived failing of the Act is not actually in the Act at all. I refer to the vexed question of management agreements and the money for them. I answered a Starred Question from my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne on this subject last month. I was able to explode the myth that they were already too expensive. But the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and other noble Lords, made the point this evening that a vast queue of these agreements is building up.
We are, of course, well aware of the situation and undoubtedly the annual financial burden under the present arrangements will increase significantly. We shall, incidentally, need to review the financial guidelines for compensation in due course—it was always understood that we would. But there is no sign vet that management agreements will present an impossible burden. Such scare stories can only erode confidence in management agreements. Let us have no more of it, my Lords.
Nor should we give credence to the myth that farmers have conservationists over a barrel. The argument runs that a management agreement is nothing more than an ill-disguised grant to a farmer for not doing something which he in any case had no intention of doing. Or to put it another way, it is the farmer trying it on. That is to under-rate the know-how of the conservation agencies which have the job of making these agreements. Their staff—for example at the Nature Conservancy Council—have a good deal of experience in dealing with farmers. They have the job of making a management agreement to further the interests of conservation when, and only when, they consider it necessary. They may feel that some other way is better—possibly a straight purchase of the land, or possibly, though I understand this to be rare, a non-financial understanding. And one should not forget Section 39 of the Act, which gives local planning authorities generally the power to make management agreements for conservation and amenity purposes anywhere in the country.
Going hack a sentence or two, I think the case of Troutsdale Moor, to which my noble friend Lord Middleton referred, was in fact an unfortunate example of a speculative application for grant, because in January 1982 a prospective tenant consulted the National Parks Authority over a proposal to plough and reseed 200 acres of moorland, and from that single application a big brouhaha (I think that perhaps is the expression) erupted in the press. It subsequently transpired that the owner of the moor had never had any intention of letting his land in the first place, so the improvement never took place. So although the National Parks Authority turned down the management agreement, or did not pursue it—and they did this, as I understand it, before they had contacted the owner of the land—they were in this case perfectly correct.
Now critics can fairly say that it is risky to call a farmer's bluff, because it would be disastrous if one got it wrong. I acknowledge the point—there are risks in this—but let us not exaggerate the situation. Are we to suppose that all over the country there are farmers who would have no intention of farming their land

1241
more profitably if denied a management agreement? In individual cases, inertia might prevail. In the generality of cases, it would be against nature. Moreover, the farming community is well aware that the voluntary approach to conservation is very much on trial. They know full well the adverse publicity which would follow if cases went adrift because signals were wrongly given or wrongly interpreted during negotiations. They know that the likely consequences would be the introduction of compulsory controls through fresh legislation. It is not in the interests of the farming community itself that the voluntary approach should fail.
To believe otherwise is merely to give substance to that other myth, the big bad ogre of popular imagination, the farmer. It is almost a truism that before the public in general became aware of the problems of conserving the countryside, it was the farmer who produced the countryside as we know it today. The countryside has not taken care of itself, at least since the enclosure Acts. Putting it in a glass case has never been an option, and it is not now. The fears of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley regarding the Nature Conservancy Council's attitude are unfounded.
If this glass case were an option, it would force me, at least, to emigrate from the country. Farming practices of the past have produced important elements in what is now regarded as our heritage—dry stone walls, spectacular moorland, the Norfolk Broads, to name just a few. I wonder, in parenthesis, what would have been the attitude of conservationists had grants been available for dry stone walls at the time of the enclosures. I wonder what future generations will regard as the equivalent contribution of current farming methods. Change has a habit of spawning new traditions, new likes. Whether this is an improvement of the countryside is a matter for individual taste. The Government—any government—are not the arbiters of taste. Let us not be complacent about changes to the countryside, but, equally, let us not be too fixed in our ideas. Let us try to be practical about what can be achieved.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, still appears to misunderstand the Act. The objectives of SSSIs are not to turn the clock back, nor to prevent any change of use. They are to prevent damaging new operations in sensitive areas. I would tell the noble Lord and the House that the Nature Conservancy Council is accountable because under paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 3 to the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973 the NCC is required to present an annual report to the Secretary of State for the Environment. This is then laid before Parliament under paragraph 17(2). So there is double protection and double responsibility of the NCC. I agree with the noble Lord that it is only right that that should be so.
My noble friend Lord Chelwood produced a further myth which sent shudders through my soul. "MAFF lives in a siege economy", he said. I believe that the contrary is true. While the ministry does an excellent job in promoting an efficient and competitive British farming industry, it also commits substantial resources to the promotion of conservation and the protection of the environment, through both the Agricultural
1242
Development and Advisory Service and its capital grants scheme.
I take great pride in being a member of a Government who have reduced the rate of inflation from 22 per cent. to 5.2 per cent. and interest rates from 18 per cent. to around 9 per cent. Even with a comparatively low retail price index, any proposal for change in management agreements has to fit in with one's general ideas on the economy. Every penny that the Government raise has to come either from borrowing, which puts up interest rates, or the taxpayer, which puts up personal taxation. Both, as a last resort, increase the rate of inflation.
Anything which calls for large sums of new money is not an option. But let us be quite clear on this point: conservation has a cost. It also has a priority which must be balanced against other priorities, though I was interested by the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson. I think he would be a brave man who would distinguish between priorities as regards grants for the arts and grants for the environment.
Any money taken from elsewhere in the economy for conservation or anything else will inevitably reduce the share of the cake of those who are currently getting it. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Middleton that if Parliament wills the ends, it must also will the means. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that the Government have every intention that it shall.
There is no way that I can satisfactorily answer all the points that have been mentioned in this debate this evening. Indeed, I could make a complete speech in answer to each of your Lordships, so deeply do I feel about this subject. However, I shall carefully comb through the Official Report tomorrow and, with permission, will write to those noble Lords who I have treated less well than I might have done in other circumstances.
But there are one or two important points which I must speak about. Like my noble friend Lord Onslow, I recognise the immense value of the Manpower Services Commission schemes for environmental improvement. Indeed, both the Brecon Beacons and the Peak District National Parks have benefited very substantially from the availability of Manpower Services Commission labour. However, the schemes are managed by local area manpower pools comprising representatives of local industry and trade unions. It is for them to decide on the allocation of resources in their areas. Re-allocation of the MSC labour pool on Offa's Dyke or anywhere else is a matter for them.
But the most pressing case of today is undoubtedly that of Halvergate Marshes, which was mentioned by both my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I can tell the House that there is no question of a breakdown in the arrangements whereby a standstill has been negotiated with certain landowners for a year pending consideration of a more permanent arrangement for protection of the Broads now being considered by Ministers. Notification was originally given of intention to plough 784 acres this year, of which 475 acres were regarded as of high landscape value. Of the latter, 383 acres have been safeguarded. This leaves 92 acres, which, it appears,

1243
will soon be ploughed. The landscape policy of this area has been marred by the previous ploughing of adjacent land, and the Broads authority have taken the view that, in these circumstances, it will be totally unreasonable to conclude a management agreement at a higher price than in neighbouring areas.
On the subject of conservation vis-à-vis the water industry—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady White—I can tell her that a series of research studies relating to the methodology of surveying aspects of river corridor wildlife has recently reached reporting stage. The time is now ripe for my department to set up a meeting with the interested parties. Although no agenda has yet been circulated, papers developed from the research reports received are in preparation to provide guidance for the committee at its first meeting, which is planned to take place in the early autumn. A linked but separate question of the noble Baroness concerned the outcome of the review by the interdepartmental committee on land drainage. I can tell her that this outcome is a consultation paper which the Government intend to publish during the summer.
My noble friend Lord Onslow mentioned the problem in Creag Meagaidh (if that is the way to pronounce it). The application made by Fountain Forestry Limited for grant aid for their proposal to plant some 900 acres is before the Secretary of State for Scotland at present. I am sure that he will take into account—and I will make sure that he does—the points made by noble Lords in this debate before he advises the Forestry Commission of his decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, will. I am sure, forgive me if I do not follow him too deeply into the subjects of national parks and the Access to the Countryside Act 1947, which first introduced areas of outstanding natural beauty. I am having quite enough trouble as it is with this particular Act this evening. I would say that on his question about the Department of Environment Circular 1/83 (which was issued when Part III of the Act, concerning footpaths. came into force) it contained the following words:
"The provisions described in this circular are not considered to necessitate any additional local authority manpower or increased expenditure".
Before the noble Lord leaps to his feet, I would say that the Act introduced the system which has enabled some reviews started under the old system, but not completed because of the large number of objections received, to be amended. The new procedures will enable continuous progress to he made in keeping definitive maps up to date. No extra staff should therefore be needed by local authorities, although we recognise that surveying authorities may be faced by large numbers of applications for modification orders in the early years of a new system; but as an ongoing commitment I do not think that new staff are necessary.
My noble friend Lord Peel spoke about extending prior notification arrangements for grant to the whole countryside. He will remember that prior approval for capital grants through the whole country was abolished in 1980. One reason for this was to save manpower, and indeed it has—400 man years. However, prior notification does still apply in SSSIs and, as he said, in national parks. My noble friend
1244
Lord Dundee suggested changes in the tax structure, which I shall certainly look at and compare with grant aid. I would not, however, like to follow him down the road of yet more official bodies in the countryside.
My noble friend Lord Peel asked about renotification and notification of sites of special scientific interest. The Nature Conservancy Council tells me that in terms of actual work done the programme of notification is about half finished and is on schedule to be substantially complete throughout Great Britain by the end of 1986. I believe that the programme in Scotland is running ahead of that in England and may be completed earlier, perhaps by the end of next year.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, spoke about the renotification of SSSIs in Wales. I do not have the figures, so perhaps I might be allowed to write to her on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was I think the only Member of your Lordships' House to bring up the subject of court proceedings. I must confess that it was getting rather late at night and I did not follow her completely. I shall read with great interest what she said. My first reaction is that if any damage was done during the three-month period, which I think she may have been talking about, but I am not sure, there would of course be no prosecutions as it is not illegal. The noble Baroness also talked about marine nature reserves. Provision for marine nature reserves (my noble friend Lord Onslow was quite right; they were included: my memory said Report stage, but I am sure that he is right and it was Committee stage) is in Section 36 of the Act. Orders are made by the Secretary of State on an application by the Nature Conservancy Council. No applications have yet been made, but I understand that the Nature Conservancy Council has at least one under consideration, that for the Isles of Scilly.
I cannot leave this debate without saying what is the Government's attitude to the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I would say initially it is much the same as that of most noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and other noble Lords that it is rather early to be passing definitive judgment on the success or failure of the Act, because it came fully into effect only a little over a year ago with the publication of the statutory financial guidelines. But I believe that we have seen enough to indicate that the present system is not fundamentally flawed as some would have us think, but management agreements are coping with the pressures placed upon them and will continue to do so, particularly if we can continue to foster mutual understanding between conservationists and farmers; and this, I believe, we are now beginning to see happen.
Conditions are now better than they were three years ago. Indeed, at Question Time in another place today my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary offered to meet the official Opposition spokesman, Dr. David Clark, on this particular subject. I could not have seen that taking place even three years ago. I hope that this invitation, which was genuinely and generously meant, will be taken up as soon as possible.

1245
I believe that there is a genuine will among everyone involved to break the logjam between the needs of conservation and of agriculture. As well as persuading farmers to be more aware of what they can do for conservation, we need to do more to educate conservationists in the requirements of the farmer. A great advance in this respect—I agree with my noble friend who made the point—are the inelegantly named FWAGs—Farming and Wildlife Advisory Groups—which from comparatively modest beginnings are now in most counties, and recently the group formed its own trust to further its objectives.
The formation of these FWAGs is an expression of confidence in the future. But if that is the encouraging side of the coin, I would be naïve in the extreme not to acknowledge that there have been conservation losses since the passing of the Act. Having said that, I should have to be very sure, before pointing a finger, that the losses I have been talking about have happened since the commencement of the Act.
It is no good talking in this context about losses over the last 10, 20 or 30 years or indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, did (as I think she said, on the inspiration of her noble friend Lord Melchett), about the losses of the last four years. What we are talking about is whether this Act is actually working to reduce conservation losses and whether it can be further strengthened and amended to prevent those losses which are still going on and which have been identified.
I shall not try to pretend that the workings of the Act are wholly without their problems. For instance, we recognise that one immediate cause for concern is the so-called three-month loophole in the arrangements for notifying SSSIs. I am most concerned about the way the loophole has been exploited, as my noble friend Lord Stanley has admitted, albeit by an extremely small number of people. Indeed, it is more than significant, as my noble friend Lord Onslow has said, that agreement on closing it is now closer by a million miles than it was only three years ago.
In this connection, like other noble Lords, I note that the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill to amend Section 28 of the Act we are discussing has been introduced and is due to have its Second Reading in another place on 6th July. It would be quite improper for me to pre-empt that debate by an announcement tonight of the Government's position in your Lordships' House.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, may I put one very quick point to my noble friend? I feel sure I am right, from my experience of another place, that a Private Member's Bill, even if it is not particularly controversial, introduced at this stage, even if it were to gain a Second Reading (which is perhaps unlikely) has little chance at all of getting on to the statute book. If I am right in thinking that the Government would like to see quite minor, but very important, amendments made, would my noble friend at any rate give me an assurance that the Government will give thought to providing Government time for this Bill or even taking the Bill over?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I sought to say—and of course I bow to my noble friend's superior knowledge of proceedings in another place-1 do not think it would be proper to make an announcement before the Second Reading of that Bill, which I am assured will be happening on 6th July.
I do not think that, at this time of night, the House would appreciate my going into the third part of the enormous subject of further ways of improving the countryside. But I would sum up by saying that the Government will continue to keep a close watch on the way the Act is working as a whole, while recognising that many of the present worries can be solved by administrative means. I can assure your Lordships that we shall not hesitate to take further measures if these are shown to be necessary. If our monitoring of the working of the Act should lead at any time to the view that there is a case for amending legislation, we should of course take into account the eloquent pleas made by noble Lords this evening.
Baroness Nicol: Before the noble Lord sits down, did I understand him to say that the 92 acres at Halvergate are in fact to be sacrificed on the grounds that they are peripheral and adjoin land which is already ploughed and that they are therefore not to be sold?—because does he not see that, if that is so, there will be a domino effect and they in turn will become the periphery of the next piece, and that could be the end of the Halvergate?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness did understand me correctly, but I disagree with her that there will be a domino effect, for the simple reason that on one side of this land there is ploughed land and on the other side there is a railway line. I think my noble friend Lord Renton, who obviously knows the area, would confirm this. Therefore I see this as a totally isolated piece of land.

Housing and Building Control Bill
Returned from the Commons with one of the Lords amendments to a Commons amendment disagreed to but amendments proposed in lieu thereof; with the Commons disagreement to the Lords amendment on which the Lords have insisted and the Commons amendments in lieu thereof not insisted on but with an amendment to the said Lords amendment and with consequential amendments to the Bill; with Commons amendments to a Lords amendment to which the Lords have disagreed not insisted on; with certain Commons amendments to another Lords amendment to which the Lords have disagreed not insisted on but amendments proposed in lieu thereof; and with the remaining Commons amendment to the Lords amendment to which the Lords have disagreed insisted on with a reason for such insistence.
Aylesbury Vale District Council Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified; Bill reported from the Select Committee on Unopposed Provisions with amendments.

Capital Transfer Tax Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment, and recommitted to a committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eleven o'clock.

  NICARAGUAN ELECTIONS: UK OBSERVERS
  NICARAGUAN ELECTIONS: UK OBSERVERS